January 17, 2008
Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta
I readthiswith great interest but also had many questions which arose and as I also received the same article in an email, I inquired about them from the sender.
The fact that Buddhism disappeared from India over a period of about 800 years is not in doubt. Starting right from the great days of Buddhism after Emperor Ashoka gave the most almighty push, a combination of incorporation within Hinduism, emergence of Jainism, the invasions of the Muslims, the sectarian splits between various Buddhists sects, etc. all meant that we do not see Buddhism in India as seen in other countries. But this theory that Brahmins and/or Hinduism eradicated Buddhism does not quite hold.
The theory by Naresh Kumar is quite an interesting story, but unfortunately not really catered for by valid references. I wouldn’t expect references in an opinion piece, after all it is not an academic journal article, but I would expect at least a nod given to the contradictory evidence as well.
For example, it was during the Buddhist times, around the 2nd century BCE, that the original Ashoka stupa at Sanchi was vandalized and then a bigger stupa built over it. I wonder who it was who restored the original Ashok Stupa? While, for example, it is well known that Pushyamitra Sunga was responsible for the destruction and had a hatred for Buddhists, this does not explain why his son would rebuild it. (Hint, check out Romila Thapar’s work on this curious incident).
How about the White Huns and their impacts on Indian Buddhism? Their invasions had a huge effect on ancient Buddhism. As for welcoming Muslims as saviors, I am curious how he justifies the arrival of Mohammad Khilji and say for example the destruction of Nalanda, the premier Buddhist University?
And how about Harshvardhan, who was perhaps a bigger secular leader than Akbar himself with his tolerance and willingness to support multiple religions? Curiously, the author does not talk about say the Kalchakra Tantra (which can be said to have emerged as a reaction to the Muslim invasion) or even compare it to why Buddhism survived in Sri Lanka and not in India. Mind you, the argument can be extended to South East Asia as well.
Also, many Buddhist kingdoms were succeeded, especially in the west of the country, around the Gujarat and Malwa region, by Jain kingdoms.
How does that compute with the general overall hypothesis of the author? The author also seems to have ignored the rather large oral and written corpus over the concept of Buddha as a reincarnation of Vishnu. He talks about the Vishnu purana and says that the Buddha is the great seducer. Now this does not make sense, because according to the Vishnu Purana, Buddha is one of the 24 or 29 or 10 (depends upon which shloka you read) avatars. Now all I can presume is that because the previous avatar was Krishna, who was called as the great seducer, the author has gotten a bit confused between the avatars. I cannot understand how the author could say that the Buddha was said to be bad, when he is supposed to be an avatar of Vishnu.
I realize that the Buddhists and Dalits are trying to build up their own identity, but relying on wrongful views or misinterpretation of history will lead to two things. One is people chuckling at you and second is a weak identity. You don’t want either of these, so I would suggest that either the arguments about the disappearance of Buddhism in India be more factual or better researched, preferably both. And before you complain, I claim the Buddha as my own God as well, so don’t you tell me that it has nothing to do with me!
http://desicritics.org/2008/01/17/005402.php
=====================)
Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!
Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author
#1
Die Hard
January 17, 2008
04:25 AM
Dr. BD, I agree with the message that you are trying to send.
However, you have said “…I claim the Buddha as my own God…”, I believe, as an attempt to convince the readership of your impartiality, objectivity or fairness even!
Buddhism is one of the ‘non-theistic’ religions (if not the only one)that does not teach of a ‘creator or almighty God’ and/or of a ‘personal God’. Dhamma in fact rejects the notion of the existance of and belief of ‘God’. And Buddha (Gauthama or anyother)was only human!
#2
bd
January 17, 2008
04:35 AM
Die Hard
ah! my friend, that was meant as a joke but every joke has a kernel of truth. If you look at the concept of Buddha as a Vishnu Avatar, then he is a God 🙂
#3
Die Hard
January 17, 2008
05:02 AM
But BD, the point is, then, it is not a Buddhist concept! Perhaps a Hindu one?
#4
bd
January 17, 2008
05:44 AM
Buddhist concept? according to which sect? There are multiple Buddhist sects, my friend. Many sects believe in the miraculous powers of the Buddha (I have references, if you wish). Now that means that he had divinity, no?
But we are quibbling here. The fact that he was a Man is not in doubt. I am saying he has divine attributes in him which resemble the Vishnu Godhead. It can be part of the wheel or incarnation! 🙂
cheers
bd
#5
Die Hard
January 17, 2008
06:40 AM
Theravada of course! I am not quibbling. There is a fundamental flaw in your article. Intentional or for the sake of humour.
The Buddha was an exceptional man.The qualities and characteristics of him could be explained by the nine supreme attributes of Buddha as taught in Dhamma. Nothing miraculous or divine about him. He was all and only man!
#6
bd
January 17, 2008
06:53 AM
Of course its a flaw from your perspective. Completely agree. He was a man. Completely agree.
From my perspective and from the perspectives of all those Buddhists who believe that there was divinity in him, let us agree to disagree! 🙂
cheers
bd
#7
kela
January 17, 2008
08:29 AM
it hasn’t helped also that most of the buddhists haven’t conducted themselves appropriately,the Tibetan buddists refugees where i live,and they are a substantial lot,are all into gambling and boot- legging
#8
Deepti Lamba
URL
January 17, 2008
09:36 AM
and Christians were into witch hunting and lynching. Whats your point Mr kela?
#9
Chandra
January 17, 2008
09:58 AM
BD
Good one!!
The question I have is have we ‘Indians’ incorporated many aspects of Buddha’s teachings in our way of life? I have a strong feeling that indeed that is the case……
rgds
#10
Gill
January 17, 2008
11:12 AM
If you look at Buddhism historically in India it fourished in north west including Afghanistan and eastern India. These area had majority Buddhist population before Islam came. And the rulers were Hindus including Kabul (shahi dynasty) and Sen in east. In very short span of time in north west they all converted to Islam and in later time all east converted to islam too.
As such historically the followers of Buddhism in a very short period became followers of Islam and thus the death of Buddhism in India proper.
#11
Anamika
January 17, 2008
11:31 AM
BD: See the post I left a few days ago on one of Hindu who? threads on Romila Thapar’s credentials as a “Buddhist” scholar. She doesn’t speak Sanskrit or Pali, relies on English translations of the texts with no access to the originals. Really shoddy scholarship actually. Seems like Naresh Kumar does the same.
But going back to your article – as far as timelines go, Jainism arose BEFORE Buddhism so I am not sure why it should be held responsible for Buddhism’s decline. If various Indic texts – Hindu, Jain, Buddhist – are to be considered in tandem, Buddhism was the most successful of the three in spreading abroad. At the conclaves to determine its precepts in Sri Lanka (circa 1st century BC), representatives of monasteries from as far as Palestine and Egypt are recorded.
My take is this: Buddhism declined for various reasons but the conclaves may hold a key – the attempt to “canonize” a specific set of beliefs, rules and rituals as binding and absolute meant that many of its adherents in India looked to other forms of religious practice that allowed more theological/philosophical freedom.
I realise that this is a provocative point to raise because many Hindutva supporters try to do the same today – by dictating what Hinduism is supposed to be in direct contradiction of its diverse, often self-contradictory, exuberant values.
Second, the role of Jainism is extremely interesting in Indian history – not only does it date to BEFORE Buddhism but it seems to have flourished in the most martial of kingdoms – present day Rajasthan and Karnataka being key areas. Perhaps its inherent austerity appealed to martial areas? I dont have answers but am always intrigued by this.
An area that needs more clear and responsible scholarship. But helps to have more people – like you – raising the questions.
#12
kela
January 17, 2008
12:04 PM
#8 . point is ,it reflects poorly on them
#13
Man Singh
URL
January 17, 2008
01:16 PM
The answer to all missing links in this topic are hidden in history of census in India.
before 1857 first war of indepnendence, all follwers of Indic religions were listed as Hindus(Hindus budhists sikhs and jains etc).
In 1861 there was no census.
In 1871 and onwards British started using religion and cast to divide Indics as much as possible as they realised in 1857 all communities came togather and fought against a common enemy.
Yes my freinds, Indian tradition of religions is preaching Dharma and eliminating Adharma.
Budha never started a new religion my freinds. he re-establihsed Dharma and said `Dhammam sharam ganchami’. So called Budhist kings never propaged teachings of Budha as a separate religion but as `Dharma’ in different way.
Mahaveer never said he is started a new religion nor did Guru Nanak.
Yes guru Gobind Singh establsihed a `Khalasa Panth’ to eliminate eveil of Moguls using both of his swords `Miri'(material propperity) and Piri'(spritual propeperity) but still dharma reamailed the same.
Untill 1871 all follwers of Indic religions were rightly considered as Hindus only. Hindus follow a blend of Budhism sikhism and jainism. Therefore the very statement that `Budhism has been eliminated from India’ is not a right ststament.
Dharma is universal and is core of all religions. Budhism is very much practised even today in India by 850 million Hindus.
Such issues are raised by minds coontamiated by `divide and rule’ policy according to whcih people are categorised based on `way of worship’ rather then moral character of people ie Dharma used to be in ancinet times.
Budhism is very much alive in India also as `dharma’ and not as kingdoms or countries.
Dharma contains `satya(truth)’ `Daya(kindness’ `tap(Austrerity)’ and `Shoch(purity)’ that can be extended to 10 universal human values further.
Dharma will ever stay till creation just like other laws of nature. That’s why it is known as sanatan Dharma.
The day on which christians will correct theor teachings of `jesus is the only way’ to `Jesus is also the way’, they also will become part of sanatan Dharma. the day on whcih muslims will abandon their arrogance of `Truth is only in Islam’ they also will become part of dharma.
sanatan Dharma accepts all ways of worship but does not accept any claim on monopoly on `truth’ and as such discourages proslytisation and evangelism.
sanatan dharma is true model of pluralism and universalism and a guarentee for world peace.
#14
kerty
January 17, 2008
01:24 PM
Here is my take on some of the points raised about Budhism..
1) Hindus have tried to treat Budhism as reform of highly ritualized Hinduism of that era and tried to assimilate Buddha as Avatar of Vishnu. However, if you look at core of Budhist beliefs, it has nothing to do with core of Vishnavite or Vedic thought. Budhism remained highly athestic and humanistic – while Hinduism remains deeply thestic
2) Since highly ritualized Hinduism got reformed and Adi Shankaracharya’s treaties re-established philosophical foundation of Hinduism, Budhism lost much of its original raison d’etre in India. However, political map/realities of those times did not allow regions outside India to revert back to their original faith as it did in India. And in some regions, the original faiths of inhabitants could be too weak to remove the appeal and relevance of Budhism, thus maintaining Budhist hold on them.
3) Just as Budhism arose as transcending force when Hinduism went too far off the clift to highly ritualized form from its pure form, Budhism also created a duality between theism and atheism, multi-god and no-god, spiritualism and nihilism – the metaphysical force that took birth to transcended such dualities took the form of semitism, one-god theology, humanism and materialism(theologies that specialized in humanism and materialism as opposed to theism and spiritualism). That is why Budhism is considered eastern xianity, a gate-way to western theologies, a middle world.
4) It is a reflection on state of Budhism that its defender of faith(Dalai Lama) has not only lost its home, but is reduced to seeking asylum and patronage among Hindu and semitic. Budhism in India is maintained around political expediency, negative and reactive forces to Hinduism. It lacks positive energy to stand on its own. So what it ends up is constituencies of reactionary, bitter, hateful, revengeful, nihilists, dropouts and rejects. Much like what ISKON ended up attracting in 60’s in the west.
5)Budhism remains a staging area, transit point – its pacifism, nihilism and humanism are not merely reductionist, they are antithetical and lack the anecdote to withstand more aggressive ideologies and theologies. And what it makes room for totally contradicts what Budhism actually rests on. One can see Afghanistan now over-run by most rabid form of theology. Budhism has no built-on mechanism to withstand a take over by such theologies and ideologies. Its like religion of the hermit – its mission is to provide only one type of anecdote and it does not mind being relegated and confined to a hermit as long as it achieves that mission, it does not mind that realities beyond its hermit and even among its own followers acquire total antithesis of that hermit. i.e You can have a sect preach/mock extreme negation of materialism combined with extreme end of spiritualism but attract only hardcore materialists as followers because the sect provides safe theological shelter against all other theological challenges. As long as few in the hermit follow its extreme rituals, rest of it followers are set free to follow just the opposite.
#15
commonsense
January 17, 2008
01:40 PM
Man Singh Bhai wrote:
“sanatan Dharma accepts all ways of worship but does not accept any claim on monopoly on `truth’ and as such discourages proslytisation and evangelism.”
A logical contradiction here: either “all ways of worship” are accepted or they are not. If “all ways of worship” are accepted, there can be no exceptions, whether the other religions claim a monopoly on truth or not, since the first premise is that “ALL ways of worship” are accepted.
(I am not promoting any religion: yeh baat avashya note ki jaye)
#16
Gill
January 17, 2008
02:42 PM
If we are looking at death of Buddhism in India proper (subcontinent) than we have to leave Hindu and Hinduism out.
We have to look at from Islam vs Buddhism prospective. In very short time Buddhists became Staunch Muslims from Turks and others in central asia, afghansitan and present day Pakistan and eastern India Bengal etc.
From both sides it is all well documented.
In brief
Major weakness cited in Buddhism was that it was a “monks-religion” and not peoples religion. As such when Islam came it was easy to convert Buddhists because Islam was more practical and peoples religion. One did not have to leave their home and spend part of their lives as monks to learn their religion.
Secondly, it was very easy to attack the authenticity of Buddhism because they worshipped a Man in the form of statues. And there were many similarities in both religions teachings. Infact the arabic word “budh prasti” is for Buddhists not Hindu idol worship.
Thirdly, Buddhism had lost royal patronage by that time and Hindu dynasties were ruling these majority Buddhist areas. There was already resentment towards Hindus and their rule by Buddhists in these areas. Eventually Buddhists accepted Islam whereas Hindus fiercely confronted Islam.
Fourthly, fact is that majority of the Muslims of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bengal ex-Buddhists.
From Buddhist prospective on conflict
Why is “The Kalachakra Tantra” so conveniently ignored by Indians? Why does it call for a “Holy war” similar to “jihad” in Islam?
Another fact that should not be ignored is that Buddhism and Hinduism were always in confrontation with each other. Buddhist literature is full of attacks and disgust of Hindu Gods, rituals etc.. Hinduism confronted them by simply making Buddha a Vishnu avtaar.
We should not forget that even Adhi Shankracharya was at time criticized for preaching Buddhism under the disguise of “Maya” philosophy.
#17
Man Singh
URL
January 17, 2008
03:00 PM
Bhai Commonsense #15
way of worship of an individual or group is accepted and respected.
But their tendency of imposing their one on the rest is not.
Even dacoits are acceptable in village providd they abandon their habbit of looting others.
Theoretically you may be right my freinds, but from realistic angle, attacking on others way of worship is not acceptable.
That’s what i wanted to say.
#18
commonsense
January 17, 2008
03:01 PM
Gill the lad from Punjab now in the US of A wrote:
“”Infact the arabic word “budh prasti” is for Buddhists not Hindu idol worship.””
True. In fact the derogatory term “buddhu” has similar roots ie. an attempt to mock the Buddhists. The same term is still in use in Malaysia, albeit pronounced as “bodo”
#19
Gill
January 17, 2008
03:10 PM
Commonsense are you idiot.
Since when is Bhudh prasti a derogatory term. You really need education. It is arabic and it was used for Buddhists because they worshipped human like statues of Buddhas. Read islamic theology and works by muslim scholars. In every Islamic work budhprast is used for Buddhists.
Since you are self-proclaimed intellectual who did Arabs call Hindus. where did word Hindu come from
I think you really need some professional help all this leftist brainwashing you have done to yourself is showing results…..
#20
temporal
URL
January 17, 2008
03:22 PM
gill:
Infact the arabic word “budh prasti” is for Buddhists not Hindu idol worship.
this is news for me
do you have a source for this assertion?
#21
bd
URL
January 17, 2008
04:01 PM
Anamika #14, Well, I am not that clued up on that angle to comment on Romila Thapar’s work, I am afraid. I have been reading up on buddhism recently after having had the opportunity to spend quite a lot of time in Sanchi. But few photo essays and normal essays on Buddhism are currently bubbling away! 🙂
Yes, you are right about the time line, but the author completely ignored the existence of the Jain kingdoms. Mainly because it did not fit into their world view, lol.
the conclaves may well be the reason, there are very many reasons. But my gut feel is that given the sharpness of the decline, it can only be attributed to the Islamic invasions to a very large extent. The fact that Buddhism had to create a just war (a Buddhist Jihad if you will) to cater for this is one very big indication of the same.
Curiously, talking about scholarship, there has not been that much (not that I have been looking that hard, but seeing your point about ROmila, I am curious)
#22
bd
URL
January 17, 2008
04:02 PM
Also see this note here by Prof Majid on my note about buddhism in bengal
http://dailysalty.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-on-buddhism-in-india.html
#23
Anamika
January 17, 2008
04:26 PM
BD, I agree that there are a number of reasons for Buddhism’s decline and quite different ones in India vs the Middle East.
I find the issue of the history of the Buddhist conclaves very interesting partially because they are so well documented and timed – so they occur for about 300 years alongside the development of Christianity in the Middle East and the mediterranean. Alexandria as well as Samaria and Galilee are quoted as having major monasteries. Plus there is some evidence of monasteries as far as southern France. Given the level of participation in these by ME monks and scholars, we could speculate on the level of intellectual and cultural exchange between the two regions. More interestingly – for me – at least, is the introduction of compassion and a “loving” god into the semitic and mediterranean (greek, roman, egyptian) traditions (via the new testament) which till this moment have not had such a view of divinity at all. All this is speculation as not much scholarship has been carried out to date.
Re issue of “jihad” – dont forget that Christianity ALSO – and well before Islam – has a clear concept of Holy War. Another reason I am a bit leery of linking decline of Buddhism in the ME to Islam.
Personally, in the ME at least, Buddhism’s decline is more easily linked to the rise of Christianity – which gains strength by 4th century AD and which may have appropriated a lot of the Buddhist worldview and re-articulated it within the earlier Semitic heritage. Given the political decline of Buddhism in India, this may have allowed the ME Buddhists to have been assimilated into Christian folds – one reason the eastern churches remained out of agreement with the Catholic one. This is all speculation based on what facts we have, so to be taken with a bag of salt.
By the 7th century and advent of Islam, Buddhism was negligible in political and social terms in northern India and had declined in most of the Middle East as well. Which is why I am hesitant to link its decline to Islam.
Btw, look up some of the work by H.P. Ray. Not specifically Buddhist, but a more secular (as in nonreligious approach) and definitely a better scholar than Thapar.
#24
commonsense
January 17, 2008
04:37 PM
“”Infact the arabic word “budh prasti” is for Buddhists not Hindu idol worship.””
True. In fact the derogatory term “buddhu” has similar roots ie. an attempt to mock the Buddhists. The same term is still in use in Malaysia, albeit pronounced as “bodo”
Temporal: I’m not sure who started this ie. whether it was the “Hindus” or the “Muslims” who used this as a term of abuse…ie. Buddhu…but this is what I heard in Malaysia. Admittedly, hearsay is not proof of anything…
#25
commonsense
January 17, 2008
04:49 PM
Interesting point from BD’s blog:
“At the root of all forms of communalism is the colonial depiction of history of our own country. The descriptions of Hinduism (and its caste system), Islam, Buddhism, etc are all dumbed down versions as the British chose to describe them for the service of the Empire. The present stage of vicious communalism in India rests on nothing but these colonial depictions.
Moududi of India and Syed Qutb of Egypt created a vision of a counter-Empire, a trans-national Islam that is at the root of all Islamic fundamentalism today.
Hindu fundamentalism also stems from a desire for a counter-Empire — wanna-be like them mentality.”
#26
Anamika
January 17, 2008
04:51 PM
BD: interesting post by Dr. Majid. Agree with the basic logic of it. I wont contest the timeline as the work is specifically on Bengal but it would appear from archeological and literary evidence that a similar process had occurred in other parts of India before 7th century AD.
I think the post mentions a good point – that Buddhism didn’t separate itself from Hindu society (rituals were still in Brahmin hands eg). That division is a European one and one that informs people like Naresh Kumar.
#27
temporal
URL
January 17, 2008
07:54 PM
bo’ot parasti
bo’ot – persian = idol
bo’ot parast = idolator: iconolator
there are several words that go with this root word such as:
bo’ot tarash, bo’ot tarashi, bo’ot kadah, bo’it khana, bo’ot shakan
incidentally the nascent islamic history was not “hind” focussed…they called all inhabitants of india “al-hindi”
their focus was the idols in the confines of ka’aba
Parast adj. persian worshiper: devoted to
hence it could be added to a noun…practically any noun it indicate a person devoted to that noun…
#28
flickr
January 17, 2008
09:15 PM
Nagarjuna……..
What sounds to you all. I know you might be thinking why I am talking about this Telugu Movie star here.
But actually Nagarjuna is one of the greatest philosopher, Buddist who almost converted (without sword or money) all of AP, Orrisa with his preachings.
Nobody gives history a shit even though they can see all over the guntur, Nagarjuna Sagar his teachings and preachings.
Hyderabad muslims always talk abt Nizam, Nizam and never allow to see beyond him. If you see Andhra history from 8th century to 15th century there was many things to know.
#29
Serviced apartments Bangalore
URL
January 18, 2008
01:03 AM
I think the Buddhists haven’t taken to preaching Buddhism as seriously as the Christian groups not to mention that Buddhism has a crisis of sorts going for it in china… And they lack resources too while Christian groups have billions of dollars in aid
#30
Die Hard
January 18, 2008
01:26 AM
Man Singh # 13, I do not quite agree with your interpretation of Dhamma. Dhamma in Buddhism is the teachings as taught/expounded by the Buddha. It is not as same as ‘sanathan Dharma’ that you have described in #13.
If you leave aside ‘Karma’ and ‘Rebirth’, the most pertinent part of the Dhamma is the Four Noble Truths, which are 1)Suffering 2) cause 3) cessation 4) Nirvana.
Everithing about Dhamma is centred on point 3) which is the way to put an end to 1) and 2).
Sanathan Dharma seems like the laws of nature. Which the Buddha has acknowledged. But they are not the same as the teaching of the Buddha.
I think kerty # 14 has analysed very well, albeit in brief, the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.
#31
PSA
January 18, 2008
03:36 AM
Dr. B R Ambedkar, a lawyer and Dalit politician, and the chief architect of Indian constitution writes this in his book “Revolution and Counter-Revolution in India”
“It (Buddhism) did not remain as one of the many diverse religions then in vogue. Ashoka made it the religion of the state. This of course was the greatest blow to Brahmanism. The Brahmins lost all state patronage and were neglected to a secondary and subsidiary position in the Empire of Ashoka.
Indeed it may be said to have been suppressed for the simple reason that Ashoka prohibited all animal sacrifices which constituted the very essence of Brahmanic religion.
The Brahmins had not only lost state patronage but they lost their occupation which mainly consisted in performing sacrifices for a fee which often times was very substantial and which constituted their chief source of living. The Brahmins therefore lived as the suppressed and Depressed Classes for nearly 140 years during which the Maurya Empire lasted.
A rebellion against the Buddhist state was the only way of escape left to the suffering Brahmins and there is special reason why Pushyamitra should raise the banner of revolt against the rule of the Mauryas. Pushyamitra was a Sung by Gotra.
The Sungas were Samvedi Brahmins,who believed in animal sacrifices and soma sacrifices. The Sungas were therefore quite naturally smarting under the prohibition on animal sacrifices throughout the Maurya Empire proclaimed in the very Rock Edict by Ashoka.
No wonder if Pushyamitra who as a Samvedi Brahmin was the first to conceive the passion to end the degradation of the Brahmin by destroying the Buddhist state which was the cause of it and to free them to practise their Brahmanic religion.
That the object of the regicide by Pushyamitra was to destroy Buddhism as a state religion and to make the Brahmins the sovereign rulers of India so that with the political power of the state behind it Brahmanism may triumph over Buddhism is borne out by two other circumstances.
The first circumstance relates to the conduct of Pushyamitra himself. There is evidence that Pushyamitra after he ascended the throne performed the Ashvamedha Yajna or the horse sacrifice, the vedic rite which could only be performed by a paramount sovereign.[citation needed] As Vincent Smith observes :
“The exaggerated regard for the sanctity of animal life, which was one of the most cherished features of Buddhism, and the motive of Ashoka’s most characterisitic legislation, had necessarily involved the prohibition of bloody sacrifices, which are essential to certain forms of Brahmanical worship, and were believed by the orthodox to possess the highest saving efficacy. The memorable horse sacrifices of Pushyamitra marked an early stage in the Brahmanical reaction, which was fully developed five centuries later in the time of Samudragupta and his successors.”
Then there is evidence that Pushyamitra after his accession launched a violent and virulent campaign of persecution against Buddhists and Buddhism.
How pitiless was the persecution and of Buddhism by Pushyamitra can be gauged from the Proclamation which he issued against the Buddhist monks. By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk & hence their slaughter.
#32
PSA
January 18, 2008
03:37 AM
Then there is evidence that Pushyamitra after his accession launched a violent and virulent campaign of persecution against Buddhists and Buddhism.
How pitiless was the persecution and of Buddhism by Pushyamitra can be gauged from the Proclamation which he issued against the Buddhist monks. By this proclamation Pushyamitra set a price of 100 gold pieces on the head of every Buddhist monk & hence their slaughter.
#33
bd
URL
January 18, 2008
05:12 AM
PSA #31 and #32, good points and rather well known (if a bit debatable), but which does not explain why Pushyamitra’s son went about repairing the damage to the stupa’s. Curious, no? That tells me that it is more of an isolated individual’s action than a generic across the board reaction to Buddhism. So this entire argument that Pushyamitra’s reaction was Hinduism driven is rather weak.
#34
bd
URL
January 18, 2008
05:20 AM
Anamika #26. That’s right, we seem to see a significant and very complicated structure of religious and political change across those 3-4 centuries. But then, we tend to concatenate history in our minds. For example, saying significant religious changes across those 3-4 centuries is like saying there has been significant technical change in the last 3 centuries (meaningless, lol).
But I have a deeper issue. The more I read into Buddhism, I am getting to a deeper problem. If I put myself into the robes of a layman in 6th century AD Indian kingdom. How on earth am I going to distinguish between buddhism and hinduism? They didnt exist as we know it. Not cleanly and clearly (as we have it) now. And it is a huge country.
So I actually think that this debate is sterile because at that moment, religion was different, sects were different, we related to gods differently…..
On a different note. Dr. Ambedkar, bless his cotton socks, is a brilliant lawyer, but his historiography is now a bit dated. Also remember that he was writing for a political purpose, not as a historian, so I would take his history lessons with a grain of salt and his constitution as my “sir ka taaz”
#35
bd
URL
January 18, 2008
05:31 AM
Anamika #23, well, not knowing much about buddhist presence in the ME, wouldnt comment on your thoughts, but would like to put forward a different hypothesis (to all, actually).
1. What happened to Afghanistan’s Buddhists? (we all know)
2. What happened to Buddhism in Tibet? What goes for Buddhism in Tibet and what we know the Buddha preached is hugely different.
So one can ask, what makes religion change and evolve or disappear? Its like languages, if you stop speaking or add words, you kill or change the language! 🙂
#36
Anamika
January 18, 2008
09:22 AM
PSA, interesting point but while Ambedkar was a brilliant lawyer, his historical credentials are a little weak. Moreover he had a specific ideological axe (not to mention being completely submerged in colonial educational system) to grind which means all he says must be taken with a grain of salt. Before you accuse me of caste-ism or prejudice for saying the above, note that this is EXACTLY the same for Gandhi and Nehru who used history very poorly and for their own political purposes. Their political views can NOT be taken as last words on history of the country.
Second while there was animal sacrifice in Hinduism – and that exists till today – there is little evidence that an Ashwamedhyagna required a horse to be sacrificed. The ritual required a horse to be present as a symbol of regal power but there is little evidence that it was killed – ritually or otherwise – as part of the ceremony. Yes, I KNOW that loads of colonial historians assert this is so, but there is nothing to the effect in Indic texts.
#37
Anamika
January 18, 2008
09:56 AM
BD, I think the point I was trying to make – and obviously failed – was that Buddhism (like Islam or Christianity as religions that travelled not in genetic forms as has Judaism and Hinduism, but as cultural and informational values) evolved differently in different places.
So Buddhism of Sri Lanka or Indonesia was already different from that of Syria and Egypt by 2nd century BC. That was one reason for the conclaves (similar to what Christians do in the 4-6th centuries AD, ie about 400 years later).
I agree that in India, there would be little differentiation between Hindus and Buddhists.
This btw is still the case in areas that have strong Buddhist roots – in parts of Himachal for example, families are both Hindu and Buddhist (same for example as in Punjab where families have both Sikh and Hindu members).
So the processes that led to Buddhism’s decline in India would be different – politics, distance from the laity, inability/unwillingness to provide socially binding rituals which were left to Brahmins, requirements of austerity as a precondition of practice (which Jainism funnily enough does not require of ALL its adherents and which perhaps allows it to continue) would all be factors.
In western ME, I believe that Christianity would have played a greater part. Also lets not forget it would be easier to distinguish Buddhists in a non-Indic society because they would primarily be monks. More importantly, a conjunct of this would be linked to the issue of laity. If in India, Buddhism could not retain links with the lay person, imagine trying to do it in a foreign society. The situation would be similar to today where Buddhism is apparently spreading in the west but mostly through specific monasteries and specific individuals but not with any deep roots in the societies.
continued…
#38
kerty
January 18, 2008
10:23 AM
BD #35
Religions are not like languages. Languages are rooted in transient needs of humanity and thus evolve with human experiences and needs. One can customize languages to individual or group needs or needs of the times. While religions provide an anchor, a permanence to transient and evolving world.
Religions rooted in metaphysics do not change, they remain sanatana. Humanity adepts to them rather than other way around. Such religion acquires a way of life built around it which accumulates adaptations and diversity over a period of time, but religion itself remain sanatana. Like a river Ganges, it simply flows – people come and go, use its waters any way they like, but Ganges remain Ganges.
Religions rooted in philosophies and personalities wither away once they lose their relevance – that is why such religions have to remain fundamentalist, dogmatic and fanatic or they wither away.
Religions that are strictly rooted in way of life have to constantly grow and adapt – and are more akin to languages. They come and go like languages, quickly forgotten, never missed. Tribal religions, ancient civilizations built on myths and folklore, religions built around local physical conditions/nature would fall into such category of religions. They are not fully developed theologies – merely loosely held beliefs and rituals misnamed as religion just because others call theirs a religion.
Hinduism has all the components – built on solid metaphysics, has fully developed theology, rests on philosophies and personalities, makes full use of myths and folklore, gives full play to myrid ways of life and worship. It has built-in unchanging permanence as well as ever-adapting dynamism. That is what has endured it since ages.
#39
commonsense
January 18, 2008
01:12 PM
Kerty wrote:
“”Religions are not like languages. Languages are rooted in transient needs of humanity and thus evolve with human experiences and needs. One can customize languages to individual or group needs or needs of the times. While religions provide an anchor, a permanence to transient and evolving world.””
On the contrary, the similarity between religion and language is uncanny. Both fulfil a certain need, both get transformed due to changing social context etc. etc. Otherwise there wouldn’t be all these various sects of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and yes even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikkhism etc, each claiming to peddle the real, unadulterated product. Besides, if religions were really permanent, I’d have no hope of converting everybody here to the DC religion. No religion has remained unchanged after inception. It is not for nothing the the Wahhabi morons keep harping on the need to “purify” the so-called “deviant tendencies”….just commonsense!
#40
temporal
URL
January 18, 2008
01:50 PM
posted on behalf of anamika
BD, re#35: I think the point I was trying to make – and obviously failed – was that Buddhism (like Islam or Christianity as religions that travelled not in genetic forms as has Judaism and Hinduism, but as cultural and informational values) evolved differently in different places.
So Buddhism of Sri Lanka or Indonesia was already different from that of Syria and Egypt by 2nd century BC. That was one reason for the conclaves (similar to what Christians do in the 4-6th centuries AD, ie about 400 years later).
I agree that in India, there would be little differentiation between Hindus and Buddhists. This btw is still the case in areas that have strong Buddhist roots – in parts of Himachal for example, families are both Hindu and Buddhist (same for example as in Punjab where families have both Sikh and Hindu members).
So the processes that led to Buddhism’s decline in India would be different – politics, distance from the laity, inability/unwillingness to provide socially binding rituals which were left to Brahmins, requirements of austerity as a precondition of practice (which Jainism funnily enough does not require of ALL its adherents and which perhaps allows it to continue) would all be factors.
In western ME, I believe that Christianity would have played a greater part. Also lets not forget it would be easier to distinguish Buddhists in a non-Indic society because they would primarily be monks. More importantly, a conjunct of this would be linked to the issue of laity. If in India, Buddhism could not retain links with the lay person, imagine trying to do it in a foreign society. The situation would be similar to today where Buddhism is apparently spreading in the west but mostly through specific monasteries and specific individuals but not with any deep roots in the societies.
Re: Afghanistan – I agree that it was a key centre of Buddhism (with links to other Buddhist lands including Tibet) and there you would have Islam play a part in its decline. But then I dont think Islam differentiated between Hindus and Buddhists. Lets not forget Hindu K u s h mountain ranges refer to the slaughter of “Hindus” – ie those of India and not of a particularly Indic religious tradition.
Finally, re language/religion, a funny story: In pre-Christian Russia, the bear was considered so sacred that its name could not be spoken. Over time the original word for bear disappeared from the language. One could turn around and say that perhaps this disappearance of the NAME of the deity also weakened the culture and made it susceptible to Christianity. 🙂
#41
kerty
January 18, 2008
03:08 PM
CS:
If you read my post slowly, you will see how I classified religions and how some of them feel the need to convert to their world views and why some of them don’t and why some of them have to constantly expand or parish and why some of them have to constantly adapt or parish.
Religions at personality and philosophy level have to splinter off as personalities and philosophies fade or get added. Even at way of life level, some have to adapt to circumstances and some can force way of life to adapt. You can’t place all religions in one basket and generalize.
Way of life has to have philosophical foundation, philosophies have to have theological foundation, theologies have to have metaphysical foundation which has to be so unshakable that no human intelligence, logic or science can prove or disprove or challenge. Such religions acquire eternal (not necessarily universal) mandate, their struggles remain self-defensive for self-preservation. I agree that not all religions would meet such qualifications – that is why some of them have to remain fanatic to propogate and some of them appear akin to languages and some of them simply come and go like a fad.
Statism too is fashioned on similar lines like religions. You have issue-level politics that are rooted in party agenda, you have parties rooted in ideologies, you have ideologies rooted in pan/trans/national/international ideologies who in turn are rooted in theologies – either as their extension/offshoot or as a rebellion against. You have constitution and laws that are unchanging core of statism while its political manifestations constantly undergo evolutions and adaptations to deal with realities on the ground. States that are grounded in weak constitutions, presided over by weak ideologies wither away, while some constantly have to amend/adapt even their constitutions to survive. We take great pains to differentiate one from the other and point out pros and cons of parties, ideologies, state-crafts, constitutions, states – but when it comes to religions, they are summarily brushed aside with a broad brush and lumped all of them together. All political intellectuals and media pandits suddenly go dim-wits and irrational at the sight of religion.
#42
commonsense
January 18, 2008
04:04 PM
Kerty,
My point applies to all religions: those that convert and those that claim not to convert. Show me one religion, convertible or non-convertible, that has never changed historically in response to social changes and has never splintered off into different sects etc. and I will for sure eat my non-existent hat…
#43
kerty
January 18, 2008
04:40 PM
CS..
Existence of sects, variety of gods, paths and worship is a wrong litmus test to prove your point. In a monotheistic traditions, they create a kind of contradictions you like. In non-monotheistic traditions, they are not contradictions, they are their special features if i may use the microsoft lingo. I have not seen any Hindu god fade, ramayana veda, Purana, upnishads, mahabharata, sanskrit sloka are verbatim same as read thousands of years ago. Sants and sects have come and gone, many more will come and go, sanatana dhrama will go on, even if there remains only one hindu follower in India. Ganges will not change her course to reach out just because nobody comes to her shore no more. That is why sects and sants come into picture, to bring Ganges to people and bring people to Ganges.
I know you will pick one or other line from here to go off in a tangent arguing for the sake of arguments. But frankly, none of it matters or make any difference. Whatever is, is and whatever shall be, shall be. I know none of what I write about is going to make any difference – when great sages have written more substantive things and that has made little difference. I argue with people like you only when I feel I can add something to the discussion. That is my 1*1=1 commonsense.
#44
commonsense
January 18, 2008
05:25 PM
Kerty:
“”Existence of sects, variety of gods, paths and worship is a wrong litmus test to prove your point. In a monotheistic traditions, they create a kind of contradictions you like. In non-monotheistic traditions, they are not contradictions, they are their special features if i may use the microsoft lingo. I have not seen any Hindu god fade, ramayana veda, Purana, upnishads, mahabharata, sanskrit sloka are verbatim same as read thousands of years ago. Sants and sects have come and gone, many more will come and go, sanatana dhrama will go on, even if there remains only one hindu follower in India. Ganges will not change her course to reach out just because nobody comes to her shore no more. That is why sects and sants come into picture, to bring Ganges to people and bring people to Ganges.””
The slokas may remain the same but they are interpreted differently as society changes. If only the meaning of every religious text, scripture or oral tradition were so self-evident and so self-contained…there would be no need of any interpretation or religious scholars spending their entire lives trying to make sense of it all. There would be no reason to consider the distintction between the “”text”” (inclusing oral slokas) and the “”context.”” Not to mention the CON-TEXT that mullahs, pujaris and other assorted thekdars/dalaals use to con people. This is not just for the sake of argument, but for the sake of dispensing commonsense.
#45
Anamika
January 18, 2008
11:29 PM
Thank you temporal bhai…I tried responding to BD but the site refused to let me post. But hope to continue the discussion.
Kerty, religions are VERY much like languages because they are intended to fulfill a human psychological and emotional need. The BIG difference is that they address different needs.
Language allows us to express the world as we perceive it and therefore connect to others who may help ease our isolation in that world. Religion allows us to explain that world – based on our perception.
Moreover, religions are “customised” to individuals – Semitic traditions are quite harsh in part because they are rooted in harsh topographical and cultural realities. Ancient Egyptians developed a death cult in part as a way of coping with an extremely harsh environment.
And when religions travel out of their place of origin, they change and become “customised” to their new habitats. So Christianity in India is nothing like St. Paul’s version of the Bible or indeed the way it was practiced in ancient Greece, Roman or the Levant. Nor is it anything like Christianity in Peru. Same happens with Islam and Buddhism (the religions that have travelled most amongst the major ones).
And yes, when religions travel and use different language, they evolve so in that sense language is necessary to how religions are received, learned and practised. On another thread, no matter what I tried, I could not explain the concept of shunya to Ruvy, not because he wasn’t trying but because what the word MEANS – with its connotations, references, historical ideas, symbolism – is completely different from the zero which is what he knows and understands.
Same goes for something like the word “Christ” which means something specific in Greek but few Christians could tell you anything about it today because the word has changed, evolved and grown as it has moved into other language. And as the word has changed, so has the religion.
CS – please dont say chicken-and-egg now because all that will make me crave is a cheese omelette.
#46
commonsense
January 19, 2008
03:18 AM
Anamika wrote:
“”CS – please dont say chicken-and-egg now because all that will make me crave is a cheese omelette.””
Ah Anamika, I crave for a cheese-omelette now!! As strict (well, not too strict!) I don’t crave for chicken!
Best wishes!
Commonsense
#47
commonsense
January 19, 2008
03:20 AM
Sorry, my keyboard is all messed up (blame it on the brew/beer!). One more attempt!
Anamika wrote:
“”CS – please dont say chicken-and-egg now because all that will make me crave is a cheese omelette.””
Ah Anamika, I crave for a cheese-omelette now!! As a strict vegetarian, (well, not too strict!) I don’t crave for chicken!
Best wishes!
Commonsense
#48
assaji
January 19, 2008
05:06 AM
According to the Dona sutta, the Buddha himself says he is not a man. He also says he is not a god. When pressed to say what exactly is he? He replied, I’m Awakended!
#49
kela
January 20, 2008
12:51 PM
Courtesy: The Dalit Voice April 16-30.The author is the Prof. of History, Guru Vihar, Punnathala, Kollam Dt of Kerala)
http://www.themronline.com/200106m12.html
#50
bd
URL
January 20, 2008
01:36 PM
Kela, are you serious that you expect me to take a serial violater of Godwin’s Law as an expert on History? lol lol lol.
And you are actually referring to an article from the dalit voice as an authoritative article? My friend, you have to do much better than that. Here’s a sample of the articles on the front page:
* Shrinking female population may force Hindus to keep Dalit sex slaves
* Zionists cause defeat of Mbeki ?
* SET FIRE TO BRAHMINICAL BULLSHIT HISTORY BOOKS : Our fight for justice fails because we don’t know true history
* Cowards & hinduised Budhists have finished Budha’s Dhamma
May i suggest one of the peer reviewed journals rather than rags like those for proper debates over History?
#51
bd
URL
January 20, 2008
01:38 PM
And kela, while you are at it, the answer to why the son rebuilt the stupa’s is not clear at all even in this weird article. So no, I am afraid the question still stands.
#52
Anamika
January 20, 2008
05:06 PM
Lol, BD, those are funny. Almost you tempt me to check out the site. Btw, don’t feed the troll – he just gets worse with each feeding.
#53
bd
URL
January 20, 2008
06:07 PM
Anamika, I liked the sex slaves bit but sort of gave it up because tbs sort of snorted at it.
sighs
but fair point, lol, will avoid it. I dont suppose the gentleman concerned would pick up the capitalised topic and relate to the issue at hand! 🙂
#54
kela
January 21, 2008
12:13 AM
Bd ,it really doesn’t matter what you think as long as the people who are oppressed know the truth and know what is better for them.
As regards the Bigot Anamika , i don’t need scumbags like her for feed
#55
bd
URL
January 21, 2008
01:36 AM
Kela
if by that statement in #54 you mean that, it does not matter what you base your thinking upon, then we do not have anything further to debate.
Remember the quote? , “when the facts change, madam, I change my mind, what do you do?”
have fun with the dalit voice magazine and do let me know how that sex slaves thing works out! 🙂
#56
kela
January 21, 2008
01:27 PM
Anyway I didn’t know we needed a supervisor in here to tell us how to talk or whom to talk too,i thought we were all adults here.Some people are so anal retentive.
#57
Man Singh
URL
January 21, 2008
07:27 PM
kela # 56 most of the time your statements are without logic, without refernce and doesn’nt make sense.
Yes just one thing I can sense is that you never support religions, culture and civilisation values originated from soil of India.
You are always on the opposite side of pro-India people.
Don’nt you feel Indian culture and religions is your heritage as well as your forfathers also follwed this way of life, shared cultural and reliogious values before you or somebody in ur family surrendered to foreign invaders for greed, terror or ignorance and converted to foreign religions?
Don’nt you feel we should respect our forfathers and their way of life even if we do not follow them today.
Newton deserve respect even if some of theories are failed today my freind. So is religion and culture of forfathers. We as a civilsied progeny should make attmepts to shine that heritage after filling cracks and gaps and cleaning any negativities inflicted in due course of time and not destroy it or help its destruction by foreign invaders.
Greeks converted to christianity but still are proud of their forefathers religion culture and philosophies.
Egyptians though converted to islam but still glorify their non muslim forfathers and show pyramids to world as their contribution.
India also contributed a lot to humanity in all field of human developement. Scinece technology maths, atronomy, medicine, sprituality etc and we have so many things to be proud of.
Of course we also have a fair share of our negativities. Wise generations are those who remove the negativities and promotes positiviees and relvant to modern times.
India being the ancinet most civilisation on the earth today, many negativies may be visible in its teachings. But our forfathers were always libreal enough not to force or terrorise us to follow them.
Chapter 18 shloka 63 of Bhagwadgeeta , Lord Krishan says to Arjuna, I have told you the all knowledge, its upto you now if u want to follwo or not?
Krishan never terrorised Arjuna that if u dun follw me I’ll put u in hell fire. If u dun worship me is this particular way then only u’ll be accepted in heaven otherwise not?
Just read geeta once and you will see the secret of liberal humanim in Hinduism.
#58
kela
January 21, 2008
11:52 PM
man singh I have never attacked your religion or your people unlike you and your cronies,nor have i tried to twist history to suit my point of view. geeta/mahabharata/ramayana are not my traditions,they belong to Alien Aryans,I appreciate the true traditions born out of this soil like Jallikattu,drinking toddy …
#59
kela
January 22, 2008
04:49 AM
and save all your dharma/adharma for someone who gives a damn.All that crap has been throughly exposed numerous times. I remember a non-veg restaurant tried to open near a Jain area in Bombay, the Jains force them to close by throwing rubbish near the restaurant,spitting etc…so much for dharma and non-violence etc
#60
Gill
January 22, 2008
07:58 AM
Kela wrote
>>>>and save all your dharma/adharma for someone who gives a damn<<<
Ofcourse anyone who is member of “moron cult” wouldn’t. I wonder why you even bother bring in your “moronic verses” when the topic has nothing to do with you. Its about Buddhism started by an alien Aryan Siddarth.
#61
Gill
January 22, 2008
08:10 AM
>>>>My point applies to all religions: those that convert and those that claim not to convert.<<<<
This weird!!!! On one hand you claim you are the new messiah and you are starting a new religion!!!!! And at the same time you claim to talk for all religion????
Get your head straight!!! Don’t turn every discussion into tabloid.
Only talk of the cult you are propagating the cult of the Morons with you their prophet. You should be happy you already have a convert Kela. Your side kick and you only blabber moronic verses. Because there is nothing that comes out of you both on any topic.
The present topic is on Buddhism and its relation with Hinduism and you both as usual bring in your moronic verses. Man get a point across your thick head there are not takers of your moronic cult. If you can’t than take my advice as I always say get some professional help. You need to out with real people. Get a life!!!! or maybe too scared to face the real world…. do not worry there is always help out there….just take the first initial step….
#62
kela
January 22, 2008
09:50 AM
All that coming from anti-india ,terrorist khalistani like you doesn’t really mean much.Have you forgotten how your people were butchered by your hindu brethren ?Far from christianity being a cult it you Sikhs who are a cult and are disowned by hindus
#63
Gill
January 22, 2008
10:34 AM
Kela wrote
>>>All that coming from anti-india ,terrorist khalistani like you doesn’t really mean much.Have you forgotten how your people were butchered by your hindu brethren ?Far from christianity being a cult it you Sikhs who are a cult and are disowned by hindus<<<<
oooops i forget India is taken over by Christian fundamentalists like you and supported by radicals like commonsense.
Interesting to note how moronic intellect works now from a Hinduvtawadi I am a Kahlistani. Good please keep demonstrating your intellect.
How do you know it was hindus who committed violence???? It was congress goons and at the forefront were Christian fundamentalists congress goons like you committing violence on behest of Missionaries and Vatican under the protection of congress.
And now you are going to shift your evil focus from Hindus to Sikhs???? But than again what to expect from “moronic cult” they are basically against every Indic dharmas.
Once again if you nothing worthwhile to contribute to a topic than keep your moronic verses to yourself. If you think you have to propagate your versions than open a thread on that topic and we sill discuss your views there. Stop corrupting every thread and topic by bringing in the same nonsense again and again.
When Buddhism died in India Christianity was nowhere in India and only a moron would bring it into discussion. It is totally irrelevant to discussion of this topic.
God gave you two ears and one mouth. If he wanted you to use your mouth more and listen less than he would have given you two mouth and one ear. But than again in your case I guess maybe it is true!!!!! Abnormality is very much evident from your views and convictions……
#64
kela
January 22, 2008
11:32 AM
abey mental if you bothered to read i had posted links with regard to buddism ..anyway reading you is corrupting my english
#65
kela
January 22, 2008
11:57 AM
and Gill I dont type with my mouth…that turban tied to tight?
#66
Gill
January 22, 2008
12:01 PM
people with corrupted mind and with hatred for Jews and Indic dharmas and its followers do not need any more corruption. You are beyond that point
#67
kela
January 22, 2008
12:03 PM
Gill please be specific and say Brahminism ,”indic dharma is too vague and can even include muslim and chrstianty
#68
Gill
January 22, 2008
12:09 PM
Sorry do not prescribe to your moronic cult or adhere to its fetish version of facts and history.
Indic dharmas do not include Islam and christanity. Get your facts corrected first. If you say yes than you are the biggest Hiduvtavawadi.
#69
kela
January 22, 2008
12:12 PM
no get your facts right,brahminism is as foreign as chrisianity and muslim.
and the only moronic cult are those who wear towels on their head and hop on one leg to the beat of drums
#70
Man Singh
URL
January 22, 2008
12:15 PM
kela #67
can you give a single reference of the word you are using `brahmanism’ before Britsih started writing Indian history and communists patronised it with support of followers of foreign religions?
Dharma is te word used by Hindus, Budhism, Jainism, Sikhims and all other religions of Indian origin.
Islam and christianity are religions of agressors, invaders and are of foreign origin.
people are free to practise religion of their choice native or foreign but none has right to attack the native religions.
#71
Gill
January 22, 2008
12:15 PM
Kela wrote
>>>>no get your facts right,brahminism is as foreign as chrisianity and muslim.<
The statement exactly proves why you belong to moronic cult.
#72
Gill
January 22, 2008
12:17 PM
Kela
you forgot to mention that sikhism is foreign to India too.
#73
kela
January 22, 2008
12:27 PM
Man Singh ,you forget Aryan Brahmins invaded native indian dravdians and stole their land.
you need refernces go here http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Hist/fall_ind.html
#74
Gill
January 22, 2008
12:36 PM
Kela
Please give us proof for AIT. And please show us the archeological proof to support the theory.
AIT is already a nullyfied theory because it was invented by non-trained historians and archeologists and was propagated by Chritian MIssionaries for vested interests.
Kela please prove us through scientific works that there was ever a Aryan Invasion into India and infact Indus Civiliazation was ever destroyed by any human factor.
Please first prove it and than present it as a fact.
Stop using a disproved theory as a base for your conviction.
#75
Man Singh
URL
January 22, 2008
12:40 PM
Kela #73
Indica is memoirs of a travellor to India in 327 BC. It is not a history book. It gives waht the travelleer saw in India during those days.
It is foolish to refer such books as a proof for Aryan Invasion.
Let me enlighten you using simple common sense easy to understand think and act?
1. `Arya’ in Sanskrit means a noble person who does his/her duty professionally and smartly irrespective of cast creed color or way of worship and never a race?
2.Hindus Devas Ram Krishna Vinsnu are black in color curly hair like typical south India.
3. All Devis look like typical South Indian women.
4.Vedas describe Indian rivers, Indian flaura and fauna not of any foreign country
5. Conch shell(Shanks) used in Hindu worship is found in south India and not in North.
6. Sandal used in worship found in South India and not in North.
7. Roli (Kumkum) produced in South India and not in North.
8. Supari, etc all south Indian and not North.
9. Rice (South India) used in prayers not wheat produced in south.
10. Coconut produced in South India and not in North.
11. Sanskrit has alphabet of 53 letter similar in all Indian languages including Tamil while European languages have only 24-26
12. English have only 400 words common with Sanskrit, Tamil have more then 4000.
13. All rivers described in Vedas are Indian rivers. If they were foreinegers they might have described foreign rivers as Muslim invaders always described `zam xam ka Paani’
14. All Mountains described in vedic Literature are Indian. If they were foreigners they might have described foreign mountains.
15. All atronomical descriptions match with star positions on India
16. All trees, plants medicines etc described are of Indian origin
Still do you believe the lie of Aryans invasion on India? If there were
#76
kela
January 22, 2008
12:48 PM
ha ha same nonsense arguments are used by the jews.
Gods are purple/blue,sign of nobility,devis are white skin,brahmins are white with green eyes like german aryans..all the asuras are black south indians…this is boring and tiring ,read more here http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Hist/fall_ind.html
#77
Gill
January 22, 2008
12:52 PM
Kela wrote
>>>>all the asuras are black south indians<<<
Another example of kelas intellect and lack of knowlegde on any subject. Iranian tribes are refered to as ashuras. Please do your homework before you come and make stupid statements
#78
Man Singh
URL
January 22, 2008
01:04 PM
Kela #76
Follwers of foreign invaders need such nonsense theories kela. they need it to justify their own crimes against humanity.
Though I as an Indian do not need any foreign source to know my history as foreign invaders do not understand us well and most of the time have vested interest. vedas, Upnishads, Puranas nowhere mention `Aryan’ as a race hence its fictious theory yoiu are riding on.
If foreign sources make you happy, let me put a foreign greek source itself for `your satisfaction’
I’ll use the same Greek reference to prove that Indians never enslaved or attacked anybody.
“The southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.”
“No Indian ever went outside his own country on a warlike expedition, so righteous were they.”
“Indians do not put up memorials to the dead; but they regard their virtues as sufficient memorials for the departed, and the songs which they sing at their funerals.”
“This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave.”
http://:www.earth-history.com/India/arrian.htm+Arrian+on+India
However I’ll quote ancinet Indian scriptures to prove that Hinduism originated in South India.
It is Srimadbhagwat Puran chapter 1 (mahatamya shloka 48 ) Bhakti said I was born in Dravid Desh , grew up in Karnakata, respected in maharashtra and sidelined in Gujraat. In Vrindavan fainted completely’
Even in Bhavishya Puran chapter 7 shloka 65 very clearly defines boundaries of aryavarta ie between Vindhyachal and Himalayas and two oceans on two sides.
But you being mentally trapped by ideology of foreign invaders find it hard to grasp references of Indian origin?
Come out of foreign yoke kela and strat trusting India and Indian refernces.
#79
kela
January 22, 2008
01:20 PM
See You mentioned Dravid desh,this country belongs to dravidians and i am one,this is my country and i follow any religion choose,you are the foreigner you are the guest who overstayed ,you have no right to tell me what to do
#80
Man Singh
URL
January 22, 2008
02:56 PM
Kela #79
perhaps you did not read the boundaries of draviddesha and aryavarta.
Religion came from draviddesha
Nowhere it is mentioned that Aryans invaded Dravidians?
Therefore Aryavarta and Dravida karnataka maharashtra etc all out of good will got united in due course of time without any force and that’s why you find all languages and ways of life still intact.
Opposite to it wherever islam reached it has destroyed all native cultures, imposed Arabic on people and permanenetly enslaved others.
Muslim invaders invaded India also. Well recorded by muslim writers out of their zeal to promote Islam. And hence Islam is religion of invaders and so is christianity other then syrian christians of Kerala.
Those who surrender to foreign invaders, assocate with them, convert to their religion and help them plundering their own moptherland are called `taritors’.
Greed, terror and ignorance have been the motivation of `traitorship’ through out the history.
Religions of India (Hinduism, Budhsim, Jainishm and Sikhsim) always promote Dharma in spite of having different way of worship.
Foreign religions never focus on Dharma and only on way of worship and converting others hence promote adharma indierctly.
That’s the reason when Mohamemd starts new religion, he do not build his own places of worship in a civilised way, he attacks non muslims places of worships, captures them and convertes them to Mosque. This continued untill Mughal rule was eliminated from india.
Opposite to it in India you will find places of worship of all religions in same place of pilgrimage. jains, Budha, Sikh and Hindu temples in every city.
becasue Budha never captured Hindu temples, Mahaveer never attacked Budhism or Hinduism and their place sof worship, Guru Gobidn Singh always build fresh new Guru dwaras and never captured others places.
That’s how Dharma is promoted opposite to barbaric ways of attacking and capturing pagan’s places of wroship by Mohammed.
can ypu see the difference? This tendency to attack and capture is the root of the evil?
#81
kela
January 23, 2008
12:14 AM
Man SIngh, at least you admit Syrian Christians are the true sons of the soil,sorry can’t say the same about you Aryans
#82
blokesablogin
February 11, 2008
01:44 AM
bd, cant believe I missed this post! Interesting questions you raise- see the more we read Indian history, the more the “holes” appear! isnt this amazing? I think this is fascinating.
Arun Shourie has his own ideas about what happened to Buddhists in India- He shows the relationship between the highly organised religion and its monastic tradition to be “easy” targets for quick elimination by the invading muslims. Evidently, thousands of buddist monks were slaughtered by the muslims when they burn down their monastries and centers of learning. The ones who remained quickly converted to Islam to avoid genocide. http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles/scandal.htm
#83
bd
February 11, 2008
04:50 AM
Meenakshi, i have been doing further research on the dalit history efforts and more i read about it, the more bizarre it is coming out. I actually thought of doing a full length essay on this amazingly bizarre and silly historical edifice that the dalit historians are building but then figured, sod them, if they want to teach their people utter pap, then hey, that’s their problem.
#84
commonsense
February 11, 2008
10:25 AM
Gill:
“”AIT is already a nullyfied theory because it was invented by non-trained historians and archeologists and was propagated by Chritian MIssionaries for vested interests.””
Nice standards for historical research 🙂
#85
commonsense
February 11, 2008
10:29 AM
BD:
“”And you are actually referring to an article from the dalit voice as an authoritative article?””
Not to defend the article I have not read, but Meenakshi below refers to a piece by Shourie in “Voice of Dharma””
http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles
We will have to assume that both sources are suspect as they seem to be hearing “voices”:)
#86
bd
February 11, 2008
11:44 AM
check out the dalit voice, cs :), i am sure you will get a giggle
#87
commonsense
February 11, 2008
12:45 PM
BD, sure will 🙂 I’m sure it must be burdened with hyperbole:)
(the general forumula: if someone is hearing too many “voices” or getting too may visions, a visit to the “doctor” (a medic not a PhD)should be the first stop en route to a cure…
#88
Gill
February 11, 2008
12:55 PM
CS
I guess you are talking from experience!!!
#89
commonsense
February 11, 2008
12:57 PM
Gill Sardar Sahab,
Sure, my hallucinations and visions are here in public for all to see! Since it’s not a well-hidden secret, you won’t be getting any medals for this “discovery” either!
#90
commonsense
February 11, 2008
12:59 PM
Gill Sahab, apologies. I posted this on the wrong thread…(my hallucinations getting in the way again! Here it is, just for you!)
Commited to finding ways to shore up your self-esteem: Guess what I found:
DECIBEL: actually “desi-bell” a traditional Indian measurement of sound, stolen by the “West” to measure sound. Indian farmers always put different kinds of bells on their livestock so they could tell by the timbre of the chime, which cow, goat or sheep was going astray. Stolen by colonialists and now called “decibel” instead of the original “desi-bell”
#91
Gill
February 11, 2008
01:10 PM
CS
True to your cult you got to come up with commiesense. Ofcourse the poor farmer was exploited by Imperialists….and that lead to eventual “class struggle”….and guess what now cow, goat or sheep have a “livestock” union with you there spokesperson. So what do you propose great comrade commiesense … when are you having the great livestock revolution…….since humans don’t listen to your commie crap only comrades left for you are the cow, goat or sheep ….. A suggestion better paint them Red… would make a good statement
#92
commonsense
February 11, 2008
01:13 PM
Gill Sahab,
Please launch an internet petition about “Desibell” and I will join you. Gill Sahab sunghursh karo, hum tumaharey saath hain”! (or was it “saas” instead of “saath”? My hallucinations are kicking in…I guess I cannot be a “saas” if I am male? But then Gill sahab is the real male here, so how could I be a male? Confused as usual…forgot my medication again..
#93
Kela
February 11, 2008
01:21 PM
Dalitvoice .org has been proved right.Kerala govt has claimed Ayappan temple in Kerala was a buddhist temple.
#94
Man Singh
URL
February 11, 2008
03:15 PM
Kela # 81
This post is altogather senseless. I could not make out what you want to say?
#93
Budha is 9th incarnation of lord Vishnu. So every Hindu temple is a Budhist temple. what’s so fuss abot it.
Kerala government can say anything if it can give ravi varma award to MF Hussein.
Kerala is being ruled by gangs of Mao, marx, Missinery and mullas for last 60 years and any action by kerala govt about Hindu related things is a natural assault on Hinduism. Whatelse you can expect fro follwers of foreign ideologies/religions.
They will do everything within their reach to divide natives and make them fight so that they can rule easyly. Its so simple.
teachings of Budha are still being practised by Indians. Hindusim of today includes all his teachings. Tree of Hindusim has many branches and you can see Budha’s teachings also part of it.
refer any census before 1861 you will find all Dharmaic people identified by Hindu only.
`Hindu’ originally means people living beyong Sindhu and hence a collective name ofr all Indians follwing Indic teachings.
Those who associated with foreign invaders and converted to their religions strated showing separatist mentality and separate identity and as such society was broken. Muslims and Christians became separate based on way of worship. Rest reamined united. By 1861 census British started further divisions and you are seeing Ayappa temple as Budhist temple?
In reality Hinduism being a pluralist religion can tolreate even a statue of Jesus or Mohammed in its temples not only of Budha.
Can Christians tolerate Hindus dieties in their churches or Muslims tolerate Hindu diesties in their Mosques?
Other then an Isolates incidence of Pushyamitra Shung, no other Indian king diferntiated people based on way of worship. His son though rebuilt the vihars his father demolished.
Rest there is not evena single incidence recorded in Indian history where Hindu King took over Budhist temple or Budhist king took over Hindu temple.
Just do your homework before writing something here.
#95
commonsense
February 11, 2008
04:20 PM
Man Singh:
“”Budha is 9th incarnation of lord Vishnu. So every Hindu temple is a Budhist temple. what’s so fuss abot it.””
Man Singh, acchaa mazaak kar letey hao aap bhi! ( I thought I had a monopoly on poor jokes!)Pity poor Dr. Ambedkar going thru the trouble of conversion…
The custodians of Buddhist temples in Japan will be happy to meet you one of these days…
#96
commonsense
February 11, 2008
04:28 PM
Man Singh:
“”In reality Hinduism being a pluralist religion can tolreate even a statue of Jesus or Mohammed in its temples not only of Budha.””
Bhai you are full of mazaaak…Another nice one 🙂 “statue of…Mohammed”!
#97
commonsense
February 11, 2008
04:50 PM
Gill Sahab,
Something closer to home for you. Some professional degraders of our dignity, especiall of Punjabi dignity, are selling our beloved lassi under the disgusting name of “smoothies”. We must start another petition…the malicious intent here is too evident to require any proof. If France can claim rights to the name “champagne”, why can’t we force all “smoothies” to be called “lassis”?
#98
neusinger
February 11, 2008
07:20 PM
#93 Kela, I agree and if I am not mistaken it was Syrian Christian church before that. Christians were there before Buddha.
#99
blokesablogin
February 12, 2008
12:44 AM
Man Singh: In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Buddha is not mentioned as an incarnation- Rishabha or Adinath (1st jain thirthankara) is though. This is simply because the Srimad Bhagavatham predates Buddhism. Later puranas added Buddha as an avatar- this very inclusion, morphing makes “hinduism” a very transmutable kind of “religion”. Some of the valid questions asked by the Buddhist groups was accomodated into Hindu thought and practice- eg. substituting ‘fruits,vegetables and different “danyas (grains)” for animal sacrifice, increase in vegetarianism.
CS: The voice of dharma is but a website. Most of Arun shourie’s articles are published in other “voiceless”magazines and media. One thing you have got to give credit to the man- he is thorough with his research.
#100
Ajay
February 12, 2008
05:41 AM
One does not really know what Buddhism is in the real sense.If Buddhism is what Buddha himself said, then Buddha was a man of very few words, who uttered very few things and steered clear from all controversies. He deliberately did not clarify many aspects despite his close disciples insistence. May be he was aware of the inherent contradictions.
It was only after the death of Buddha, that a host of other teachings, interpretations and interpretations by the later masters have crept into the original form.This has altered beyond recognition what Buddha had uttered in his own life time.
#101
Ajay
February 12, 2008
06:02 AM
Perhaps the most controversial of Buddhas teachings was his concept of “shunya” which has been the topic of many debates in the times to come. His realisation regarding this was flayed by even Shankaracharya. Caustic comments by later Vaihnavites regarding this also sowed seeds of doubts in the minds of the people about the teachings of Buddha which was also a reason for it’s vanishing from India.
#102
Sujai
URL
February 12, 2008
06:33 AM
Bhaskar Dasgupta:
I cannot understand how the author could say that the Buddha was said to be bad, when he is supposed to be an avatar of Vishnu.
That’s because Buddha was added into Dasha avatar, not during the reign of Buddhism, but much later.
You should find out when Buddha was added to the list of Dasha Avatar and you will get the answers.
#103
Sujai
URL
February 12, 2008
06:52 AM
#11, Anamika:
by dictating what Hinduism is supposed to be in direct contradiction of its diverse, often self-contradictory, exuberant values.
…like how Hinduism is monotheistic?
😉
#104
Sujai
URL
February 12, 2008
07:05 AM
kerty:
While religions provide an anchor, a permanence to transient and evolving world.
?? really?
#105
Ajay
February 12, 2008
07:16 AM
Religion does not provide an anchor, it is spirituality that provides an anchor. As long Buddhism was a spiritual force, it managed to survive in India. But as soon as it started to take the shape of a religion in the form of dogmas, religious rites, gods and demi-gods, tantric practices etc,the deterioration began and it soon vanished.
What really attracts the modern world toward Buddhism is the core philosophy that Buddha himself preached, which was devoid of rites, rituals etc. He even denied to comment on the existence of an omni-potent and omni-present God let alone propagate the existence of numerous demi-gods.
#106
bd
February 12, 2008
07:28 AM
#102, Sujai, sorry, I did not understand your reference, my friend. I know he was added later to the list of avatar’s, but why would that explain that he was “bad” ?
#107
blokesablogin
February 12, 2008
12:06 PM
Ajay, adding to your insight, I always had this theory that the Buddha did not plan on “starting his own religion”. rather, he took people from brahmacharya directly to sanyasa skiping the grihasta and vanaprastha phase. With royal patronage, he was able to ‘afford” it too!! Of course, he bcame proficient in “bhavathi bhikshaan dehi”- all part of the Hindu varnashrama dharma. His meditation led him to experience the “truth” at its deepest level and truth can never be expressed in words- can only be experienced.
The mind can never be made to be still with pure “nothing”, all the subsequent dilution of buddhism happened with the need for the mind for objects and rituals. Buddhism is a clear example of how the vedic tradition of brahman fell into the rut of rituals, over a period of time. We see this phenomenon in more recent religions too. Islam started with the smae idea of “ridding the world of idols and idolators”. It is not uncommon to see “pictures” of the khaba stone in devout muslim homes. same can be said of sikhism. pictures of the gurus, of gurudwaras etc.
Knowing the nature of mind and being comfortable with it is the key here.
#108
Sujai
URL
February 12, 2008
01:29 PM
#106, BD:
If Buddha were added much later, it explains a lot – as to why a person who adores Vishnu can despise Buddha.
If you look at our history, you will realize that Buddhism and Hinduism were at loggerheads for a long time, spanning many centuries.
One doesn’t need to read Romila Thapar to know this.
Even in South India, kings embraced Hinduism and Buddhism at different intervals, and there was an ongoing conflict between these two religions. When a king embraced Buddhism, the brahmins lost their clout, power, prestige and influence.
So, a Vishnu lover could hate Buddha if he is looking at these times of conflict.
you woke up in 8th century.
#109
Sujai
URL
February 12, 2008
01:32 PM
108- contd.
We woke up in 20th century to find that Hinduism and Buddhism are similar or that Buddha is one of Hindu gods.
But if you woke up in 8th century, you wouldn’t feel the same. You would see two religions trying to get the king’s approval to make it the religion of state.
#110
Man Singh
URL
February 12, 2008
01:52 PM
Sujai #109
Dharma is never a slave of political power. Adhrama can never surviwe without it though. Therefore those who strived for approval from kings are simply jokers engaged in adharma. They are neither Budhists nor Hindus.
Dharma simply is the process of God Realisation, self realisation, reaching to ultimate truth whatever you call.
Minor variations in methods may be there just like minor variations seen in methods used in a scinece experiment by differemnt scineteists.
Control the senses, control the mind, and become able to see the the ultimate reality.
The same system prescribed by all Indic religions with little variations.
Did Budha ever said I am strating a new religion?
Did nanak ever said I am strating a new religion?
Did Shankara ever said I am starting a new religion?
Did mahavir ever said I am strating a new religion?
Yes Sujai it is 20th century phenomenon of considering Budhism different from Hinduism.
Seaparatist mentality aimed at political gains and divide and rule caused so.
By 8th century as you mentioned, discussions were only right representation of Dharma and not differnt Dharmas altogaher
#111
commonsense
February 12, 2008
02:46 PM
Meenakshi:
“”The voice of dharma is but a website. Most of Arun shourie’s articles are published in other “voiceless”magazines and media. One thing you have got to give credit to the man- he is thorough with his research.”‘
Will re-read Shourie one of these days. Currently hip deep in Cynthia Talbot’s _Precolonial India in Practice_…limited time at hand, much of it spent on DC 🙂
#112
commonsense
February 12, 2008
05:57 PM
Meenakshi,
I took a quick look at the voice of dharma site. I have an open mind on a lot of issues, but not on sectarianism/communalism, regardless of which sect or community is being promoted. So, thanks, but no thanks!! 🙂
#113
Man Singh
URL
February 12, 2008
06:16 PM
Bhai Commonsense # 112
You are acting like Baldev the elder brother of Krishna who declined to take any side as he was confused whose side to take. Which side Dharma is?
Don’nt you feel that a person with opne mind should side with innocent villagers being attacked by dacoits again and again.
When some village youth get organised and beat back dacoits they also `seem’ to be doing adharma as they are involved in violence and killing.
But commonsense says village youth are right. You can not call them `sectarian’ as they were forced to become sectarian temporarily to protect themselves from continuous onslaught of dacoits though from outside they also `seem’ to be as `sectarian’ as dacoits.
Budha and Devdutt were claiming the fallen swan. Devdutt said I shooted it and hence it belongs to me. Budha said I saved it , so it belongs to me.
King gave the judgement `maarne vaale se bachaane vaale ka adhikaar jyada hot hai isliye hans gautam ka hai’ ( right of saviour is more then that of killer, hence swan belongs to Gautam)
Therefore, if Aurangjeb was engaged in sectarian violence againt Hindus, it was really sectarian. But if Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj was engaged in war to protect the weak and innocent Hindus, it should not be put in `sectarian’ category by people with commonsense in spite of the fact that great Guru organised Hindus(modern day Sikhs) to creat a Khalasa Army to eliminate the atyachar.
tendency to equate `attacker’ and `defender’ is virtually helping the `attacker’ only and that’s what is hapening in India in the name of secularism.
#114
Ajay
February 13, 2008
12:37 AM
blokesablogin #107 , you are absolutely correct.The decline of buddhism reveals as to why sanatan dharma later on steeped into rituals and rites.Buddha even denied the existence of the atma and stressed that it is all the mind.One is the mind without ant trace of sanskara or impressions ( i.e. the pure one) and other is the mind guided and controlled by sanskara, impressions,desires etc. Buddha wanted the reveal the nature of the mind sans all impressions. This condition is nothing but the same element which has been described by the hindus as the atma.
To know one’s mind in its purest state as described buddha is nothing but the nirvikalpa samadhi as has been described in hindu scriptures and in Yoga sutra which defines various kinds of samadhi.Nirvikalpa samadhi is the state where the atma is not tainted by seeds of any desire or sanskara which is the same as the pure mind propagated by buddha.So Buddha had said nothing new. He just invented a new term and packaged the old concept in a new bottle.
It is extremely difficult for the mind to be in it’s own pure state since the very nature of mind is to ATTACH itself, whether it be an object or a desire. It is the very inherent nature of the mind to attach itself that has led the minds of subsequent buddhist practitioners to allow their minds to attach itself to various kinds of desires. This had led to the emergence of mahayana and hinayana schools, various deities in buddhism, tantric practices, siddhis or siddhas. The same thing had happened to the sanatan dharma.
#115
commonsense
February 13, 2008
09:53 PM
Bhai Man Singh,
Confusion is good! Trust me, Confucious himself told me so…
#116
commonsense
February 13, 2008
09:56 PM
Bhai Man Singh my friend,
I don’t live in a village, and I assume, neither do you. Can you deploy a different metaphor? Who, for instance, are the dacoits and villagers in the global village?
#117
Deconstructive JATT
February 14, 2008
01:20 AM
All of y’all need to read Derrida and foCault. And if y’all still stupid, then go [rant edited – please read comment policy before you post again]
#118
Man Singh
URL
February 14, 2008
11:32 AM
Bhai commonsense #118
You will not believe my permanent address in my passport still my village and I do not have any house in any city of India or abroad. Of course I rent apartment or Hotel wherever required.
I am still a villager.
For the sake of your convenince I can use another metaphor though.
Attackers are everyhwere. Evangelists, proslytisers are direct attackers of natives even today.
Dawa’t workers are dierct attackers even today.
Those who protect the community from these attackers are village youth I mention sometimes.
Funniest thing is that some these attacks and loots are legalised and even promoted by many governmnets around the globe. People become aware only when angry victims beat back these attackers.
Unofrtunately attackers actve in your temple of Dow Jones can not be beaten back by anybody and victims have no choice but to suffer at hands of attackers there.
One thing I failed to understand what’s so difficult in understanding `dacoits’ VS `village youth’ metaphor?
Alexender was Attacker, Chandra Gupta/ Chanakya were defenders.
Mohammed Bin Qassim was invader , Bappa rawal was defender
Mahmud gajanavi was attacker and people of India were defenders
Gori was attacker and Chauhan was defender
Akbar was attacker and rana pratap was defender
Jehangir was attacker and Guru Arjan Dev was defender
Aurangjeb was attacker and Guru Teg Bahadur , Guru Gobind Singh and Shivaji were defenders.
British were attackers and Krantikaris like Bhagat Singh and Netaji were defenders.
Even today Missioneries are attackers and I ma the defender.
MF Hussein is attacker and I am the defender
Mullas of India and Bandladeshi are attackers and Tasleema Nasreen and salman Rushdie are defenders.
what’s so difficult in metaphor of `dacoits’ and `village youth’
#119
commonsense
February 14, 2008
02:11 PM
Bhai Man Singh,
You appear to be a well-trained person. But your training has rendered you inflexible, so you keep reciting the same ram-katha each time…
#120
Man Singh
URL
February 14, 2008
02:26 PM
Bhai commonsense #119
Ramkatha says `hari anant hari katha ananta’. how come people with infinite version of ramkatha can be called inflexible?
Inflexible are those who say `there is only one true ramkatha and that also what they know’ and they have divine right to eliminate the rest of versions of ramkathas using all means including terror and money.
I usually get surprised how `educated people’ always preach to people with `ananth versions’ of ramkatha and never dare to say even to word those who claim to be monopoly on one true versions of the same and engaged in eliminating the rest?
Ab tum hi batao, infinite vaale flexible hai ya `ek’ vaale.
#121
commonsense
February 14, 2008
02:56 PM
man singh, on a more flexible note, why did you not join the debate on torture?
#122
Man Singh
URL
February 14, 2008
03:07 PM
Bhai commonsense #121
Thanks for reminding. Title looked to be bit general to me.
I have very clear views about torture.
Again I’ll quote from Ramkatha what Tulsidaas says about gist of ramkatha
`parhit saris dharam nahi bhai, parpeeda sam nahi adhmai’
second part in very very clear words declares that there is no sin equal to torturing innocent creature (not only human beings even animals are covered here).
Vedvyasa also wrote ‘paropkaraya punyaya papay perpeednam’.
These are my views how people should behave in a civil society.
I’ll read the topic and join the debate there.
#123
Morris
February 14, 2008
09:52 PM
CS and Man Singh
Very interesting discussion.
On what basis one can say Akbar and MF Hussein are attackers? Perhaps I don’t know enough about them.
#124
neusinger
February 14, 2008
09:59 PM
Bhai Mansingh,
very interesting post – enlightnihg. You are a learned person. Indeed.
But, forgive me because you forgot one little person: What about Babur?
And Did Babur ever reach Kannada?
Perhaps commonsense can help out?
#125
neusinger
February 14, 2008
10:06 PM
Commonsense #18 “In fact the derogatory term “buddhu” has similar roots ie. an attempt to mock the Buddhists. The same term is still in use in Malaysia, albeit pronounced as “bodo””
Very strange and sounds much like your jokes my professor friend. Any proof of this?
#126
commonsense
February 14, 2008
10:36 PM
Neusinger boss:
No, no proof really. I wrote in haste! But of course they do the term “bodo” to denote a fool in Malaysia, like “buddhu” in much of North India. I admit, no proof that it has to do with denigrating Buddhists…some people speculate about this, but of course, speculation is not proof. Do I really joke that much? what’s this professor shit? Teach/Cheat, Dog/God…me a professional graduate student…
#127
commonsense
February 14, 2008
10:47 PM
Yes, Man Singh merey Bhai, what about Babur? Did he have a role? Did he ever get to present-day Karnataka? Neusinger has a point…
#128
Moirai
February 15, 2008
09:40 AM
Perhaps what’s happening today sheds more light on this question than pointless posts by kela et al.
When the Taliban destroyed two Buddhist statues in Afghanistan in the spring of 2001, there was an international outcry. But similar incidents are now occurring in northwest Pakistan, where radical Islamists recently blew up a sculpture of Buddha in broad daylight.
There are vast numbers of important Buddhist sites in Swat and other areas of northwest Pakistan. At this point, all of them are under threat of destruction, thanks to the influential voice of the Islamist leader Mullah Fazlullah.
#129
Moirai
February 15, 2008
09:48 AM
Historically, many Mongols had adopted Buddhism early in the 13th century, as they were exposed to the religion in China, Tibet, and northern India. Hulegu had adopted some Buddhist customs, but he is primarily regarded as a traditional Mongol shamanist. The fact that he was buried with several young women testifies to this fact, since neither Buddhism nor Islam would have sanctioned human sacrifice.
Abaqa, Hulegu’s son, was a devout Buddhist who mercilessly persecuted the Muslims of the Il-Khanate. He even promoted Christian interests ahead of Muslim, simply to harass the Muslims. Abaqa’s son, Arghun, also a Buddhist, was even harder on Muslims than his father had been. During this period of Buddhist leadership in traditionally Islamic lands, many Buddhist symbols appeared. Numerous Buddhist temples dotted the landscape of Persia and Iraq, none of which survived the 14th century, unfortunately. The Buddhist element of the Il-Khanate died with Arghun, however, and Islam soon spread from the population to the ruling classes.
Eager to make a name for himself as an Il-Khan, Gaykhatu (Arghun’s brother) introduced paper money from China into Islamic trading circles. Islamic merchants in the Il-Khanate refused to accept the unrecognisable new money, however, and trade came to a virtual standstill. The experiment was such a disaster that Gaykhatu was forced to abandon it after six months, and the ensuing rebellion ousted him from power in 1295.
His successor, Arghun’s son, Ghazan, was the first Muslim of Mongol heritage to rule the Il-Khanate, and all rulers of Persia since him have been Muslim. Ghazan adhered to the Sunni form of Islam, but he was tolerant of Shi’ites. He focussed his religious persecution instead on the Buddhists, who had been so intolerant of Muslims for the past 30 years in the Il-Khanate. Ghazan converted all Buddhist temples to mosques, and he forced the Buddhist priests and monks to either convert to Islam or return to India, Tibet, or China. Christians were also persecuted, in retaliation for their special treatment at the expense of the Muslims under the Buddhist rulers of the Il-Khanate.
#130
Gill
February 15, 2008
03:07 PM
>>>But similar incidents are now occurring in northwest Pakistan, where radical Islamists recently blew up a sculpture of Buddha in broad daylight<<<<<
You should ask “deconstructionist” Mullahs like Commiesense as to why is happening again and again in this time and age also…..
It is this moronic cult that people like commiesense belongs to that justify these actions as “natural” trends under the pretext of “deconstruction”. Because these self proclaimed moronic prophets have one goal in Indian context and that is in very simple words to prove that “what ever that had been written, constructed and evolved was done by entirely the wrong people and was done for entirely the wrong reasons”. This sums up people like commiesense. They are simply predictable.
Ideology of people like commiesense and islamists is very similar in this sense. Both are are believers of “deconstruction”……….. and to achieve that they both have to destroy past……
Example of “idiocity” and moronic mind set is very evident in CommieSenses statement :-
>>>Yes, Man Singh merey Bhai, what about Babur? Did he have a role? Did he ever get to present-day Karnataka? <<<
#131
Man Singh
URL
February 15, 2008
03:44 PM
Morris # 123
Akabar was grandson of Invader Babur and and the most important piller of foreign Mughal rule . Maharana Pratap was the last hope for Indians as Traitor Kings like Man Singh accepted slavery of Akbar and fought on invaders’ side.
MF Hussein paints Hindu Gods and Goddeses in nude and paints Mohammed’s daughter, his own mother in fully clad form provin that he is intentionally doing tha nonsnese and attacking India’s cultural heritage.
sarasvati – Nude
Mather India – Nude
Hanuman – Nude
Ganesha – Nude
Parvati – Nude
gandhi – depicated
Hitler – Nude
Himself – clad
his mother – clad
Mohammed’s daughter – clas
Ghalib – Clad
Faiz – Clad
In an interview 8 years ago he said he painted Hitler nude to humiliate him.
Does it mean he painted Mother India nude to humiliate her?
That’s why Hussein is an invader and those who resist against him are defenders.
nesinger#124
From where kannada came in? I dun know please enlighten.
Commonsense #127
same as response to nesinger#127
baaki kaisa chal raha hai bhai commonsense
#132
Neusinger
February 15, 2008
04:37 PM
Man Singh sahib, thanks for that last post.
Re my post #124 – I honestly dont know what I meant when I wrote that – please ignore it.
#133
Man Singh
URL
February 15, 2008
05:01 PM
its fine neusinger #132.
kabhi kabhi esa hota hai. Appreciate your honesty. keep it up.
#134
commonsense
February 15, 2008
08:23 PM
Gill:
“”It is this moronic cult that people like commiesense belongs to that justify these actions as “natural” trends under the pretext of “deconstruction”.”‘
I see that my infinite deferral of shoring up your self-confidence is not doing wonders for your neurotic anxiety, so here goes:
Tattoo: the western people stole this ancient Indian word from us without acknowledging it. In the past, people working with horses and “tattoos” were prone to this. An angry tattoo would sometimes kick a worker and the next day, the marks could be seen on his face. The other workers would laugh at him as in “arrey, you got tattooed yesterday”? Or,””after working here so hard, what tumhey tattoo mila”? We have to reclaim this word.
Tobacco: see, we always used this ancient word “tanbaakoo”, even though we don’t like this substance too much in Punjab. Another stolen word from us.
Platoon: since time immemorial we had brigades of jawans called “paltan”. They stole it from us and mock us by calling it platoon.
Hooligan: this is yet another deliberate attempt to mock at your festivals. Arrey bhai during the holi festival, many young boys and girls enjoyed them pichkarees. They were not real guns bhai, just pichkari guns. Now they call any bad character, “hooligan” just to put us down?
But the fact that they stole these words from us, should make you feel superior my friend Gill. Since people usually don’t steal anything that is inferior. That’s all for now. When your self-confidence needs some priming and pumping up, don’t forget to call me!
#135
Neusinger
February 15, 2008
09:54 PM
Common, I think Gill has finally pushed all your buttons at the same time. Calm down, my man.
#136
commonsense
February 15, 2008
10:03 PM
Neusinger,
Thanks man! But this is an ongoing saga…I’m calm, not to worry!!! This kind of exchange is ancient history and fun for me!
#137
Neusinger
February 15, 2008
10:14 PM
excellent!
#138
commonsense
February 15, 2008
11:05 PM
neusinger,
I do want to acknowledge your concern…! Not to worry my friend, but thanks for looking out for me!! Now I will relax, and smoke a Charminar cig!
#139
Gill
February 16, 2008
04:12 PM
CS
Nice work !!! Pls Keep exhibiting your moronic intellect. Its good amusement!!
But than again I feel sorry for you!!! I think this fetish “deconstructionist” ideology has really taken toll over your intellect. It is sad to see that your fetish for trying to “deconstruct” the world and its societies and play God and Prophet have pushed you to the point of lunatics. I really pray that you do get help to “deconstruct” your psychiatric disorder. And than maybe you will once again start talking “sense”
#140
commonsense
February 16, 2008
08:48 PM
Gill Sahib,
At your service sir, anytime. Free!
#141
commonsense
February 16, 2008
08:56 PM
Man Singh #131,
As far as I know (but I will acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge), M.F. Hussein has apologized for the paintings, said his intentions were not at all malicious, withdrawn the paintings from circulation and has left the country. What more should he be doing? Short of unpainting the paintings? Curious…
#142
commonsense
February 16, 2008
09:09 PM
Yaar Gill Sahab,
I was surprised to find that you are an expert of Derrida and deconstructionism. And even more to find out your full name! So your critique of mullahs is actually an auto-critique?
link: http://www.chowk.com/articles/8188
Jacques Derrida, Founder of Deconstruction, is Dead
Mohammad Gill November 12, 2004
Tags: science , scientist , tribute , orbituary
Jacques Derrida, Founder of Deconstruction, is Dead
By Mohammad Gill
The Algerian born French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, died of pancreatic cancer on Friday, October 8, 2004. He was 74 at the time of his death.
#143
commonsense
February 20, 2008
05:36 PM
Gill Sahab,
Do you have other articles on Deconstruction and Derrida?
#144
commonsense
February 20, 2008
05:37 PM
Gill Sahab,
Do you have other articles on Deconstruction and Derrida?
#145
commonsense
February 20, 2008
05:39 PM
Man Singh Bhai,
What do you propose M. F. Hussein should do? After his apology and leaving the country? Is there anything he could do to satisfy a particular community of “art critics”?
#146
Man Singh
URL
February 20, 2008
05:52 PM
Bhai Commonsense #145
apology is enough provided it is sincere and the person pledges in future not to commit the same crimes. he no need to leave the country in that case.
It is a like gang members of dacoits apologise for their past sins and show their desire to lead a normal life along with villagers they looted some time back.
Villagers are very civilised in general and accept the apology. Some responsibility goes even to dacoits also after that they should behave nicely and should abandon their habbit of looting and attacking.
Hussein on the other hand is selling his paintings (for whom you say he apologised and felt bad for..). You can visit his website and you can buy his painting on line. The same paintings in which he tried to insulted the nation.
I am not an art critic but have a commonsense (may be came from yourgoodness?). I can see the crookedness when he paints his own mother in full clothes and Moter India nude.
He paints Mohamed’s daughter in full clothes and Durga parvati and sarasvati in nude along with ganesha and Hanuman put in a very very offensive posture with them.
#147
commonsense
February 20, 2008
06:43 PM
Man Singh Bhai,
This is what the painter had to say in an interview with Shoma Chaudhury. He sounds extremely sincere to me. Do you think he is faking it. Does he sound as if he hates Hindu culture and deliberately wants to “insult Hindu sentiments”? Hitler was painted “naked” while the others are line drawing. Difference between “naked” and “nude” and a difference between an artistic genre and pornography. The virgin mary with the infant jesus have also been painted in the nude by many painters. Or is Hussein simply dissecting “baal ki khaaal” to save his skin. If he INTENDED to DELIBERATELY hurt any sentiments, why would he not dwell on it, especially now that the 90+ frail man is not within reach of the Shiv Sena? If you read the following experts from the interview, does it even remotely sound as if he intentionally set out to hurt any religious sentiments?
Excerpts from the interview, cut/paste:
“”What I said was that I have
painted my canvases – including those of gods and
goddesses- with deep love and conviction, and in
celebration. If in doing that, I have hurt
anyone’s feelings, I am sorry. That is all. I do
not love art less, I love humanity more. India is
a completely unique country. Liberal. Diverse.
There is nothing like it in the world. This mood
in the country is just a historical process. For
me, India means a celebration of life. You cannot
find that same quality anywhere in the world.
I always paint a Ganesha before I begin on any large work.
I also love the iconography of Shiva. The Nataraj
– one of the most complex forms in the world –
has evolved over thousands of years and, almost
like an Einstein equation, it is the result of
deep philosophical and mathematical calculations
about the nature of the cosmos and physical
reality. When my daughter, Raeesa wanted to get
married, she did not want any ceremonies, so I
drew a card announcing her marriage and sent it
to relatives across the world. On the card, I had
painted Parvati sitting on Shiva’s thigh, with
his hand on her breast – the first marriage in
the cosmos. Nudity, in Hindu culture, is a
metaphor for purity. Would I insult that which I
feel so close to? I come from the Suleimani
community, a sub-sect of the Shias, and we have
many affinities with Hindus, including the idea
of reincarnation. As cultures, it is Judaism and
Christianity that are emotionally more distant.
But it is impossible to discuss all this with
those who oppose me.
But I really began to study spiritual
texts when I was 19. Because of what I had been
through, because I lost my mother, because I was
sent away, I used to have terrible nightmares
when I was about 14 or 15. All of this stopped
when I was 19. I had a guru called Mohammad
Ishaq- I studied the holy texts with him for two
years. I also read and discussed the Gita and
Upanishads and Puranas with Mankeshwar, who had
become an ascetic by then. After he left for the
Himalayas, I carried on studying for years
afterwards. All this made me completely calm. I
have never had dreams or nightmares ever again.
Later, in Hyderabad, in 1968, Dr Ram Manohar
Lohia suggested I paint the Ramayana. I was
completely broke, but I painted 150 canvases over
eight years. I read both the Valmiki and Tulsidas
Ramayana (the first is much more sensual) and
invited priests from Benaras to clarify and
discuss the nuances with me.”
#148
Man Singh
URL
February 20, 2008
09:05 PM
BHAI COMMONSENSE,
I REALLY FEEL HE IS FAKING. MARY AND INFANT JESUS WERE PAINTED NUDE BY MANY PAINTERS BUT NEVER BY HUSSEIN.
HIS LOVE AND CONVICTION NEVER OVERPOWERED HIM WHILE PAINTING GHALIB FAIZ , HIS OWN MOTHER , MOHAMMED’S DAUGHTER AND MANY MORE MUSLIM CHARACTERS.
I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PASTE PICTURES IN THIS WEBSITE OTHERWISE I COILD HAVE GIVEN YOU A COMPARISON BETWEEN PAINTINGS OF RAJA RAVI VARMA AND HUSSEIN.
IF YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THAT PLEASE SHARE AND ENLIGHTEN ME. I HAVEW A VERY GOOD COMPARATIVE PICTURES.
#149
temporal
URL
February 20, 2008
09:31 PM
caps means someone is shouting
shouting means someone is angry
anger reflects loss of calm
loss of clam means skating on thin ice
#150
commonsense
February 20, 2008
10:54 PM
Man Singh Bhai,
You have made your point in caps. If you really think that this old man is faking it, there is little more to talk about this topic. I guess he was awarded the Padam Shree etc. due to an anti-Indian “secular lobby”. We agree to disagree on this point. I feel sorry for this incredible painter who did us proud. Too bad he was hounded out of his native land by folks who have not a clue what his art was all about and who have no appreciation of his complete identification with his sanskriti and maryada. Sad.
#151
commonsense
February 20, 2008
11:06 PM
Bhai Man Singh,
Thanks for showing everyone how petty some “art critics” are. It all has to do with intentions. If you really think that Hussein of all the people, was hostile to so-called Hindu sentiments intentionally so, it does not make sense why he would apologize, as opposed to heaping more abuse on his object of hate/vitriol. Why exactly would he be contrite? Well, one explanation would be that he had no idea that he was stepping on egg-shells. And when he realized that he was, he was full of sincere remorse. The only people circulating his so-called “hurt my sentiments” paintings, are the very people who want to attack him. He himself has withdrawn them form circulation, and no, they are not for sale anymore. Shame, is all that I can say, for this attack on someone we should be proud of. India is not a piece of real-estate owned by its self-apponinted thekedaars, be they religous, nationalists, whatever…
#152
Man Singh
URL
February 21, 2008
01:57 PM
Bhai Temp # 149
CAPS simply means a finger put on keyboard by mistake. `key’ was labeled as `Caps Lock’ *S*
What anger causes Lord Krishna describes the most brilliantly in Bhagwadgeeta Chapter 2 shloka 63
Krodhatbhavati sammoha sammohad smriti bhrama
smriti bhramad budhi nasho budhi nashat pranashyati.
(anger causes hysteria. Hysteria causes memory loss. memory loss damages intellect and once intellect is damaged a person is fully destroyed.)
let’s not jum to conclusions so easyly.
#153
Man Singh
URL
February 21, 2008
02:07 PM
Bhai Commonsense # 151
Apology is a drama.
India is definitely not a peace of real estate owned by thekedars.
It is nation which has three components ,ade of.
1. land
2. people
3. its culture
India have seen enough of abuse and assaults. Hope no more. Have pity commonsense bhai.
I feel right thinking people side with victims and not by attackers and invaders.
Visit Hussein’s official website and you will still find many offensive paintings for sale.
Bhai mere dacoits have many forms. Daaku, chor, thug, conmen.
They use different tactics but belongs to same family.
#154
commonsense
February 21, 2008
04:42 PM
Bhai Man Singh,
You are right, the Mother India painting is on his site.
However, I do feel that he was sincere in his apology and that his intentions were not to hurt anyone’s sentiments. He is so steeped in Indian culture in all its various and diverse forms. He does not believe that the paintings should hurt anyone, and in his interviews he clearly says that he did not have any such intentions. If he intended to hurt, he should gloat about it.
Interestingly enough, the mullahs are after him too…some mullah politician apparently has offered a huge reward to anyone who chops off his arm!
Let us agree to disagree about certain kinds of art critics!
Peace!
#155
temporal
URL
February 21, 2008
06:01 PM
#149 and #152:
for future reference:
anyone can make a mistake…so you did not look up in the box and hit the “publish” button….fine…
perhaps next time you can re type it and ask the editor to delete the earlier one?
#156
Morris
February 21, 2008
10:25 PM
I just wonder
Why Hussein should not paint what he wants to
Why Tasleema should not write what she wants to
Why the media should not publish Mohmmed’s cartoons.
Do people have a right not to be offended or protected against their feelings being hurt?
#157
ravi
February 22, 2008
10:34 AM
Morris
why you restricted yourself to these three points you can go further..like
Why we should respect our country, our national anthem, our national flag.
Why people in India feel offended when these three are insulted. Why it is crime if you hold the national flag up side down.
what’s wrong? Because we respect our country , we respect our national anthem and national flag, if anyone not follow the protocols we will feel it’s an insult.
In the same way people belongs to those religions respect mohammad, saraswathi and so on. That’s why they feel offended. Tell me why it is not good? why this much criticism on that issue, why not in the case i mentioned.
#158
Morris
February 22, 2008
01:05 PM
Ravi
Yes, of course you could go all the way unless parlament has expressly indicated otherwise. And how far legislators could go will be checked by the constituion.
Arbitrarily, banning a book or a painting depending on outcry does not make sense. I must admit I do not know how they do this.
#159
Man Singh
URL
February 22, 2008
06:06 PM
Bhai Commonsense #154
Mullas are after him for different reason. In True Islam even painting a living being is `Haraam’, Music is `haraam’. So they are after him only beacuse he paints living things.
I am not with him because he paints my symbols of respect in disrespectful manner.
As per his own words, he painted Hitler Nude to humiliate Hitler and condemn nazism and fascism. Upto it here its fine with me and all humans engaged in inhuman activities shoulkd be condemned.
But Mohammed Bin Qasim or mahmud of Gazani or Aurangjeb were no less inhuman then Hitler. Hussein never painted them nude.
He rather prefered Durga, saraswati, hanuman, Ganesh and Mother India nude. It naturally leads to the conclusion that he painted them nude to humiliate all of them along with hitler?
If he has apologised and promised not to repeat the mistake. Hope he will mend his ways n respect his apology.
#160
commonsense
February 22, 2008
06:28 PM
Man Singh,
Not really…
#161
Man Singh
URL
February 22, 2008
07:22 PM
Then?
#162
commonsense
February 22, 2008
09:19 PM
Then? Then we move on to other topics until I pin you down or vice versa. It is clear that our taste in art is quite different; which is just fine. I am not saying my taste is better than yours! Nor that yours is better than mine. Art is like food. One person’s poison is another person’s meat or vegetable!
padd$&��lfp��~�loat: left; width: 330px; overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: auto; border-top-width: 2px; border-top-color: rgb(95, 158, 160); “>
neusinger,
I do want to acknowledge your concern…! Not to worry my friend, but thanks for looking out for me!! Now I will relax, and smoke a Charminar cig!
#139
Gill
February 16, 2008
04:12 PM
CS
Nice work !!! Pls Keep exhibiting your moronic intellect. Its good amusement!!
But than again I feel sorry for you!!! I think this fetish “deconstructionist” ideology has really taken toll over your intellect. It is sad to see that your fetish for trying to “deconstruct” the world and its societies and play God and Prophet have pushed you to the point of lunatics. I really pray that you do get help to “deconstruct” your psychiatric disorder. And than maybe you will once again start talking “sense”
#140
commonsense
February 16, 2008
08:48 PM
Gill Sahib,
At your service sir, anytime. Free!
#141
commonsense
February 16, 2008
08:56 PM
Man Singh #131,
As far as I know (but I will acknowledge the limitations of my knowledge), M.F. Hussein has apologized for the paintings, said his intentions were not at all malicious, withdrawn the paintings from circulation and has left the country. What more should he be doing? Short of unpainting the paintings? Curious…
#142
commonsense
February 16, 2008
09:09 PM
Yaar Gill Sahab,
I was surprised to find that you are an expert of Derrida and deconstructionism. And even more to find out your full name! So your critique of mullahs is actually an auto-critique?
link: http://www.chowk.com/articles/8188
Jacques Derrida, Founder of Deconstruction, is Dead
Mohammad Gill November 12, 2004
Tags: science , scientist , tribute , orbituary
Jacques Derrida, Founder of Deconstruction, is Dead
By Mohammad Gill
The Algerian born French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, died of pancreatic cancer on Friday, October 8, 2004. He was 74 at the time of his death.
#143
commonsense
February 20, 2008
05:36 PM
Gill Sahab,
Do you have other articles on Deconstruction and Derrida?
#144
commonsense
February 20, 2008
05:37 PM
Gill Sahab,
Do you have other articles on Deconstruction and Derrida?
#145
commonsense
February 20, 2008
05:39 PM
Man Singh Bhai,
What do you propose M. F. Hussein should do? After his apology and leaving the country? Is there anything he could do to satisfy a particular community of “art critics”?
#146
Man Singh
URL
February 20, 2008
05:52 PM
Bhai Commonsense #145
apology is enough provided it is sincere and the person pledges in future not to commit the same crimes. he no need to leave the country in that case.
It is a like gang members of dacoits apologise for their past sins and show their desire to lead a normal life along with villagers they looted some time back.
Villagers are very civilised in general and accept the apology. Some responsibility goes even to dacoits also after that they should behave nicely and should abandon their habbit of looting and attacking.
Hussein on the other hand is selling his paintings (for whom you say he apologised and felt bad for..). You can visit his website and you can buy his painting on line. The same paintings in which he tried to insulted the nation.
I am not an art critic but have a commonsense (may be came from yourgoodness?). I can see the crookedness when he paints his own mother in full clothes and Moter India nude.
He paints Mohamed’s daughter in full clothes and Durga parvati and sarasvati in nude along with ganesha and Hanuman put in a very very offensive posture with them.
#147
commonsense
February 20, 2008
06:43 PM
Man Singh Bhai,
This is what the painter had to say in an interview with Shoma Chaudhury. He sounds extremely sincere to me. Do you think he is faking it. Does he sound as if he hates Hindu culture and deliberately wants to “insult Hindu sentiments”? Hitler was painted “naked” while the others are line drawing. Difference between “naked” and “nude” and a difference between an artistic genre and pornography. The virgin mary with the infant jesus have also been painted in the nude by many painters. Or is Hussein simply dissecting “baal ki khaaal” to save his skin. If he INTENDED to DELIBERATELY hurt any sentiments, why would he not dwell on it, especially now that the 90+ frail man is not within reach of the Shiv Sena? If you read the following experts from the interview, does it even remotely sound as if he intentionally set out to hurt any religious sentiments?
Excerpts from the interview, cut/paste:
“”What I said was that I have
painted my canvases – including those of gods and
goddesses- with deep love and conviction, and in
celebration. If in doing that, I have hurt
anyone’s feelings, I am sorry. That is all. I do
not love art less, I love humanity more. India is
a completely unique country. Liberal. Diverse.
There is nothing like it in the world. This mood
in the country is just a historical process. For
me, India means a celebration of life. You cannot
find that same quality anywhere in the world.
I always paint a Ganesha before I begin on any large work.
I also love the iconography of Shiva. The Nataraj
– one of the most complex forms in the world –
has evolved over thousands of years and, almost
like an Einstein equation, it is the result of
deep philosophical and mathematical calculations
about the nature of the cosmos and physical
reality. When my daughter, Raeesa wanted to get
married, she did not want any ceremonies, so I
drew a card announcing her marriage and sent it
to relatives across the world. On the card, I had
painted Parvati sitting on Shiva’s thigh, with
his hand on her breast – the first marriage in
the cosmos. Nudity, in Hindu culture, is a
metaphor for purity. Would I insult that which I
feel so close to? I come from the Suleimani
community, a sub-sect of the Shias, and we have
many affinities with Hindus, including the idea
of reincarnation. As cultures, it is Judaism and
Christianity that are emotionally more distant.
But it is impossible to discuss all this with
those who oppose me.
But I really began to study spiritual
texts when I was 19. Because of what I had been
through, because I lost my mother, because I was
sent away, I used to have terrible nightmares
when I was about 14 or 15. All of this stopped
when I was 19. I had a guru called Mohammad
Ishaq- I studied the holy texts with him for two
years. I also read and discussed the Gita and
Upanishads and Puranas with Mankeshwar, who had
become an ascetic by then. After he left for the
Himalayas, I carried on studying for years
afterwards. All this made me completely calm. I
have never had dreams or nightmares ever again.
Later, in Hyderabad, in 1968, Dr Ram Manohar
Lohia suggested I paint the Ramayana. I was
completely broke, but I painted 150 canvases over
eight years. I read both the Valmiki and Tulsidas
Ramayana (the first is much more sensual) and
invited priests from Benaras to clarify and
discuss the nuances with me.”
#148
Man Singh
URL
February 20, 2008
09:05 PM
BHAI COMMONSENSE,
I REALLY FEEL HE IS FAKING. MARY AND INFANT JESUS WERE PAINTED NUDE BY MANY PAINTERS BUT NEVER BY HUSSEIN.
HIS LOVE AND CONVICTION NEVER OVERPOWERED HIM WHILE PAINTING GHALIB FAIZ , HIS OWN MOTHER , MOHAMMED’S DAUGHTER AND MANY MORE MUSLIM CHARACTERS.
I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PASTE PICTURES IN THIS WEBSITE OTHERWISE I COILD HAVE GIVEN YOU A COMPARISON BETWEEN PAINTINGS OF RAJA RAVI VARMA AND HUSSEIN.
IF YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THAT PLEASE SHARE AND ENLIGHTEN ME. I HAVEW A VERY GOOD COMPARATIVE PICTURES.
#149
temporal
URL
February 20, 2008
09:31 PM
caps means someone is shouting
shouting means someone is angry
anger reflects loss of calm
loss of clam means skating on thin ice
#150
commonsense
February 20, 2008
10:54 PM
Man Singh Bhai,
You have made your point in caps. If you really think that this old man is faking it, there is little more to talk about this topic. I guess he was awarded the Padam Shree etc. due to an anti-Indian “secular lobby”. We agree to disagree on this point. I feel sorry for this incredible painter who did us proud. Too bad he was hounded out of his native land by folks who have not a clue what his art was all about and who have no appreciation of his complete identification with his sanskriti and maryada. Sad.
#151
commonsense
February 20, 2008
11:06 PM
Bhai Man Singh,
Thanks for showing everyone how petty some “art critics” are. It all has to do with intentions. If you really think that Hussein of all the people, was hostile to so-called Hindu sentiments intentionally so, it does not make sense why he would apologize, as opposed to heaping more abuse on his object of hate/vitriol. Why exactly would he be contrite? Well, one explanation would be that he had no idea that he was stepping on egg-shells. And when he realized that he was, he was full of sincere remorse. The only people circulating his so-called “hurt my sentiments” paintings, are the very people who want to attack him. He himself has withdrawn them form circulation, and no, they are not for sale anymore. Shame, is all that I can say, for this attack on someone we should be proud of. India is not a piece of real-estate owned by its self-apponinted thekedaars, be they religous, nationalists, whatever…
#152
Man Singh
URL
February 21, 2008
01:57 PM
Bhai Temp # 149
CAPS simply means a finger put on keyboard by mistake. `key’ was labeled as `Caps Lock’ *S*
What anger causes Lord Krishna describes the most brilliantly in Bhagwadgeeta Chapter 2 shloka 63
Krodhatbhavati sammoha sammohad smriti bhrama
smriti bhramad budhi nasho budhi nashat pranashyati.
(anger causes hysteria. Hysteria causes memory loss. memory loss damages intellect and once intellect is damaged a person is fully destroyed.)
let’s not jum to conclusions so easyly.
#153
Man Singh
URL
February 21, 2008
02:07 PM
Bhai Commonsense # 151
Apology is a drama.
India is definitely not a peace of real estate owned by thekedars.
It is nation which has three components ,ade of.
1. land
2. people
3. its culture
India have seen enough of abuse and assaults. Hope no more. Have pity commonsense bhai.
I feel right thinking people side with victims and not by attackers and invaders.
Visit Hussein’s official website and you will still find many offensive paintings for sale.
Bhai mere dacoits have many forms. Daaku, chor, thug, conmen.
They use different tactics but belongs to same family.
#154
commonsense
February 21, 2008
04:42 PM
Bhai Man Singh,
You are right, the Mother India painting is on his site.
However, I do feel that he was sincere in his apology and that his intentions were not to hurt anyone’s sentiments. He is so steeped in Indian culture in all its various and diverse forms. He does not believe that the paintings should hurt anyone, and in his interviews he clearly says that he did not have any such intentions. If he intended to hurt, he should gloat about it.
Interestingly enough, the mullahs are after him too…some mullah politician apparently has offered a huge reward to anyone who chops off his arm!
Let us agree to disagree about certain kinds of art critics!
Peace!
#155
temporal
URL
February 21, 2008
06:01 PM
#149 and #152:
for future reference:
anyone can make a mistake…so you did not look up in the box and hit the “publish” button….fine…
perhaps next time you can re type it and ask the editor to delete the earlier one?
#156
Morris
February 21, 2008
10:25 PM
I just wonder
Why Hussein should not paint what he wants to
Why Tasleema should not write what she wants to
Why the media should not publish Mohmmed’s cartoons.
Do people have a right not to be offended or protected against their feelings being hurt?
#157
ravi
February 22, 2008
10:34 AM
Morris
why you restricted yourself to these three points you can go further..like
Why we should respect our country, our national anthem, our national flag.
Why people in India feel offended when these three are insulted. Why it is crime if you hold the national flag up side down.
what’s wrong? Because we respect our country , we respect our national anthem and national flag, if anyone not follow the protocols we will feel it’s an insult.
In the same way people belongs to those religions respect mohammad, saraswathi and so on. That’s why they feel offended. Tell me why it is not good? why this much criticism on that issue, why not in the case i mentioned.
#158
Morris
February 22, 2008
01:05 PM
Ravi
Yes, of course you could go all the way unless parlament has expressly indicated otherwise. And how far legislators could go will be checked by the constituion.
Arbitrarily, banning a book or a painting depending on outcry does not make sense. I must admit I do not know how they do this.
#159
Man Singh
URL
February 22, 2008
06:06 PM
Bhai Commonsense #154
Mullas are after him for different reason. In True Islam even painting a living being is `Haraam’, Music is `haraam’. So they are after him only beacuse he paints living things.
I am not with him because he paints my symbols of respect in disrespectful manner.
As per his own words, he painted Hitler Nude to humiliate Hitler and condemn nazism and fascism. Upto it here its fine with me and all humans engaged in inhuman activities shoulkd be condemned.
But Mohammed Bin Qasim or mahmud of Gazani or Aurangjeb were no less inhuman then Hitler. Hussein never painted them nude.
He rather prefered Durga, saraswati, hanuman, Ganesh and Mother India nude. It naturally leads to the conclusion that he painted them nude to humiliate all of them along with hitler?
If he has apologised and promised not to repeat the mistake. Hope he will mend his ways n respect his apology.
#160
commonsense
February 22, 2008
06:28 PM
Man Singh,
Not really…
#161
Man Singh
URL
February 22, 2008
07:22 PM
Then?
#162
commonsense
February 22, 2008
09:19 PM
Then? Then we move on to other topics until I pin you down or vice versa. It is clear that our taste in art is quite different; which is just fine. I am not saying my taste is better than yours! Nor that yours is better than mine. Art is like food. One person’s poison is another person’s meat or vegetable!
Posted by Admin2 
HISTHINK! 