Bhagawan Budhha Namamyam.

[Guest guest]

Dear Learned Editor, kindly allow this long Post along with the attachment -db.

 

YES, Good day Dr. Anton Bjerke. Thank you very much for this contribution and Q.

 

If you or me were the Buddha, sitting in the Deer park, at Saranath, on date ..........6th B.C., in present day terms well the difference between us and the Jain guru in the hermitage beside (say 100mts to south) would be that of distinction as between a graduate student and a D.Litt. Now, we the graduates could at best have used the terms atma and No atma and few related diction at best. OK.

 

Point No. 1 - The entire gamut of Buddhist scholarship was absent on that date. It transpires only from the body of the Avadana lit./thought. Avadana means 'contributory'.

 

Point No. 2 - The Jainas and the Saiva Siddhantim are resoundingly clear that Brahma is Adi (primordial) and Anadi (endless Cosmos). Biological life is outside the canvass and the compass.

What is the name of the source of the lit./thought of the Jainas and the Saiva Siddhantim ? It is Bhasya (commentator).

 

Point No. 3 - What is/was the form and features of Adi and Anadi ? It was Narayana (form-less).

 

Now allow me to tell the forum (primarily assisted by your good question). In my earlier post i had said that the Nagas and the Siddhantims had wrought havoc on to the Buddhist. Then i raised a self Question and let it dangle - with suggestions to elicit more with mischievous intentions.

 

The fact is the Buddhist scholars started living a different life. They started worshipping Tathagat. No more was Tathagat projected as a Guru or even as peerless Saint, .........or as an avirbhava of Bhagaban. Tathagat's relics were projected as 'enough'. Specially the siddhantic concepts were taken and re-modeled. A living person in less then a millennia was made the God head and everything established by then times was being changed. The ordinary census was targeted under banner "dharma-pravartana" - state sponsored propulsion to faith. The new order was being sought as 'the religion'. Please read - you will note (Tripitaka & also probably in Mahanirdesa - etc., Buddhist testaments) that the file was being systematically being told to move away from the core of Hindu way of life i.e. adhatmikata near eqaul of 'spiritualism', while the rank was being used for 'dharma' propagation (pravartana) and conversion (privartana). The Buddha's sculpture were made showing him flashing the dharma-pravartana mudra. Spin doctors had their day undeterred. Buddhan saranam gachhami or Dharman saranam gachhami were not objectionable. These two maxims were much appreciated. It was the later coinage cum appendment 'Sangham saranam gacchami', that was very contrasting to adhatmik way of life. The Buddhists even had organised international conclaves cum conventions and therein had declared that theirs was a independent faith. Never never before or thereafter did this happen. Even Din-e-Elahi (Akbar) was way way short on these counts. Please examine afresh - if it is possible & feasible.

 

All this was cause Enough for all out revolt.

 

That is what had happened. The imperial Nagas led from the front, the scholarly Siddhantims sustained it for 1000yrs. It was adhatims vrs non adhatims. A big % of India's non Brahmin census are also of the naga and related gotras. Any siddhantim is a 100% Brahmana (non naga) of the highest order. The twu\ine formed an excellent couple.

 

(i) Had the Buddha been there (ii) had 50% of this been avoided......sustained, violent all out revolt would not have happened.

 

It is very very very difficult (almost impossible) for a born Hindu to be non adhatmik in some way or form. It will manifest.

 

The Mahayanis in particular were hugely successful in reversing the adhatmik way of life of the masses, en-mass. The speed and amplitude of success invited an reaction of equal and opposite order. Had the later Hinayanis and the Mahayanis done everything on low amplitude (as in China) - yet again there would have been no mass revolt.

 

What is the Anglo-Saxon equivalent term of atma ? Spirit ? But Adhatmikata is different.

 

The Buddha strikes the Bhusparsa mudra - a 100% adhatmik concept, ethos and pose. He was indeed adhatmik, the pose too. Which is why, he could convince the sadhus of Saranath.

 

The Avadanis (who came long after The Buddha) captioned almost everything with a adhatmik term, yet underlayed and inlayed it with non-adhatmikata.

 

One such example is the term Tathagat (thou thee art). Siva was all along Tathagat. It is same as Tat-Twam-Si Or asi of the Chandogya upanisada .............and its fore runners such as Badrayana's treaties ....backward to Vasya (Tathagat =Tat-Twam-Si = Sadasiva). The matters gels as, that what was Adi and Anadi was narayana and was also 'though the art' (tat-twam-si) alias Sadasiva (contineuos joy/fact) ...all of a sudden took on a human form as a neo Tathagat ! This neo member, a young celebate, was treated as a living entity (Jew) as alike a sectoral deity and also as a sovereign. He therefore could own fixed assets, wage war, arbitrate, impose taxes, collect revenue and convert faith !!

 

Again Siva is represented by the Bull, which in turn is related to the Constellation Taurus (alpha Aldebaran)....The Buddhists by and by used all these symbols to denote The Buddha.......on and on ....you can pile up a huge tome. It had in fact started with Asoka.

 

That what in all preceeding millenias was all along in the sky had come down to earth. One could touch and feel it. It was superb mint, albeit short on scholarship and even foresight ? The Puranas have termed it as 'Bhanda' - Counterfiet !

 

The mid path had bungled ? It was a time bomb. (The Buddha had himself set it. This is why i have initially adduced the example of Graduate -vrs - D.Litt). No way one could have avoided it.

 

Till date - Brahmo cannot own any property. He as yet remains in the sky. If you very closely examine the temple structure and practice ---say for example Gaya dham, or Sri Jagannath's dham which is the Apex, the gifts are given by the jajman (giver) to the purohita (intermediary) the reciepient is the Devastham (instituiton), the evidencer is the God/Jew and even in/for perpetuity. It is the instituiton that owns the assests. The Purohita and his niyoga manage the institution. Although the Govt. has taken over, yet the ancient signatures survive as underlying practices. Unfortunately because of your birth you cannot go into these heritage sites or else i would have shown you at least some of this. (Firming an opinion by mastering the texts without experiencing the experiment - has some innate disadvantages).

 

From the perspective of the siddhantim the 'mid path'...... is infractuous, bogus and void. This is well rehearsed statement because it is time and historically validated view point.

 

What are the Paths then ? That too has been settled once for all.

 

Please refer the Gayan - The Gita

(see clipped doc. for a related take on the issue).

 

Hypothetically, can a non Hindu take to any of the paths enunciated therein ? Yes, indeed. Why ? because, there are no bar nor any disqualification criteria whatsoever. Again why ? because the path to Narayana (as herein above) is open to all. The set of requirments are 'suggestions'. They are entirely different (again refer the Gayan). There is no talk about God head or Behavorial or Moral science (compare with Tripitaks, Bible, Koran, etc.). But why ? because, dispassionate body & mind status while in human life form on earth leading to disassociation with planet Earth and assimilation with Narayana is the sole objective. This is the ultimate scholarship. It is light yrs away from that of the Buddha's or possibly even any other.

 

Now, let us imagin that you are a warrior and me are an cobbler cum iron-smith. We are boyhood friends. You kill people and me kills animals to make military hardware and assist human slaughter. We are wandering, with elbow to elbow. Instead of we chancing upon Lord Krishna (black body), because we are atheist and neither are on the lookout for any divinity, it is Krishna who chances upon us. Hello Black body ! (we yell) if you be God indeed, can you then tell us which is the best path for sojourn through human form of life or for a person ? We in our view hold firm, that as compared to us, Krishna is illiterate in English, which he accepts, and in reply to our query, utters " ...@#$%@!*~) & *^%+_@$3-$ ..." in Sanskrit. We don not follow. We tell him, OK can you be kind enough to give a print out ? He does. We two go off to Heidelberg, Munich, Oxford & Cambridge and get an unbaised authentic translation, the average of which is "...........see Act-I, scene -II...", (in the clipped item).

 

All that and those posit as competitor to this, will (relatively) fail.

 

If we come to such conclusion then No Hindu can stop us from attaining assimilation with Brahmo. Hence no bar for any one. Hence it is very very different from all inventor-invented faiths or innovator-innovated faiths. The Hindu way of life is neither invented not innovated. It was there and continues. The Buddha's fail also on this count. There are numerous infractions, which is why, under the close glare of the Hindu kinematics the Buddha's exhausted and expired.

 

In tradition of my forefathers 10 to the power minus 100+, this is a vsya.

 

With warm Regards to You and to all

 

Dr. Deepak Bhattacharya

Bhubaneswar-2, Orissa

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

 

-

Anton Bjerke

Sunday, November 23, 2008 6:18 AM

Re: The Buddha and Hindu Way of Life

 

 

Dear Dr. Deepak,I think one should bear in mind that we speak of different teachings (bauddhadharma, sankhya, jain etc.) that happen to co-exist inside a common culture (which may be called Hindu or just Indian, perhaps?). That does not mean that these teachings necessarily share the same views, which you all know very well. Shared cultural traits are often not significant to the content of the teaching. Though there are always connections between culture and the teachings that evolve on the basis of it, that does not mean that the teachings are bound to that single culture. As you know bauddhadharma has been spread to practically all continents, and been perfectly adopted to very different cultures - still remaining bauddhadharma. The important is the message, the teaching, and not the cultural "package". It is common knowledge that among the Indian teachings e.g. the Sankhya and the Bauddhadharma are a-theist in a sense that differs them quite radically from other Indian philosophic theachings. Buddha says that there is no higher being that is the creator of the universe - he says that even Brahma is a sansaric being, that also is subdued by the law of Karma, and thus can not be the object of refuge. Refuge can only be taken in the Teaching that takes one out of the cyclic existence, in the Awakened one that gives the teaching, and in the noble Community that supports the teaching. Everything existing - even the highest being, the Brahma - is anatman (Pali 'anatta'), lacks an intrinsic Self, and is impermanent. These, I guess, are the main points that speparate the Bauddhadharma ("anatmanic") from other Indian philosophic views ("atmanic"). This is my humble view and my limited understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism.Respectfully,Anton BjerkeODDISILAB skrev:

 

 

Yes Yes indeed. Dr. SKB is on mark. The Buddha indeed had high regard for the Vedas.

 

As per record the Buddha never said even anything remotely to suggest that he was expounding anything Non-Hindu or away from Hindu (thought) or any thing alike or unlike.

 

During his time there were 2 paths -

(i) penance - inspiration personified by Digambars. Saranath is the 11th incarnation place of 11th lord jaina mahavira and there was his asrama and students/followers

(ii) hi-fi scholarship - inspiration picked up from the Saiva Sidhantims.

 

Both required a life style non-burdened with family (much as alike the Nobel Laureats of c.19 to 21st).

 

The Buddha espoused a middle path ~

(iii) realistic thought & life style. A new coinage, innovation and not an Invention. He did not force any to switch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Buddha's bodily remains were burnt ? If Yes, How non Hindu ?

 

Worshipping rodents and dogs and skull is also Hindu as much is Brahmo samaja (albeit there are reasons - we need not get into that here). How come a 'middle path' be extra Hindu, when it is innovated and articulated by a 100% native Hindu of original stock (the Buddha)?

 

 

 

 

 

The Jaina Mahaprabhus (apostels) say 'do not harm the snake'. The Buddha meant 'do not worship it', Rest of the Hindus did anything between killing, trapping for joy- & -play, or worship. Non were non Hindus.

 

But come c. 2nd B.C., and again c.7th A.D., Nagas and Siddhantims (both are non icon worshippers) respectively had wrought havoc to Buddhist heritage. WHY ?

 

Socio -Economic- Political factors transpiring out of size and prosperity of faith-sect - Niyogas ?

 

Was the Buddha ever declared as Non-Hindu or as an Out-Cast by any one ?

 

 

Please belt out Hard facts ....(specially to the contrary - if you know).

 

Hence, Regards to all.

 

Dr. db.

 

 

-

Sunil Bhattacharjya

Friday, November 21, 2008 11:05 PM

Re: Fwd: [ind-Arch] The Yavana Presence ....

Dear Khandavalliji,I just want to add that Lord Buddha was trained in Sankhya by his guru Alara Kalama. Sankhya says that existence of God cannot be proved and for this very reason Sankhya and the teachings of Buddha are Godless but not atheistic. Lord Buddha believed that there is ''Cause'' for this world in a Cause-Effect relationship, which is a Sankhya approach. After six years of Tapashya he found that there is ultimately no separateness in this world and that is how he could explain that finally there will not remain separate freed souls but all in a non-separate state.Further Lord Buddha had high regard for the Vedas as he said that one should understand the true meaning of the Vedas.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya