is buddhism, jainism.......

[vinay]

can we say that buddhism, jainism are a part of hinduism or r they considered to be two different religions?

is it true that these two religions are atheist religions, since they do not have a belief in the supreme being.

 

[shvu]

 

No, they are not part of Hinduism and they are atheistic.

 

Cheers

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by vinay:

can we say that buddhism, jainism are a part of hinduism or r they considered to be two different religions?

is it true that these two religions are atheist religions, since they do not have a belief in the supreme being.

In Buddhism there is the concept of the “anatma” the “no-self”; there is neither a single eternal metaphysical principle nor a multiplicity of such.

[vinay]

Buddha is considered to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu! Then how is it that Buddhism is not considered to be a part of Hinduism/

[vinay]

if it was for the hindus to claim that buddha was an avatar so that they can say that buddhism is an offshoot of hinduism, then they could have said the same about the other religions, which they dont. they could have claimed that jesus too was an incarnation, and therfore christianity is an offshoot of hinduism! but they never did!

[shvu]

 

if it was for the hindus to claim that buddha was an avatar so that they can say that buddhism is an offshoot of hinduism, then they could have said the same about the other religions, which they dont. they could have claimed that jesus too was an incarnation, and therfore christianity is an offshoot of hinduism! but they never did!

Unlike Buddhism, Christianity was never a serious force in India to pose a threat to Hinduism. Neither was Jainism, for otherwise Mahavira would also have probably ended up becoming an avatar of Vishnu.

 

Cheers

 

 

[shvu]

The Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India

Author: Kanai Lal Hazra. Published: 1995

ISBN : 8121506514

Publishers : Motilal Banarsidas

 

A good book for those interested in the history of Buddhism.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Buddhism was ever a popular religion of the masses in India. If that were the case, there should have been many literature to support such a claim. But, even in an ancient language like Tamil, we can just come across a couple of Buddhist literature.

 

Compare this with Sri Lanka. There is a strong Jataka tradition to show that Buddhism was the religion of the masses there.

 

Of course, I am not sure that Siddhartha Gautama is an avatar of Vishnu. Even SG talks of many Buddhas before him. There are some Vaishnava schools that consider SG as an avatar of Vishnu and some don't. This could be a different thread in itself, so I won't digress. Unless other members want me to dwell into this.

 

'Hinduisation' of Buddhism was rather done by the Buddhists themselves than by the Hindus. The first schisms started in Buddhism right after SG, whose purported date is around 600 B.C., but there is absoutely no concrete evidence to prove it. Till 250 BC, Buddhism was as much an oral tradition in India as was Hinduism. From then on and through the Kushan council, Buddha was made into a deity and many Hindu aspects were introduced. We can see this even from the Therevada recenssions of Thailand.

 

And the whole story of Buddhism being a dominant religion was a myth floated by the Jesuit priests of the past 500 years, keeping in line with the declarations of the 15th ecumenical concil in Venice in 1312. So, let us not take them without demanding proof thereof. It is not necessary that Shvu agree with ISKCON, but an intelligent person like him should not blindly accept the fabrications of Jesuits, especially when there is irrefutable evidence to show that they had malafide intentions.

 

 

[shvu]

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Buddhism was ever a popular religion of the masses in India. If that were the case, there should have been many literature to support such a claim.

There is plenty of Buddhist literature in Pali. Buddhism was certainly a prominent force during that time for it was promoted very strongly by Ashoka, who during his time was ruling the major part of India. I cannot give you the specifics now, because I don't have my books at hand. Of course, it was never as prominent as Hinduism, though.

 

Of course, I am not sure that Siddhartha Gautama is an avatar of Vishnu.

All the biographies of the Buddha give a different birth place from that of the Bhagavatam and the name of his mother is also different. Assuming for argument's sake that the Bhagavatam was existant before the Buddha, who decided Sidharta was the Buddha predicted in the SB and on what basis? There is nothing in that verse to show Siddharta was the predicted Buddha.

Even SG talks of many Buddhas before him.

If we take the meaning of the name, it is not surprising that he acknowledged other people before him had discovered the truth.

 

'Hinduisation' of Buddhism was rather done by the Buddhists themselves than by the Hindus.

They initially worshipped the places where the Buddha had visited. Then they worshipped symbols and later on Idol worship began in India both in Buddhism and Hinduism. But the Buddhists never claimed avatarship for the Buddha. That was exclusively done by the Hindus, for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

The first schisms started in Buddhism right after SG, whose purported date is around 600 B.C., but there is absoutely no concrete evidence to prove it.

One evidence to arrive at his date, is Ashoka's inscriptions say, his coronation was separated by the Buddha's death by a period of 280 [approx] years, which is how the 600 BC date was fixed. Again, I have to go back to my books for specific details.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-11-2001).]

[karthik_v]

There is plenty of Buddhist literature in Pali. Buddhism was certainly a prominent force during that time for it was promoted very strongly by Ashoka, who during his time was ruling the major part of India. I cannot give you the specifics now, because I don't have my books at hand. Of course, it was never as prominent as Hinduism, though.

Pali and Avadhi are the only prakrits in which you find any of the ancient works of Buddhism. Since Ashoka ruled much part of India, you would have expected literary works in Tamil as well. But there are just two. Even if we assume that during the time of Ashoka, Buddhism was dominant, since there are no works produced afterwords, in other languages, we cannot assume that it was prominent after wards. There is no hagiographic evidence that it was the religion of the masses even during Ashoka's reign. All we can say certainly is that, it was the religion of the elite, during Ashoka's reign.

 

 

All the biographies of the Buddha give a different birth place from that of the Bhagavatam and the name of his mother is also different. Assuming for argument's sake that the Bhagavatam was existant before the Buddha, who decided Sidharta was the Buddha predicted in the SB and on what basis? There is nothing in that verse to show Siddharta was the predicted Buddha.

That is why I said that I am not sure SG is the Buddha mentioned in SB. Also, another important point to note is that Adi Sankaracharya makes no mention of SB, though he mentions Vishnu Purana. It sounds a little unnatural to me that he would ignore a major treatise like SB. Let us also remember that not all Vaishnava schools accept SG as an avatar.

 

If we take the meaning of the name, it is not surprising that he acknowledged other people before him had discovered the truth.

I would assumed so, but for another interesting reference from Mahavira where he states that there have been 23 tirthankaras before him. So, how do we know whether Buddha was talking of a lineage or in terms of phrase?

 

They initially worshipped the places where the Buddha had visited. Then they worshipped symbols and later on Idol worship began in India both in Buddhism and Hinduism. But the Buddhists never claimed avatarship for the Buddha. That was exclusively done by the Hindus, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Again no hagiographic evidence to support this claim. Your logic hinges on the assumption that Buddhism was once the religion of the masses. If that assumption has no basis or is wrong, then the logic falls flat. Interestingly, all theories of Buddhism being dominant were floated after Ashoka's inscriptions were discovered. But, Ashok himself doesn't claim so. He just states that he made efforts to spread Buddhism. And since Ashoka signed treatises with southern kings, we would expect some reference from their inscriptions to this regard. But, we find none. So, it just seems to be a hypothesis without strong footing.

 

 

One evidence to arrive at his date, is Ashoka's inscriptions say, his coronation was separated by the Buddha's death by a period of 280 [approx] years, which is how the 600 BC date was fixed. Again, I have to go back to my books for specific details.

Ashoka's inscriptions repeat the recordings from the times of Ajathashatru, who was a contemporary of Buddha. But, here also it is not clear as to which Buddha is being referred to, for elsewhere Ajahashatru himself, after his conversation wth Buddha at Vaishali, glorifies him as the "greatest of the Buddhas". So, there is ambiguity here. It could mean 2 things. One, AS was the contemporary of SG. Two, he was a contemporary of another Buddha.

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Pali and Avadhi are the only prakrits in which you find any of the ancient works of Buddhism. Since Ashoka ruled much part of India, you would have expected literary works in Tamil as well.

 

Perhaps I was not clear. I never said Buddhism was a dominant religion in India at any time or a religion of the masses. During the time of Ashoka, due to his missonary efforts, Buddhism started to spread rapidly in India. The present form of Hinduism [with Idol worship, temples, etc] is believed to have been the result of the retaliation of the Brahmanas against spreading Buddhism. Probably their efforts worked out, which is why Buddhism did not grow in India like it did in other countries.

 

That is why I said that I am not sure SG is the Buddha mentioned in SB. Also, another important point to note is that Adi Sankaracharya makes no mention of SB, though he mentions Vishnu Purana. It sounds a little unnatural to me that he would ignore a major treatise like SB. Let us also remember that not all Vaishnava schools accept SG as an avatar.

The Vishnu Purana also mentions the Buddha as an avatar. But I have no idea what the description is. But there definitely was a Bhagavatam before the time of Shankara. Winternitz, Hazra et al., are unanimously agreed that the Puranas we read today are not what they originally were. Most of their contents have been replaced by interpolaters over the years. Probably Shankara was aware of this during his time.

 

I would assumed so, but for another interesting reference from Mahavira where he states that there have been 23 tirthankaras before him. So, how do we know whether Buddha was talking of a lineage or in terms of phrase?

We don't.

 

Ashoka's inscriptions repeat the recordings from the times of Ajathashatru, who was a contemporary of Buddha. But, here also it is not clear as to which Buddha is being referred to, for elsewhere Ajahashatru himself, after his conversation wth Buddha at Vaishali, glorifies him as the "greatest of the Buddhas". So, there is ambiguity here. It could mean 2 things. One, AS was the contemporary of SG. Two, he was a contemporary of another Buddha.

Or perhaps, they used the term Buddha to mean a realized person in general. I am more inclined to think the term Buddha, when used as a name refers to the founder of Buddhism, although I could be wrong.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-11-2001).]

[karthik_v]

The present form of Hinduism [with Idol worship, temples, etc] is believed to have been the result of the retaliation of the Brahmanas against spreading Buddhism.

Again, there is no hagiographic evidence to support this. We do know from very ancient Tamil literature that there was polytheism and temples. So, I would reject these European missionary floated theories, unless evidence to the contrary is presented. No western historian of the 19th century ever suggested that Christianity is a reaction to Mithraism and was a natural evolution, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence for Jesus and even internal evidence from NT and OT seem to discount the possibility of Jesus having ever existed. But, they did fabricate such grand theories for Hinduism, tough.

 

The Vishnu Purana also mentions the Buddha as an avatar. But I have no idea what the description is. But there definitely was a Bhagavatam before the time of Shankara. Winternitz, Hazra et al., are unanimously agreed that the Puranas we read today are not what they originally were. Most of their contents have been replaced by interpolaters over the years. Probably Shankara was aware of this during his time.

I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the information. But how do you say that Sankara was aware of SB? I thought he never mentioned about it, though he speaks of VP. Is there any mention?

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

There is absolutely no reason to believe that Buddhism was ever a popular religion of the masses in India. If that were the case, there should have been many literature to support such a claim. But, even in an ancient language like Tamil, we can just come across a couple of Buddhist literature.

 

 

This is quite bizarre reasoning.

In ancient India, Sanskrit was the predominant scriptural vehicle

of Hinduism

and

Pali was the predominant scriptural vehicle

of Buddhism.

 

1.There is no need to speculate

that the absence of <u>ancient</u> Buddhist texts

in Tamil means the absence of Buddhism in <u>ancient</u> Tamil Nadu.

Nor is there a need to speculate

that the the absence of <u>ancient</u> Hindu texts in Tamil means the absence of Hinduism in <u>ancient</u> Tamil Nadu.

 

(In the ancient period under consideration here

I know of no significant Hindu texts in Tamil.)

 

2. Buddhism had its peak of royal patronage

under the Mauryan emperor Ashoka (c268 BC - 233 BC). Ashoka's reign represented the peak of the Mauryan Empire and even during his reign <u>Kerala and Tamil Nadu were not included</u> in the empire.

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-11-2001).]

[karthik_v]

This is quite bizarre reasoning.

In ancient India, Sanskrit was the predominant scriptural vehicle

of Hinduism and Pali was the predominant scriptural vehicle of Buddhism.

First of all Pali was just one of the many prakrits; not a language as many believe.

 

There is no need to speculate that the absence of ancient Buddhist texts in Tamil means the absence of Buddhism in ancient Tamil Nadu. Nor is there a need to speculate that the the absence of ancient Hindu texts in Tamil means the absence of Hinduism in ancient Tamil Nadu.

If Buddhism had ever been the religion of the masses for any considerable period of time, there would have been poems and literature. Indians, Tamils in particular, always produced a lot of literature. So, the absence of such literature as well as any folklore, art form or oral tradition would indicate that Buddhism was never a religion of the masses. And if someone says that Buddhism was the religion of the masses, then it is he who should produce any evidence.

 

(In the ancient period under consideration here

I know of no significant Hindu texts in Tamil.)

There is so much of devotional literature from Sangam age. And Thirumular, a contemporary of Patanjali (Naganata was the guru of both) wrote Thirumandiram around the same Sangam age. And Thirukkural was written at the same time. Of course, there are some who claim, erroneously that Thirukkural is a Jain text.

 

Buddhism had its peak of royal patronage under the Mauryan emperor Ashoka (c268 BC - 233 BC). Ashoka's reign represented the peak of the Mauryan Empire and even during his reign Kerala and Tamil Nadu were not included in the empire.

That was because those states signed treaties with him. But, he did send his emissaries to their court. For example, Ilango, brother of Cheran Senguttuvan, himself was a Buddhist monk and poet and wrote Manimekalai. So, there is enough evidence that Buddhism was at elite level in Tamilnadu, Kerala also. But the fact that it never produced much literary work, oral tradition etc. shows that it never was the religion of the masses.

 

 

[shvu]

Again, there is no hagiographic evidence to support this. We do know from very ancient Tamil literature that there was polytheism and temples.

How old is this tamil literature? History dates all non-vedic literature as having come after the birth of Buddhism and Jainism. This is because the Bauddha and Jaina literature refute all the major systems of their time, where there is no indication of Hinduism as we know it today. It was the end of the Upanishad era, and these non-vedic systems (68 or so of them) reject the Vedas. it appears the Brahmanas had amassed a lot of power and this didn't go well with a lot of people. I can provide more info, soon as I can find some of my books.

 

Thus the Mahabharata, Ramayana are dated to 300 BC and later. Interestingly, the Mahabharata is older than the Ramayana, and both texts were continuously evolving for a long time. The Vishnu Purana [400 AD or earlier] is faithful to the Mahabharata wrt it's content unlike the Bhagavatam, which digresses considerably.

 

I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the information. But how do you say that Sankara was aware of SB? I thought he never mentioned about it, though he speaks of VP. Is there any mention?

No, Shankara does not quote the SB anywhere. But the VP lists all the 18 Mahapuranas. So unless we conclude that the VP was interpolated after the time of Shankara, it will mean all the 18 Puranas [in whatever form] were existant before his time. It is believed, the SB reached it's present form sometime during 700 AD - 1000 AD.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

Buddha is considered to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu! Then how is it that Buddhism is not considered to be a part of Hinduism

 

Good question.

 

It is what the Buddhists say about Buddhism that matters and not what Hindus say about Buddhism. As far as the Buddhist is concerned, there is no Vishnu and hence such a claim has no meaning. So, the hindus claiming the Buddha was an avatar, means nothing.

 

Buddhism was spreading widely due to missionary activites. The lower classes of Hinduism were attracted to Buddhism where everyone was equal, unlike in Hinduism. As a retaliatory effort to discourage conversion, the Brahmanas came out with the concept of Avatars and said the Buddha was also an avatar of Vishnu, trying to project that Buddhism was just an offshoot of Hinduism.

 

To clarify: The above is from history books. Traditionally, there is a different story. (Vishnu came down as the Buddha to mislead atheists, etc, etc. It was for a specific time and circumstance only. Later on, other avatars came down to set things right and so on...) I would give you more details, but this story sounds so unconvincing to me, I cannot. Perhaps someone else who is interested can give you the full story.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-11-2001).]

[vinay]

which is then the ninth avatar of lord vishnu. i have heard that the 9th avatar is that of buddha. similarly i have heard that the 9th avatar is balarama, the elder brother of krishna! which is the correct one?

[Avinash]

Vinay,

The answer to your question depends on which incarnations we are considering.

[karthik_v]

"talasiga: It appears that you are displaying your ignorance through false erudition. In the linguistic context "Prakrit" means any ancient natural language of India co-existing with Sanskrit and derived from it. This is how it was in the early 1970's when I studied linguistics. Even the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives a similar meaning.

 

Perhaps, I wasn't clear in expression. Ashoka's inscriptions are not in Pali alone but Avadhi as well. So, the inscriptions are in many Prakrits.

 

(While you are at it, you may also check up on your misuse of the word "hagiographic" in an earlier post).

 

Webster defines Hagiography as folows:

 

"HAGIOG'RAPHY, n. [Gr. holy, and a writing.]

 

Sacred writings. The Jews divide the books of the Scriptures into three parts; the Law, which is contained in the five first books of the Old Testament; the Prophets, or Nevim; and the Cetuvim, or writings, by way of eminence. The latter class is called by the Greeks Hagiographa, comprehending the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, Chronicles, Canticles, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes."

 

And now where was I using it? In this context:

--------------------------------

The present form of Hinduism [with Idol worship, temples, etc] is believed to have been the result of the retaliation of the Brahmanas against spreading Buddhism.

 

Again, there is no hagiographic evidence to support this.

--------------------------------

 

Could our erudite Talasiga, who often writes verses of great insignificance and banality, point out what is wrong with this usage? If you had sacred writings to support the hypothesis, then I am wrong in usage. Since no sacred writing exists, would Talasiga care to explain his stance?

 

talasiga: The "Sangam age" (from circa 1- 3 rd centuries AFTER CHRIST) is hardly the period under discussion.

 

Which Sangam age are you talking about? Looks like you have become an authority on Sangam literature by typing a few words to that effect in google and reading up on some Cornwallis funded 'study' by European missionaries of 18th and 19th ceturies. BTW, I am amused at the way you are using 'After Christ', as if he were a historical reality that existed!

 

Can you show me any Tamil Hindu writings from the BC period. Even before Siddhartha's appearance in Northern India. No !

Accordingly, your logic would have it that, therefore, Hinduism wasn't widespread. Inane !

 

From the BC period? Sure. If you can read ancient Tamil, read up on Thirumular's works or Thiruvalluvar's. Or Avvaiyar's (the first one). Kakkaipadiniyar is not bad either. And their period? All know that they existed way before Sangam ages, but, dating is next to impossible when the traditions have been oral and not written. But the references to Chera kings and later discoveries of inscriptions from Irumporai era suggest that they existed certainly befor Siddhartha Gautama.

 

talasiga: Once again, in the context of the fact that the scriptural vehicle for Buddhism was predominantly the Pali language, the evidence of Tamil Buddhist texts (their existence or non-existence) is not critical to an assessment of the the permeation of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu.

Barring the time of Ashoka and a century after Kushan council, when many Sanskrit works on Mahayana were written, were are any other Buddhist works produced even in other parts of country? They were few and far between. And Hindu works were many in number. So, it is not a question about Tamilnadu alone, but the whole of India. In TN, during the haydays of royal patronage, 2 Buddhist works resulted,clearly suggesting that it was at best an elitist religion for a short period. We don't come across one piece written in Karnataka or Andhra either in Telugu or Kannada or Pali or Sanskrit, though we find many Hindu works have resulted and also translated from Sanskrit. How about Maharashtra or Orissa? Where is the sign that Buddhism was a mass religion? Not a sign that it was a mass religion. Because, mass religions like Shaivism and later Vaishnavism produced many devotional literature in Tamil.

May be Buddhism was a mass religion all over India, in the hallucinated mind of 'erudite' Talasiga and in the minds of hate-filled European missionaries whose writings he has absorbed without demanding a shred of evidence!

[talasiga]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

First of all Pali was just one of the many prakrits; not a language as many believe.

 

 

talasiga: It appears that you are displaying your ignorance through false erudition. In the linguistic context "Prakrit" means any ancient natural language of India co-existing with Sanskrit and derived from it. This is how it was in the early 1970's when I studied linguistics. Even the Concise Oxford Dictionary gives a similar meaning.

karthik: Perhaps, I wasn't clear in expression. Ashoka's inscriptions are not in Pali alone but Avadhi as well. So, the inscriptions are in many Prakrits.

talasiga: Sorry ! Your expression "First of all Pali was just one of the many prakrits; not a language as many believe", was quite clear as any reader will see and clearly demonstrated your misunderstanding of the nexus between Pali, Prakrit and language.

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by talasiga:

In ancient India, Sanskrit was the predominant scriptural vehicle

of Hinduism

and

Pali was the predominant scriptural vehicle

of Buddhism.

 

 

karthik: Ashoka's inscriptions are not in Pali alone but Avadhi as well. So, the inscriptions are in many Prakrits.

talasiga: DING DING DING A LING A LING ! Wakey wakey !

1. royal inscriptions on stone pillars do not constitute the substantial SCRIPTURAL record of a faith which is the subject here.

2. As Ashoka did not rule Tamil Nadu, it is hardly likely one would find his inscriptions there ! (not that this point is really relevant in the light of point 1).

 

 

[karthik_v]

talasiga:Sorry ! Your expression "First of all Pali was just one of the many prakrits; not a language as many believe", was quite clear as any reader will see and clearly demonstrated your misunderstanding of the nexus between Pali, Prakrit and language.

Why are just stuck on that 'erudite' Talasiga? Even if I am wrong on that, still the point of discussion is that Buddhism was not a religion of the masses. Are you sticking to semantics because you don't have an answer to my other points. Are you sticking to semantics because I exposed your ignorance of ancient Tamil literature?

 

Let us assume that you crucified me on that point. Now that I have resurrected, come back and fight the duel. I have given you enough reasons to fight some.

 

 

[karthik_v]

1. royal inscriptions on stone pillars do not constitute the substantial SCRIPTURAL record of a faith which is the subject here.

2. As Ashoka did not rule Tamil Nadu, it is hardly likely one would find his inscriptions there ! (not that this point is really relevant in the light of point 1).

 

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

 

[talasiga]

<U>HAGIOGRAPHY</U>

 

karthik: Webster defines Hagiography as folows:

 

"HAGIOG'RAPHY, n. [Gr. holy, and a writing.]

 

Sacred writings. The Jews divide the books of the Scriptures into three parts; the Law, which is contained in the five first books of the Old Testament; the Prophets, or Nevim; and the Cetuvim, or writings, by way of eminence. The latter class is called by the Greeks Hagiographa, comprehending the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ruth, Esther, Chronicles, Canticles, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes."

 

And now where was I using it? In this context:

--------------------------------

 

 

quote:

--

The present form of Hinduism [with Idol worship, temples, etc] is believed to have been the result of the retaliation of the Brahmanas against spreading Buddhism.

--

 

Again, there is no hagiographic evidence to support this.

--------------------------------

 

talasiga:

The standard and precise usage of "hagiography" is to denote <u>writings about saints</u>. Please see Concise Oxford Dictionary. The meaning that you have given is covered in Oxford by the word "Hagiographa" meaning the 12 books of the Hebrew Scriptures not included under the Law and Prophets groupings.

 

If you meant "sacred writing" it might have been better if you had said so.

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Could our erudite Talasiga, who often writes verses of great insignificance and banality ......

 

Your very honest comments about my poetry

are not relevant to this thread.

Gauracandra had kindly started a thread

called "Talasiga's poetry".

I would be most gratified if you were to post your comments there

OR

as and when and where you read the verses

(ie on the thread that the verses appear).

 

On the other hand,

if you are just trying to hurt my feelings,

it may be best to simply ignore any of my

poems which seem to be heartfelt.

This way you can hurt me directly

without stooping to insults.