• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Turn to Buddha's ideals

Status
Not open for further replies.

kudumi

Active member
Surprice---- I did not say that.
It was in fact by the great politician Anbazhagan.

What grabbed my attention was this part of the item:"Anbazhagan said Buddhism was not a religion but was preached as a way of life to emancipate the exploited class in the country.


Buddhism and Jainism were followed by Tamils in the Sangam age, he said and the idols of Buddha were found in many places in the state. The state government would take steps to collect and excavate all the Buddha idols, he said.

Buddhism was a progressive and humane ideology, which was destroyed by the followers of Vedic religion who wanted to protect casteism and enslave others, he said.
"Whoever struggles for humanism, a ray of Buddhist light is seen in their ideology. This is the reason why Buddha's ideals were accepted by social reformers like E V R Periyar and Ambedkar", he said."


Here are my questions.
1. Why are these guys interested in buddhism all of a sudden? Why is this new found love for buddha?
I think there might be a sizeable chunk of buddhist in Tamilnadu so that their votes are now secure.

2. I also question the vedic religion's impact on buddhism. How much of it is true?

Please read the entire article at http://www.chennaionline.com/colnew...4C-98DA-076E6F64221F}&CATEGORYNAME=Tamil+Nadu



 

NARAS

Well-known member
Buddhism - Embodiment Of Rational Hypocrisy!!!

Surprice---- I did not say that.
It was in fact by the great politician Anbazhagan.

What grabbed my attention was this part of the item:"Anbazhagan said Buddhism was not a religion but was preached as a way of life to emancipate the exploited class in the country.


Buddhism and Jainism were followed by Tamils in the Sangam age, he said and the idols of Buddha were found in many places in the state. The state government would take steps to collect and excavate all the Buddha idols, he said.

Buddhism was a progressive and humane ideology, which was destroyed by the followers of Vedic religion who wanted to protect casteism and enslave others, he said.
"Whoever struggles for humanism, a ray of Buddhist light is seen in their ideology. This is the reason why Buddha's ideals were accepted by social reformers like E V R Periyar and Ambedkar", he said."


Here are my questions.
1. Why are these guys interested in buddhism all of a sudden? Why is this new found love for buddha?
I think there might be a sizeable chunk of buddhist in Tamilnadu so that their votes are now secure.

2. I also question the vedic religion's impact on buddhism. How much of it is true?

Please read the entire article at http://www.chennaionline.com/colnew...4C-98DA-076E6F64221F}&CATEGORYNAME=Tamil+Nadu

sir - there is nothing surprising in followers of various gods clashing with each other. it is happening even in this modern days. so nothing surprising in these things happening many,many centuries before. but why are followers of same god viz., white christians vs black christians, various sects of muslims, clashing with each other, even though they have same common god?why is this common god not able to unite them? will ramaiah anbazagan have the courage to speak about this? why does his entire system shut down without even a token response about this?

the buddha has a parallel with the periar. the periar was shocked when he was asked to sit separately and not mingle with brahmins during a food feeding incident. this shock reportedly led to mental instability, leading to 'rationlism'! like that, the buddha who was a prince, while on a tour of his kingdom, was shocked to see people suffering from poverty & illness! this shock led to mental instability and in this confused state he delivered his ideology called 'buddhism'! the buddha , though eulogised as 'rational', never condemned meat eating. this was because, most of his followers were rabid non veggies! to retain their support, he refused to openly condemn meat eating, though he always lectured on non violence!!! this blatant contradiction was exposed by brahmins & Holy Guru Adhisankara was chiefly instrumental in expelling buddhism out of india, sparing india of a major ignomy!
had jainism prevailed in this world, the entire universe would have become a nudist camp! because jainism insists that humans should not wear any clothes at all! may be this is why 'rationalists' like jainism very much! remember, the periar was an ardent admirer of nudism himself!!!!!
 
L

lotus_quartz

Guest
Your portrayal of Budhism and Jainism is in extremely poor taste. Hope you are aware that Budhism and Jainism came into being around 500 BC, i.e., approximately 500 years before Christ was born! In those days, India was a sparsely populate varied land of various races of people including tribalistic religionists, atheists, and followers of various shades of Hinduism. In those days, the Varnashram system was not so rigid and only in infancy stage.

The priestly class i.e., Brahmins were acting as advisors to the kings, conducting Yagnas in eulogising the royalty and the gods and were generally successful in brainwashing the Kings in parting with their largesse including expensive gifts of land, gold, cattle etc.

There are evidences available which suggested that many brahmins were hedonists and engaged purely in pursuit of carnal pleasures. A reading of Chanakya's arthasashtra indicates the wily nature of priestly class.

The common man did not get any religious solace by looking up to the gods and yagnas of the priestly class. No wonder, when Budhdhism and Jainism offered alternate religion to the masses, large proportion of population embraced them. It has been agreed by historians that from 6 the century AD up to 12 the century AD, the whole country was under the sway of Budhimsm ana Jainism. The vedic hinduism was at its lowest ebb.

Much later, from 12th century AD onwards, the renaissance in hinduism started by vaishnava saints who spread piecefully the message of love, devotion etc in a easy manner understood by common folk and took the religion from the fiefdom of the priestly classes and royalty to the common man. Approximately around the same time, similar efforts were made by saivic saints (acharyas) who travelled the length and breadth of India and revived public interest in Hinduism.

Gradually, Budhism became extinct in the land of its own birth. Jainism survived in pockets especially amongst the trading classes. Later, most of the Jains also strarted worshipping some Hindu gods like Laxmi, Ganesh etc. since these Gods were especially important to the merchant and trading people.

By 10 Th century AD onwards, attack of muslims (Mehmood Ghazni) started. Later, the entire north india went under the rule of Islamic Kings and Emperors. Hinduism suffered further and degenerated in the abyss due to firming up of caste systems all over India.

Both Budhism and Jainism preached the message of piece, love, etc. and treated all their followers as eqauls unlike vedic hinduism which degenerated into sick form of apartheid.

Evry religion has its own darker side, which primarily arises due to mis interpretations by the so called middlemen/interpreters of the god as I have already mentioned else where on this site. Your repeated usage of words like "mentally confused stage", "rabid non-veggies", "nudism" etc. is not in good taste and blatantly hurts the sentiments of Jains, Budhists etc. Vedic Hinduism as preached by the wily brahmin class is also not viewed with the awe and respect by followeres of other religions and neither by the members of the BC amongst Hindus as well. Clearly, the Brahmins have not exactly covered themselves with glory, to call a spade a spade.



the buddha who was a prince, while on a tour of his kingdom, was shocked to see people suffering from poverty & illness! this shock led to mental instability and in this confused state he delivered his ideology called 'buddhism'! the buddha , though eulogised as 'rational', never condemned meat eating. this was because, most of his followers were rabid non veggies! to retain their support, he refused to openly condemn meat eating, though he always lectured on non violence!!! this blatant contradiction was exposed by brahmins & Holy Guru Adhisankara was chiefly instrumental in expelling buddhism out of india, sparing india of a major ignomy!
had jainism prevailed in this world, the entire universe would have become a nudist camp! because jainism insists that humans should not wear any clothes at all! may be this is why 'rationalists' like jainism very much! remember, the periar was an ardent admirer of nudism himself!!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

hariharan1972

Guest
alternative or against

lotus quartz,
thanks for a good tracing of history of buddhism. it is a religion of peace as I know but the utterings of some buddhists today gives me a doubt as to whether the fundamental premise of buddhism is anti-hinduism ? I am not accusing but wondering. any thoughts on this.
 
L

lotus_quartz

Guest
Budhism took birth in a land which was historically a hindu land. We must bear in mind that in those days, the concept of 'religion' was unclear in the minds of people. People often mistook religion as justification of 'the ways life goes on'. And life meant endless servility of common folk to the landlords, royalty and the preistly classes. Mass public education was unheard of and people were generally left to fend for themselves when faced with famine, floods, natural calamities, outbreaks of diseases etc. They were not given any help by the rulers of the land.

Amidst such backdrop of general decay and administrative chaos, when Goutam Budhdha and Mahavir Jain started preaching their philosophy directly adressing themselves to the common folk ignoring the priestly class (the then gate keepers to the gods), the public lapped it up with both hands !

Budhism was not anti-hindu but anti-arrogant form of 'brahminical hinduism'. Budhists never broke hindu temples or idols and were prolific users of Sanskrit for documenting the teachings of Budhdha.

Most of the budhist monks who took the message of budhdha to the people scattered across the length and breadth of India were ascetic monks who slept on floors, wore simple cotton dress, survived on charity and alms of common folk and established disciplined and standard form of their religion.

It was only much later that the wise among the brahmins realised their mistake and tried to take the religion back to the masses by practicing simple ascetic ways of life, service and love and the devotional songs, bhakti movement etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NARAS

Well-known member
Your portrayal of Budhism and Jainism is in extremely poor taste. Hope you are aware that Budhism and Jainism came into being around 500 BC, i.e., approximately 500 years before Christ was born! In those days, India was a sparsely populate varied land of various races of people including tribalistic religionists, atheists, and followers of various shades of Hinduism. In those days, the Varnashram system was not so rigid and only in infancy stage.

The priestly class i.e., Brahmins were acting as advisors to the kings, conducting Yagnas in eulogising the royalty and the gods and were generally successful in brainwashing the Kings in parting with their largesse including expensive gifts of land, gold, cattle etc.

There are evidences available which suggested that many brahmins were hedonists and engaged purely in pursuit of carnal pleasures. A reading of Chanakya's arthasashtra indicates the wily nature of priestly class.

The common man did not get any religious solace by looking up to the gods and yagnas of the priestly class. No wonder, when Budhdhism and Jainism offered alternate religion to the masses, large proportion of population embraced them. It has been agreed by historians that from 6 the century AD up to 12 the century AD, the whole country was under the sway of Budhimsm ana Jainism. The vedic hinduism was at its lowest ebb.

Much later, from 12th century AD onwards, the renaissance in hinduism started by vaishnava saints who spread piecefully the message of love, devotion etc in a easy manner understood by common folk and took the religion from the fiefdom of the priestly classes and royalty to the common man. Approximately around the same time, similar efforts were made by saivic saints (acharyas) who travelled the length and breadth of India and revived public interest in Hinduism.

Gradually, Budhism became extinct in the land of its own birth. Jainism survived in pockets especially amongst the trading classes. Later, most of the Jains also strarted worshipping some Hindu gods like Laxmi, Ganesh etc. since these Gods were especially important to the merchant and trading people.

By 10 Th century AD onwards, attack of muslims (Mehmood Ghazni) started. Later, the entire north india went under the rule of Islamic Kings and Emperors. Hinduism suffered further and degenerated in the abyss due to firming up of caste systems all over India.

Both Budhism and Jainism preached the message of piece, love, etc. and treated all their followers as eqauls unlike vedic hinduism which degenerated into sick form of apartheid.

Evry religion has its own darker side, which primarily arises due to mis interpretations by the so called middlemen/interpreters of the god as I have already mentioned else where on this site. Your repeated usage of words like "mentally confused stage", "rabid non-veggies", "nudism" etc. is not in good taste and blatantly hurts the sentiments of Jains, Budhists etc. Vedic Hinduism as preached by the wily brahmin class is also not viewed with the awe and respect by followeres of other religions and neither by the members of the BC amongst Hindus as well. Clearly, the Brahmins have not exactly covered themselves with glory, to call a spade a spade.

sir - your posting is based on history of 'rationalists' which is based on jealousy & hatred of brahminism. buddhism cannot be a religion of peace. even Mr. cho ramaswamy, famous political commentator, last year in the annual 'thuglak ' anniversary meeting told that'buddhist monks in srilanka are probably most violent & terrorist in the world'! how can a religion which does not condemn meat eating be a religion of 'peace'???

brahminism is not a religion of masses. the reason is simple. it emphasis on vegeteranism. so many non brahmins, who had been non veggies for many,many centuries did not find comfort in brahminism! this gap was filled by the buddhan, who just to attract many members in his fold openly allowed meat eating,though as an apostle of non violence, this is the first thing he should have condemned! to 'become' a buddhist or muslim or christian , you need not have any qualification. you have to just believe in the god of that particular relgion. but to become a brahmin,not only belief, but also subscribing to noble idelas like vegetaranism,teetotallerism are insisted.

remember, brahmins do not worship their own god brahma, just because brahma lied once. i refuse to believe that a group which attaches so much importance to truth, would have played second fiddle to kings just to fill their stomach!

vedic religion is not viewed by many in positive angle because as non veggies they feel out of a faith which emphasis on vegeteranism. numbers alone do not make for everything. what about quality? had all non brahmins accepted vegeteranism, there would have been no apartheid at all! the buddhan expoited the reluctance of non brahmins to turn pure veggies and increased the membership of his clan!

you want to call a spade a spade. that is what i have did. then why should buddhists & jains feel offended???

BTW, though i had been 'warned' :drum: by moderators not to highlight about vegeteranism, i find it difficult to obey, as members are drawing me again and again to the same topic!
 
Last edited:

NARAS

Well-known member
sir - your posting is based on history of 'rationalists' which is based on jealousy & hatred of brahminism. buddhism cannot be a religion of peace. even Mr. cho ramaswamy, famous political commentator, last year in the annual 'thuglak ' anniversary meeting told that'buddhist monks in srilanka are probably most violent & terrorist in the world'! how can a religion which does not condemn meat eating be a religion of 'peace'???

brahminism is not a religion of masses. the reason is simple. it emphasis on vegeteranism. so many non brahmins, who had been non veggies for many,many centuries did not find comfort in brahminism! this gap was filled by the buddhan, who just to attract many members in his fold openly allowed meat eating,though as an apostle of non violence, this is the first thing he should have condemned! to 'become' a buddhist or muslim or christian , you need not have any qualification. you have to just believe in the god of that particular relgion. but to become a brahmin,not only belief, but also subscribing to noble idelas like vegetaranism,teetotallerism are insisted.

remember, brahmins do not worship their own god brahma, just because brahma lied once. i refuse to believe that a group which attaches so much importance to truth, would have played second fiddle to kings just to fill their stomach!

vedic religion is not viewed by many in positive angle because as non veggies they feel out of a faith which emphasis on vegeteranism. numbers alone do not make for everything. what about quality? had all non brahmins accepted vegeteranism, there would have been no apartheid at all! the buddhan expoited the reluctance of non brahmins to turn pure veggies and increased the membership of his clan!

you want to call a spade a spade. that is what i have did. then why should buddhists & jains feel offended???

BTW, though i had been 'warned' :drum: by moderators not to highlight about vegeteranism, i find it difficult obey, as members are drawing me again and again to the same topic!

sir - i have seen on tv, read in papers and heard that buddhists in many countries consume even god meat! and this is the religion of 'peace' and 'non violence'!!!! evenkanchi acharya shri jayendra saraswathi swamigal in an interview to magazine kumudham in 2003, has said that buddhism is not a religion, but only a way of life. in the same year in a meeting conducted to welcome ant conversion law of then aiadmk govt., i remember even acharya dayanad sarwaswathi had warned hindus about dangers of buddhism.

buddhists even during times of buddha resorted to many attacks on brahmins. brahmins only retaliated. the violence of brahmins was thus only individual, as a retaliation and not instigated by acharyas of the community. buddhism is an 'impure' religion because it allows meat eating. buddhism is also a violent religion because it subscribes to the controversial concept of 'one' god like islam & christianity!
hats off to our great acharya adhisankara for expelling this menace out of our country and getting rid of it! if buddhism is such a great religion, and buddhist monks are so ascetic, why did our acharya Adhisankarar oppose it? after all Adhisankarar was more ascetic & more pious than anybody else in the world! the very fact that Adhisankarar opposed buddhism shows that there was and is something terribly wrong with that ideology!

last but not the least - it is not my potrayal of buddhism & jainism which is in bad taste, it is buddhism which is in bad taste itself!!!!! (just like jainism!!!)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks