From: raman@cs.utexas.edu (Raman Rajagopalan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: Distortion in Meenan Vishnu Opposed
Date: 8 Oct 1992 18:11:18 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: bathtub.cs.utexas.edu

In article <BvLtzE.E3n@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> mvishnu@bcr3.uwaterloo.ca (Meenan Vishnu) writes:
>In article <lcn46rINNabv@bathtub.cs.utexas.edu> raman@cs.utexas.edu (Raman Rajagopalan) writes:
>>In article <BvGC41.5HM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> mvishnu@bcr3.uwaterloo.ca (Meenan Vishnu) writes:
>>

First, Meenan, thanks for a logically written response.  I have tried
to be civil here as well.

>>Even if the dravidians were driven out, what structures do you want
>>replaced?  Just curious to see if you have any facts on this topic.
>>
>>Also, do you want all tamils to leave sri lanka and tamil nadu and
>>go back north?  after all, the same theories say the dravidians 
>>were driven south .. meaning they weren't in those lands originally!
>

>You missed the point completely.  The reason why I put this question is
>to illustrate the folly in "correcting the historical mistakes".  How
>far in time should we go in "correcting the historical mistakes" ?
>But you seemed to have missed the point completely.  Try again.

WELLLL, I did get your meaning, and will admit I added these
lines just to poke fun at the literal meaning of what you wrote.
Apologies for wasting people's time for personal enjoyment.
In reality, I tend to agree with you on the let bygones be bygones stuff.

On the other hand, holding you to this position, why are you condemning
the actions of brahmins from even *longer* back?  The latter is part
of the reason I titled the reply "distortions in meenan vishnu".

>
>>>We (Hindus) should have prevented the Islamic invasions with all our
>>>hearts and minds back in 640 A.D (see article below).  Now it is no use
>>>destroying mosques and building temples.  Instead we can use the capital
>>>to renovate thousands of beautiful temples that are being destroyed by
>>>nature everyday.  (There are so many such temples in TN for example).
>>>
>>>Meenan Vishnu

>>I agree with you here.  

>>SO, why do you admire folks like Periyar and
>>Karunanidhi, and their respective parties DK and DMK.   DMK has 
>>single handedly screwed the temples out of their means of maintenance,
>>by stealing temple lands and siphoning off contributions.
>>Periyar of course has publically endorsed destroying idols in temples.

>Periyar destroyed the idols because, these idols were used to exploit the
>masses (by the Vedic rites) and to inculcate a sense of inferiority
>complex in them (Caste system of Hinduism).
>
>The foreigners destroyed the temple to enslave us.  So there is a difference.
>

Sorry, I beg to differ about your statement about Periyar:

You had written earlier that periyar fought (at first) simply to
make the temples accessible to the common man.  Also, you had
written that the vedic scriptures were the source of justifications
for the ill treatment of certain groups by brahmins (and presumably
other upper caste groups).  So why did periyar suddenly decide
to destroy the idols in the same temples he fought to gain admission
for the people?  Is the idea to turn the temple structure into
a picnic spot once the idols have been demolished?

I can't speak for everyone, but to me, idols are a SYMBOL OF GOD,
a concept I believe to be shared by all Hindus.  Condemn particular scriptures
or persons if you must, but by destroying temples/idols, you are
destroying structures revered by ALL HINDUS, regardless of caste.

Periyar (irrationally) took out his hatred of "northern, aryan" things
on "innocent" temple structures.  If he preferred certain dieties
to others, he could have encouraged people to selectively visit
only murugan or ayyapan temples, for example, and to avoid the
vishnu, rama, or krishna temples.  Instead, he encouraged selective
*destruction*.  Without proof, I would conjecture
that there must be a few ayyangars in the world, for example, who would
visit only vishnu temples.  However, these same people would not
advocate the destruction of temples of other dieties.

Now, twenty five to thirty years later, Periyar's encouragement
of "disrespect" of aryan things has become disrespect for
HINDU things, period.  That's why there is now graffiti on
temple walls and paintings, and people are excreting in temple
tanks and leaking inside temple compounds (I witnessed the latter
personally in Chidambaram a few years back - when I questioned
the guilty party, me mumbled something about "why did they build
such a large temple".)  Again, if you are anti-brahmin, but
still a devout HINDU, it should still bother you to scribble on
a temple wall, even if you are writing an anti-brahmin message!

You may have many things to write about
the evils of brahmin practices in 640AD.  Unless history
is successfully distorted, the decline of Hinduism/temples
in the present day can be attributed in large part to Periyar and
his followers.

I have not been at a temple from morning to night for days at
a time to see all the practices, but the following is the gist
of what rituals go on.  I don't see how the following has anything
to do with the exploitation of anyone based on caste...

Certainly in this age, temple rites tend to be of the "serving god"
variety: wake up the lord in the morning, do abhisekham (bath),
poojas (praise god), naivedyam (offer food), and during the day,
offer archanas (recite names of the diety) for worshippers.  At
night, the diety is put to sleep with a lullaby.  Where is there
any casteism in this?  In fact, it points out some good things
in the Vedic tradition .. pointers on how to show respect/treat
guests ... washing feet, offering food, etc.  You may have
a legitamate complaint that a brahmin who obtained the title
based on birth is not entitled to such treatment, but are you
arguing that GOD is not deserving of this respect?

About foreigners, only the british (colonialism) were into
enslaving and governing.  they actually did not destroy much -- preferring
instead to make fun of hindu practices in an effort to claim that they were
superior.  

the moslems did a lot of destruction, but did not have enslaving in mind --
they sincerely believed that theirs was the only *true* way, and seeked
to convert the locals.  although, as a Hindu, I cannot appreciate
this position, at the very least, I can give the muslim invader credit
for conquering with a sword rather than with a twisted tongue.  These
guys razed and pillaged right away, so at least the Hindu would know
he was dealing with an enemy.  Folks like Periyar pretend to be
friends of Hinduism while doing plenty to bring about its downfall.

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

The following discussion is based on Meenan Vishnu's post
on a book which alleges that certain brahmins helped the
muslim invaders in 640AD, partly in an effort to end the power
of Buddhists.

>>
>>Can you give concrete evidence of anti-buddist sentiments on
>>the part of ANY hindus, much less brahmins?  That is, from the
>>philosophy of Hinduism itself?  I invite you to quote from the
>>Vedas or Bhagavad Gita this time!
>

>For anti-Buddhist reaction of BJP/RSS during the current, see articles 
>below (reproduced from SCI and Soc.religion.eastern).  The bramin
>priests wanted to destroy Buddhism simply because it does not support
>the Vedic Rites with which they usually make their living!
> 

I asked you to quote from the scriptures, not politicians.  The teachings
of BJP are not necessarily the teachings of hinduism, or that of the vedas.
Add "some of" before the second sentence, and I may accept the statement.
Otherwise, you need to provide proof that *all* brahmin priests were
anti-buddist.

Also, all I see in the articles you have included is that the BJP
fears communal clashes may result from the Buddhist's march.  I see
nothing anti-buddhist in this, although you can use the BJP's statement
to make fun of their own Yatras conducted over the past few years.

The nature of the current argument over control is also not described
clearly.  I have read elsewhere that there are both Hindus and Buddhists
are on the Bodh committee, and the problem is that the Hindus outnumber
the Buddhists.  This controversy is one of control and power, not
one of hatred of one group by the other.  Your example of the hindu
king uprooting the tree is believable because it is an isolated case.
how can you conclude that all hindu priests hate all buddhists from
this example?

quoting your reply, try again.

>>On the contrary, Buddha is considered an avatar of Vishnu, and many Hindus, and
>>certainly most Brahmins, accepted Buddha's teaching of the evils
>>of meat eating and became vegetarians.  His teachings regarding meditation
>>and self-control are also widely accepted and practiced, even today.
>
>This avatar is a later addition.  This is one of the tactics of the Braminism
>zealots: when one of their opposers become popular and finding that he/she
>is invincible, try and include him within themselves.  

I am not going to touch this because it is a conjecture.   However, are you
aware that some Christian groups are now saying that meditation/yoga
has always been a part of Christianity?  They are doing this without
giving credit to the eastern religions.  Even if Brahminism borrows
from other's teachings when appropriate, at least credit is given
to the original author.  What better respect could be given to
Buddha than to consider him an avatar of God?  I would consider your
argument a strong plus - pointing out the secular and flexible nature
of Hindu thought. 

Again, once you have pointed out (and therefore accepted) that Hinduism
has adopted many of Buddha's teachings, and even given Buddha credit,
why should Buddists be hated by all Brahmins/hindus?

You write:

>The basic problem Bramin priests had with Buddha was the his assertion that
>the performance of the Vedic rites leads one nowhere.
>

Even if this is true, this is not openly preached by Buddhists -- they don't
go around saying "don't do Vedic rituals", they tend only to
promote their own beliefs - ahimsa, etc.  Given that the Buddhist
was not out to conquer and demean the Hindu, what is the motive
for the Hindu to wish to fight the Buddhist?  You are welcome
to conjecture that some greedy bhramins were jealous of Buddhism's
popularity, but I still don't see how you (or Sinha) can generalize and write
that all or most bhramin priests were anti-buddist, enough so to
promote violence against them.
>>

articles have been trimmed...

>article 1 (news from soc.religion.eastern newsgroup)
>*****************************************************************************
>
>From: wong@rkna50.riken.go.jp (Wong Weng Fai)
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
>Subject: Newsflash : Bodh Gaya
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>	I would like to alert everyone to the following piece of news I read
>in the Daily Yomiuri, a local newspaper.
>
>------------------- BEGINNING OF NEWSCLIP --------------------
>
>	INDIA'S BUDDHISTS MARCH TO CLAIM ANCIENT TEMPLE
>        -----------------------------------------------
>
>	By Takashi Sakamoto (Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent)
>
>	BANGKOK -- A dispute over an ancient temple brought about 1,000
>Buddhists together on Sunday in a march from Bombay heading across northern
>India to appeal for their rights to control the holy site.
>
>	The temple, Bodh Gaya, is considered sacred after Gautama Buddha
>experienced spiritual awakening under a bo tree about 2,500 years ago. The
>temple reportedly was built by ancient India's King Ashoka, a protector of
>Buddhism. Hindus now control the temple.
>

This article is obviously sensationalistic, and hides many facts.
Note that this article says "Hindus now control the temple.".
The next one at least hints there are non-hindus on the committee.
In reality, there are *some* buddhists on the committee.  Neither
article acknowledges this.  People can be selective in what they
write and what they quote from.  That's all that is proven here!

>article 2:  (news from reuters)
>****************************************************************************
>
>RTw  09/26 0828  Indian Buddhists hail Sri Lanka boost for shrine ...
>
>Indian Buddhists hail Sri Lanka boost for shrine campaign
>    By Jawed Naqvi
>    NEW DELHI, Sept 26,  Reuter  -  
>    The Bodhgaya shrine is currently managed by a  Hindu-majority
>committee.   Buddhist  monks say the shrine should be restored to
>Buddha's international followers.
>    The temple was founded by Ashoka, a Hindu king who  became  a
>Buddhist some 300 years after the preacher.
>    Ashoka's brother founded Buddhism in Sri Lanka where his sis-
>ter  Sangamitta  planted a sappling of the bodhi tree, the oldest
>historically authenticated relic of the original in Bodhgaya.
>    Buddhist historians say the original Bo-tree was uprooted  by
>a  9th century Hindu king as part of a backlash against the monks
>after they were perceived as a threat to the supremacy  of  upper
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>caste Brahmins.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>    About 82 per cent of India's 850 million people  are  Hindus.
>Some  of them believe that Buddha was an incarnation of Hindu god
>Vishnu. But others see Buddhism as a heretic doctrine and  as  an
>insidious revolt against the supremacy of the Brahmins in ancient
>India.

Who says the latter?  This is certainly not a popular notion in
comparison with the former.  More sensationalism. 

>    The right-wing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party  (BJP)  said  the
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>march  could  stir trouble between the two communities and blamed
>Bihar's lower caste Chief Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav for promot-
>ing it.
>    Yadav's Janata Dal party won last year's parliamentary  elec-
>tions  by  a  handsome  margin mainly by appealing to lower caste
>Hindus and has the support of Buddhist activists.
>    "We are against this march. We are for a  status  quo,"  said
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>BJP spokesman K.R.Malkani.
>

This is a little contradictory based on past BJP activities, but
there is nothing anti-buddhist here!

On article 3:

>start of original post from Chacnamah
>******************************************************************
>
>I have typed the follwing interesting paragraphs from the book
>
>"Gita As it Was: Rediscovering the Origianl Bhagavadgita
> by Phulgenda Sinha."
>
>The auther is an Orissan Brahmin 
>who returned to India after studying in the US.  He attempted to 
>initiate some voluntary project work in Indian villagers (details 
>can be found in the preface) but found that his attempts were 
>spoilt by the local politicians.
>
>He concluded that there must be something wrong with the 
>thought patterns of the Indian people and began searching 
>for the answers.   

Because (a) local politicians were not interested in seeing the
villagers progress, (b) this Sihna began questioning the thought
patterns of the Indian people????  What about his own
thought patterns?  Seems to me that it is a rather irrational
leap to go from (a) to (b).   It is much easier to prove that many
Indian politicians are interested only in seeing their voter
base left secure, and don't really care whether peasants progress
or not.  This is particularly true in many parts of the North.

>He found his answers in the Hindu scriptures,
>specifically the idea of predetermined world in which man's self-effort
>is of no avail and that events would unfold according to the FATE.
>
>His research led him to conclude that most of the Hindu scriptures
>were altered by the Brahmins during the 8th century AD to place them 
>in an important position.

How would this answer tie in to the original difficulty with
the villagers?  Are the politicians involved Brahmins?  Are they
trying to say peasants should remain peasants because God made
them that way?  Can't see these guys getting many votes with
that line!

>
>He says: "The changers did not only stopped the tide of rationalism in 
>Indian life but also seduced people into believing and accepting the
>false as genuine, alien as indeginous, religios as political, and
>mystical as rational.  The consequences were deep, all encompassing, 
>bewildering.  India, indeed, was pushed into a 'dark age'".
>

I thought that around 800AD, the muslim invasions were beginning.
that would curb progress as well.  also, at the time, india was
composed of many small nations, with as many languages as there
are today, and without the means of communication that we enjoy
today (phone, tv, etc.).  was there a bhramin network for spreading
all this, even to warring neighbors?  think about it!

- raman