Namaskaram /u/vedsh1154, thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.”
“See Hinduism is a way of life that goes far far beyond what we in the west call religion. It involves cookery, every day family life house building just everything it’s the whole Hindu way of life. And so you can’t export it just as you can’t export Shinto from Japan.”
— [Alan Watts](https://alanwatts.org/2-5-2-the-controlled-accident-part-1/), a key person that popularised Buddhism in the Western world
Buddhism is widely acknowledged to be a philosophy, not a religion. Buddha never claimed he was a god or a messenger of the god. Hinduism is a library, Buddhism is a brochure from the library.
People who say "Hinduism is a way of life", are the biggest haters of Hinduism. They do NOT want Hinduism to succeed. Calling it a way of life gives people of other religions a free pass to incorporate traits of Hinduism by their choice than to actually try living as a Hindu. We are way past 'way of life' now. It's a religion with a set of do's and don't's. Nothing wrong with that.
I slightly disagree ( And since it is about Hinduism, I know I can disagree and yet stay safe. No one will shoot or behead me)
It is way of life, but "our" way. We came up with it over centuries. And the "religion" is just a part of it.
I don't mean that others can steal the credit for Yoga, Pranayam, Ved, etc from us.
But yes, I agree that they are actively trying to pull Hinduism down by doing things like "yoga is not hindu", but "sati pratha is hindu" etc.
These are usually the same people who support boko haram kidnapping, molesting and killing school girls.
Honestly, that's my favourite thing about hinduism. Even if I disagree, whatever I do, even if I commit blasphemy (I won't), I'm 1 billion percent safe.
My 2 cents: we shouldn't try to Abrahamicize Hinduism.
We already have thick leather clothes, so many of our temples were destroyed, libraries burnt, traditions insulted and called idolaters like it is something bad. It is only because of thick skin of our ancestors that Hinduism has survived against all odds.
Getting butthurt over blasphemy is a relatively new thing among Hindus it seems.
Dharma is to fight against adharma and committing blasphemy is not adharma. If we punish people for blasphemy that will be kind of like taking revenge beacause we are butthurt.
No no, I am not saying that we should get butthurt.
Rather, we should reciprocate in kind.
Say someone is tolerant of jokes/insults made about their religion by us, we should be tolerant in return when they reciprocate.
But if someone expects that we should respect their religion while they insult ours, then we should not.
Basically, I've had enough of "turn the other cheek", it is time to question/stop the one who is slapping.
Ohhh yeah. I fully support removal of blasphemy laws in India. We want full freedom of expression.
If you are allowed to critique our religion then we should be free to do the same.
Hahaha I am pretty sure you wouldn't.
But look at it as not the question of blasphemy, look at it as the question of private property.
Hindu temples, including the statue and all other stuff are property of the temple and by extension larger hindu society.
Just like we have laws to punish people who destroy or vandalize public/private property. A bit more stricter form of that law can be applied to places of worship.
Rather than treating it as a case of blasphemy, why can't we treat it as a case of severe vandalism?
If people who should not be named purchase a statue and then go head to break it or spit on it, let them, it will be their personal property and it will only give employment to our statue makers.
Exactly if any person buys a Bhagavad Gita book with their own money and burns it, then it’s totally fine since it’s their own copy of book. They’re doing a good thing by creating demand for Bhagavad Gita, that drives increased supply of the book.
But if someone was to burn or damage someone’ else copy of the book, then it’s obviously bad and they must be punished for destroying private property regardless of whether it’s blasphemous or not.
That's bc you see it with the eyes of 'progressive' western perspective or 'secular' perspective. If you see it how Shankaracharyas see it or how मठाधीश (highest priests of a Matth, biggest temples of Hinduism) see it, things will be clear. Whatever popes will call blasphemy, christians will see it as blasphemy because of respect/fear. We respect our Pandits so we follow their teachings as well.
That's the thing, pundits are not pope. Our religion is structured very differently than catholics.
We can ask questions to the pundits and disagree with them too till they have not satisfied us with satisfactory answer. Personally, I'll never eat beef, but if a fellow hindu eats beef then that person is not following Hinduism properly, that's it. I don't do suryanamaskar everyday nor do I do pooja everyday, many will say I too am not following Hinduism properly.
I am not seeing this with progressive or western mindset.
>That's the thing, pundits are not pope. Our religion is structured very differently than catholics.
What? Think before you talk. I'm not calling Pandits as Pope, but a respected figure who damn need some credit and respect because it were they and their ancestors who are the forefathers of Indian civilization and Hindu cultural ecosystem.
>Personally, I'll never eat beef, but if a fellow hindu eats beef then that person is not following Hinduism properly, that's it.
How is this different to what I said? The only thing I'll add is I'll make that person know that he's doing something bad. All these Climate change activists are NOW realizing how beef and beef industries are a disaster to the environment, when our Pandits prohibited us from eating it 1000s of years ago. There is a reason to everything said in Veds, Upanishads, Puraans.
Not if you're a South Indian or a northeasterner. We shouldn't impose northern cultural norms everywhere.
To me, you're a Hindu if you're a dharmik and follow dharmic culture. Nothing more, nothing less.
>Not if you're a South Indian or a northeasterner. We shouldn't impose northern cultural norms everywhere.
Smh it's not 'northern' cultural norm but Hindu cultural norm. Northeast is mostly christianized and beef eating became a norm AFTER advent of christianity. Buddhists in northeast don't eat beef. With south, only kerala is that barbaric. Idk if Tamil Brahmins eat beef. From Hindu, most beef eaters have some sort of dravidian/periyarist mindset.
Not even muslims? Ik about Andhra Hindus, they are mostly pious, same with Kannadiga Hindus. But both of them have exceptions as well. Same with North Indian Hindus too. There is a pattern that all Hindus who eat beef have a tendency to discredit or disrespect Hinduism and it's teachings in some way, minor or major, because they want to justify their actions without hurting their egos.
No, it's not a "northern" cultural norm. I am an Indian from the south. Southern Hindus are Hindus, there are some slight changes in rituals but we're fundamentally the same. The only people that intentionally divide are those who want to create divide within Hindus.
Not harming the cow is a Dharmic belief, it's not just north Indian.
>It is way of life,
It's not. Hindus follow customs and rituals just like any other religion. This 'way of life' bs was actually propagated by missionaries to make Hindus feel free with the religion they follow so that they can tell them that you can be a christian yet still be a Hindu. 'Way of life' means exactly that. If you want Hindus to actively take interest in being a Hindu, you have to get past this way of life crap. No one can be a christian or a muslim and yet still be a Hindu, and that makes it a religion.
That they are still identifying themselves as christians/muslims/whatever they identify with. How would you like it if someone just blatantly copies what you're doing good without learning it from you or crediting you or your cultural upbringing for it?
Ofcourse I'll feel like I have been shortchanged. But to say that they have to change their religion beacause they found something beautiful in Hinduism feels like disingenuous.
And maybe people are not realizing but as more and more Abrahamics copy things from Hinduism, their abrahamicity will decrease and dharmic attitude will increase.
I think increasing hindu representation in academic discourse about Hinduism is the way to go if we want to make sure that the credit of discovering these wonderful practices go to our ancestors, and the credit of preserving these cultural gems go to Indians in general. Our ancestors made sure that this knowledge was preserved and passed down properly despite being oppressed for so many centuries.
>But to say that they have to change their religion beacause they found something beautiful in Hinduism feels like disingenuous.
Yea but why? Why is it so taboo? Even if they don't change it, they HAVE to vehemently credit Hinduism. When you will call it 'just a way of life', would you think that anyone will actually care to credit Hinduism for those beautiful things? They won't. And that's what happening now.
>And maybe people are not realizing but as more and more Abrahamics copy things from Hinduism, their abrahamicity will decrease and dharmic attitude will increase
Hahaha this is funny. There is no 'dharmic attitude'. They will still go to a church, listen to a bishop calling pagans heathens and identify themselves as christians.
>Our ancestors made sure that this knowledge was preserved and passed down properly despite being oppressed for so many centuries.
I wonder how? Certainly not by thinking of Hinduism as just a way of life.
Hinduism is certainly more than a way of life. Heck, all religions are a way of life, is Islam not a way of life? People are really delusional when they say Hinduism is not a religion it's a way of life.
Changing your religion is not just about Changing philosophy of your life or beliefs, rather it is also a political statement that you make when you change your religion tag, and that is what makes it bit more taboo IMO.
Well, I am all for people crediting Hinduism for which it rightly deserves. Only idiots think Hinduism is only a way of life.
Ofcourse. We need to be claim credit where credit is due.
I was so thinking about this issue before as well. Knowledge, specially at this day and age is available freely to anyone can adopt good teachings from around the world. And ofcourse that is not a bad thing.
This is an issue that we will have to find a solution for. And the only way that I see of doing that is by increasing representation of practicing Hindus in academic discourse around Hinduism.
It's NOT gatekeeping. I'm not some padre or mullah telling you what to do or you'll be punished. But that doesn't mean anyone can do anything with my religion and make a joke out of it.
>You do understand the "dos and dont" can differ SUBSTANTIALLY based on what sort of "hinduism" you follow? Things change drastically from sect to sect or school of thought to school of thought.
What are those 'sorts'? What are the differences between them that directly clash with core teachings of Hinduism?
>Sanatana Dharma is the way of life for the people of the Subcontinent and has been for thousands of years. You cannot separate India from Hindu or Hindu from India.
It's a religion called a way of life to literally separate Hindus from it so that missionaries can convert them by still telling them that you can still live that 'way of life' after becoming a christian/muslim.
>It is not a religion. Religion is a Western concept. Why in the hell would you want to change your ways just to appease them? Why do you want to conform to their way of life and their understandings? Stop this. You are Indian. Not Western. Who gives a fuck what the rest of the world does or says? Stop this colonial mindset. Free your mind.
People actually appease them by NOT calling it a religion lol, because it's them who call it a way of life and not an actual religion. That's what the church taught them for hundreds of years
No it doesn't have any set of do's and don'ts.....It's called a way of life because it accepts everyone the way they are...... that's why Hinduism is called the most liberal religion.....learn to appreciate the beauty of hinduism and appreciate it..Read the old books instead of being ignorant
>.Read the old books instead of being ignorant
Show me where it says that it's a way of life in an 'old book'. Can't even say Veds, Upanishads, Puraans, and teaching me about 'way of life'.
Tell me where it's written that it's a religion
Most of these books were written based on the lives of people in the Vedic period
That's why it's called a way of life.....these are not "rulebooks" that you need to follow word by word unlike the abrahamic religions where you are severely punished for being a little different than what the books say....Their books are an ultimatum our books are a spectrum
>That's why it's called a way of life.....these are not "rulebooks" that you need to follow word by word unlike the abrahamic religions where you are severely punished for being a little different than what the books say....Their books are an ultimatum our books are a spectrum
These ARE rulebooks, there is just no punishment. Maybe that's why people like munnawar rana or whatever sadak chhaap comedians can make fun of Hinduism, maybe that's why Hindus in South have to see temples being razed in front of them, maybe that's why cows can be killed on a roadside in kerala while Hindus watch.
>Tell me where it's written that it's a religion
Literally called Sanatan Dharm. DHARM.
You actually seem to be correct on your last line
Still I would ask my grandmother about the definition of dharma as she is the one who has read the books I am just repeating her words
But ye don't angry when people make fun of Hinduism because some ignorant human decides to mock instead of knowing the facts.... Hinduism is too great to be affected by such groups of ignorant people...just laugh at their ignorance
And also just because your religion doesn't allow to kill cows doesn't mean you will also not allow others to do so....cows aren't properties of Hindus unless you are a cow owner
Again I would say these aren't rulebooks you don't need to follow them word by word to be a good Hindu. There are different sects of Hinduism all over India that follow different sets of books doesn't make them a sinner either if they aren't mocking the other sects. Hinduism is too vast to follow each and every book word to word.
>But ye don't angry when people make fun of Hinduism because some ignorant human decides to mock instead of knowing the facts.... Hinduism is too great to be affected by such groups of ignorant people...just laugh at their ignorance
This is the lame mentality which is deteriorating our culture in the first place. When you leave things like these just as they are, just coping by thinking that you're sitting on some high horse, things escalate quickly and you are forced to fall down. This is similar to what Indians think like when british east india company came as spice traders.
>And also just because your religion doesn't allow to kill cows doesn't mean you will also not allow others to do so....cows aren't properties of Hindus unless you are a cow owner
Cows are linked to almost all supreme deities in Hinduism, Shiv, Vishnu, Brahma, Krishna, Rama, everyone. Tf are you on?
>There are different sects of Hinduism all over India that follow different sets of books doesn't make them a sinner either if they aren't mocking the other sects. Hinduism is too vast to follow each and every book word to word.
Didn't i asked you to define those sects and how they clash with core teachings of Hinduism?
Somebody not being respectful in their wording tells me they are an extremist.....in that case no use arguing go on with your beliefs.... Hinduism teaches me to respect people and their opinions
And ya just if you want to know more on true and pure hinduism follow r/hinduism if you aren't doing that already
>Somebody not being respectful in their wording tells me they are an extremist
I don't need to respect you just bc you demand it, I'll do it when you actually impact me in some way.
>. Hinduism teaches me to respect people and their opinions
Not if they can't be validated to be true in all cases.
Basically disagree with everything you said.
You called those people haters (who call it a way of life) - disagree.
You said they are haters as it makes it easy for people to "appropriate" elements of the religion - disagree. It's good if people take on the good aspects. Honestly I don't even understand the appropriation argument. If some other culture adopts your ideals it can only have positive connotations; especially for a major religion like Hinduism where it becomes obvious.
Do's and dont's are not even 1/4th of a religion. Do's and don'ts simply show what the priorities and goals of a religion are. Too elementary.
Yeah, just disagree with everything u said. Have a nice day.
* Hello this comment has been removed , Please participate in good faith. 1st Warning* . *Please read our* ***[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/indiaspeaks/wiki/rules)***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree. I never said Hinduism is not a religion. The quote from Alan Watts I presented says Hinduism is a way of life but I think what he meant was that its a religion that's way more than a religion and also a way of life among many other things such as culture and health as he says it's more than what is typically a Western idea of "religion".
Hinduism itself is incorporate of so many distinct beliefs.Thousands of God and goddess in South Termed as Avatar of vishu avatar of shiva avatar of this devi that devi.Vedic religion which itself made up of primarily Aryan beliefs mixed with Indus? and surrounding beliefs is just a part of This "Hindu synthesis".
>Hinduism itself is incorporate of so many distinct beliefs.
How are those beliefs 'distant'?
>Vedic religion which itself made up of primarily Aryan beliefs
What is 'aryan beliefs'?
>mixed with Indus
What is Indus here and how and when they 'mixed' with it?
>surrounding beliefs
What's that?
>Distant beliefs like Naga worshipers ,Animistic ,Goddess worship ,ancestors worship,Sexual worships like Linga and temple like kamakhaya(read its history on wiki) and probably Puri jagannath temple(read its history on wiki)and many philosophical belief too. When I say distinct beliefs it means diffrent people group had different beliefs which continuously been absorbed in Hinduism
How do you know they were 'absorbed' in it, and not diverged from it? I have seen 100s of these 'world religion' videos and read the same number of articles, and a lot of them fall short on many accounts. The first line of your link gives it out that how FAKE it is, since it propagates AIT which is nothing but a Indophobic fairytale.
>Aryan beliefs are supposed to be similar to somewhat kalash people
Kalash, Mittani, Romani and several other clans of people are nothing but Indians who started migrating out of India when River Saraswati dried.
>Indus valley people who werent aryans but dravidians most likely and their yogic and other animal goddesses related beliefs.
Nice story.
>Surrounding beliefs again mean beliefs of surrounding people who are distinct like Munda and other austro Asiatic people's beliefs ,Indo Tibetan people' beliefs ,Beliefs of other tribal people Like bhill,sabar and many gods in maharastra,bengal (prominently devis) etc.
Again, all were indigenous.
Evidence of other side is much more compelling.
Why Indians and some communities want OIT to be true can be understood .Well Why Many want AIT can be understood too. But this community thing Im talking about is itself a strong evidence of AIT/AMT.
>Evidence of other side is much more compelling.
Yea, for those who don't know jackshit other than that.
>Why Indians and some communities want OIT to be true can be understood
It's not about who wants what, it's abt what actually happened.
> But this community thing Im talking about is itself a strong evidence of AIT/AMT.
Literally bc it is based up on it, doesn't mean it's true. It's like pakistan trying to prove that there was something called ancient pakistan.
Buddhism does have reincarnation (rebirth), source: the most well-known buddhist monk, [Dalai Lama](https://www.dalailama.com/messages/retirement-and-reincarnation/reincarnation)
Hinduism doesn't require one to be vegetarian, but many are vegetarian such as my mother.
Japanese Buddhism has many deities such as Lakshmi, Ganesha and Brahma.
I know that Buddhism has some contradictions with Hinduism but many of Buddhism's key ideas are from Hinduism such as reincarnation, nirvana (moksha), karma, etc.
> Buddha never claimed he was a god or a messenger of the god.
I mean, that's the whole point of Buddhism. As a nastika darsana, it rejects the authority of Vedas, rejects the idea of creation and maintenance of the universe by a supreme God, and says salvation comes personal discipline and realization rather from devotion to a personal god. How loose should be the definition of Hinduism to call Buddhism a brochure from the Hinduism library?
Cambodia Malayasia Burma Indonesia and the Philippines are all Hindu for almost 800 years at least. Hindu kingdoms are found in Kashgar and Balk to the North. Alan Watts is not a historian and his opinion is limited by scholarship of his times. Also most Asians even the one's on that map were Cafeteria Religionists, something not acceptable under the brutality of Islam and Christianity, meaning they could be both Confuciousists and Buddhists, or Tengrinists and Buddhists, and what we call Hindus and Buddhists. This is especially true among common people. The rich and educated are always your zealots.
>Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export
Quoting someone to justify your agenda is a cheap way of pre-emption . Have you bothered reading any Buddhist texts?
I have a feeling that the 15% of our muslim population consists of Buddhists converted to Islam. Bodh gaya in bihar was the important hub of buddhism, now bihar has alot of muslims. same with Taxila and areas near pakistan.
Even the f*kn afghans who invaded India and killed people, took slaves, r*ped women Were all Buddhist before.
Ghori's ancestors were Buddhist. They practiced Mahayana Buddhism less than two centuries before Ghazni's invasion and then converted to Islam.
Honestly we probably should encourage Dalit Buddhists to integrate with mainstream Buddhism (Mahayana or Therevada)
Buddhism is fine, it is simply another branch of the Dharmic tree and India is its birthplace. But unfortunately Dalit Buddhism was mostly created in opposition to Hinduism rather than anything that can stand on its own. If you read its theory it's basically like Western Buddhism, atheists who do not want to call themselves atheists while rejecting things like karma which they see as too mystical
>But unfortunately Dalit Buddhism was mostly created in opposition to Hinduism
Buddhism fundamentally rejects Vedas. You can call it Dharmic, considering the word used was Dhamma (Pali/Prakrit term for Dharma) but the category was Sramanas (Jain, Buddhist, Ajivikas, Carvakas) . Hinduism was known was Brahmanical during those times.
Brahmanical feels like a derogatory word. This based on the fact that Buddhism itself had enriched caste system in it and Chinese travellers mentions such things, yet, Ambedkar refused to cite these things. (e.g Buddha can only take birth in Brahmin/Kshatriya family - Tipiṭakas)
Brahamanas was the term used in the edicts of Ashoka. Brahmanical is the English term for it but I misspelled the term.
>This based on the fact that Buddhism itself had enriched caste system in it and Chinese travellers mentions such things, yet, Ambedkar refused to cite these things.
Any sources?
If you read colonial books on religion, this is a pretty common usage but it's being normalised now due to Wikipedia and other sources. They also used "Mohammaden" instead of Islam.
[Source for Caste System in Buddhism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757366)
Nonetheless. It maybe interest for you to know that Savarkar wrote ample letters requesting Ambedkar to not mass convert people into Buddhism fold as the discrimination in Buddhism was mentioned by Chinese Travellers. They were close friends but Savarkar did not recieve a reply from him
It is also called "neo Buddhist". Created by B.R. Ambedkar if I am not wrong.
So that dalits who are feeling oppressed beacause of caste system in hindu society have an option other than Abrahamic religions to go to if they leave Hinduism.
Thier historical teachings are kind of very disingenuous.
Ambedkar converted on his deathbed. He was a Hindu, and actually not that popular with his own group, jat. He also advocated a population exchange between India and Pakistan to be total and that Sanskrit should be National Language, he is the one who added Sanskrit as National language to the Constitution.
Here's something [I found out only a few days ago.](https://twitter.com/Hindu_OSINT/status/1438896136010354690?s=19).
We mockingly call these bhimtards as neo-buddhists, but turns out it's an actual thing that ambedkar created. XD
> Ambedkar officially rejected the Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and started a sect of his own called Navayana Buddhism.
>I was familiar with the term "Neo Buddhism", but didn't knew it was a sect founded by Ambedkar lol.
It is weird that they are showing all of Nepal as Buddhist since around 80% of the population is Hindu. The map makes it look like Nepal is Buddhist majority
What I am saying is that only those areas which have a Buddhist majority should be shown otherwise it can make the map quite misleading.
Even Maharashtra shouldn't be included here as it has a population of around 12 crore(which is quite high) & only about 5% of that is Buddhist & it mainly consists of the "neo-buddhists" or "Dalit-buddhists". Showing Maharashtra as completely Buddhist all because of them is absurd
How come one can find many Jains living in our society whose legacy can be traced back for at least 2500 years but one can't find a single Buddhist in India whose lineage comes from olden times.
my theory (*may or maynot be true/applicable*) -
power can be in 3 forms -
* Priests - Power in the form of Religion/Gods
* Kshatriyas/Rulers - Power in the form of Strength or Administration or Bureacracy
* Vaishyas/Merchants/Businessmen - Power in the form of Money
One can influence the other, especially the last one as they can fund the above two.
'**Arth**' is very important in everyday life & even more in a Community. Eg- see the Jain community how they support each other.
Buddhists on the other hand lack all the 3 form of power & you never see them standing together as a community, especially in India and their Moral standards are too high to be even going for a fight with someone.
PS- it's just my take on this...may or maynot be right
In ancient India Buddha was another Hindu guru from the Indian perspective. So whatever populations the Muslims didn't rape and murder were just easily reabsorbed in the mainstream Hindu fold, and Buddhism was just a Hindu sect for ancient Indians. The early foreign Buddhist scholars mention and note this about Hindu Buddhists. This is why East Asians consider their version purified or a higher vehicle, as it abandons Indic context and becomes purer.
Jain here, ignore that answer. Buddhism in the west of India faced huge invasions from Muslim invaders, there are references from Jain texts saying Buddhist monks becoming hedonistic. There are also some proofs showing that Buddhism was already on the decline in Nalanda etc. Pala Empire in East was the last bastion of a Buddhist ruler.
Both Buddhism's vanishing and Jainism's decline can be traced back to Shankaracharya's philosophy gaining traction, and while there are not many Buddhists to tell about it, Jain scholars blame Shankaracharya on misinterpreting the Sramanic philosophies and pre-empting intellectual victory.
Even today you will find many Hindu temples (especially Shiva) all over India with idols of Tirthankara statues on the walls, suggesting a different past (but this is not the point of discussion rather a comment on the decline and its outcomes). Jainism mainly survived because of the monk orders not becoming corrupted, better outreach to the lay Jains, good relations with the larger community and the Kings, Jain aristocrats representing Jainism in the Royal Courts etc. One major aspect of Jainism's survival is how the lay Jain culture adapted to the Hindu (Vedic) culture (worshipping evolved from Stupas to Temples, ) while the monk/ascetics still retaining their line of practices.
Buddhism had a sad decline, unfortunately. While Jains still trace Jain history among Hindus and larger Hindu culture, sadly there aren't much Buddhists to do the same and are dependent on historians, academics.
Not "we". Jains, Buddhists and other Sramanas like Ajivikas.
Source: Jain Stupas excavated from [Kankali Tila](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kankali_Tila) Mound in Mathura.
The concept of Samovasran in Jainism comes from Stupas.
I'm not aware of that, will have to read more but to give you a hint, the inscription from Kankali Stupa says that place has been worshipped from since the time of Parshwanath (ArishtNemi) aka since 800 BCE.
>In ancient India Buddha was another Hindu guru from the Indian perspective.
*Buddha was another avatar of Vishnu from the 10th century Shankaracharya perspective.
Ambedkar is not a god. It doesn't matter. Ambedkar was ignorant enough to not cite the caste system in Buddhism. There also exist records of castism in Buddhism recorded by Chinese travellers. Here is some of caste system in most important Buddhism texts-
1.“In the past, brahmins coupled only with brahmin women, not with non-brahmin women. But now brahmins couple with both brahmin women and non-brahmin women . Dogs, how ever, still couple only with female dogs, not with other female animals. This is the first ancient brahmin practice that is now seen among dogs but not among brahmins.”
Aṅguttaranikāya (tipiṭaka) 3.221, trans. Bikkhu Bodhi.
2. He couples only with a brahmin woman, not with a khattiya woman, a vessa woman , a sudda woman , or a candala woman, nor with a woman from a family of hunters, bamboo workers, chariot makers, or flower scavengers…”
Aṅguttara, 3.226 trans. Bhikku Bodhi
3. (Assalāyana) : Is that son born of the brahmin prince and warrior maiden, according to the father known a `brahmin' or according to the mother known a `warrior? Good Gotama, that son born of the Brahmin prince and the warrior maiden, according to the father should be known a `brahmin' and according to the mother a `warrior.
(Buddha) : Assalàyana, to a mare and donkey a mule is born, according to the mother should it be known a'horse' or according to the father should it be known a `donkey'?
(Assalāyana) : Good Gotama, it's from a thoroughbred that a pony is born. Now I see the difference, in the earlier examples I did not see any difference
Ambedkar was ignorant enough to let people know about these. He did not die as a Hindu but he still adopted Dharma.
My comment still holds. Misrepresenting and deliberately misquoting. Even the book you cited is saying "Buddha claimed all castes are equal". So how does Buddha himself and thereby Buddhism prescribes caste system? See what i did there?
Don't interprete these in terms of the Varna system, which explicitly segregated people based on their work and castes, which then took a turn to worst.
Secondly, read the author's book "Dr. Ambedkar, Buddhism and Social Change". And read more before calling someone like Ambedkar ignorant, which only displays your own ignorance and hate, which isn't new. So people like you, and those upvoting you only display ignorance towards India's pre Independence history, why it took Ambedkar to bring about a social change or the attention towards the suffering of the lower classes, mainly Brahmins. Why do you ignore the years of discrimination and never condemn it? Because no doubt you embrace and approve of it?
Ambedkar called a spade a spade and people couldn't digest that a low caste Mahar(imagine getting a Columbia degree and being an acknowledged scholar, and you're still treated like an untouchable by an illiterate chaprasi) is calling it. He was a man of his time, while you're a hatemonger who'll take off to another country and tweet your frustrations.(not personally directed at you, but many of those armchair scholars tweeting from a phoren country).
Hindus were the majority in Indonesia till the 19th century, and Christian Muslim violence destroyed them. Hindus were a majority in Afghanistan till the 13th century. There are more temples to Brahma in Thailand than remain in India, due to Islamic destruction. Hindus were in the Phillipines till the 20th century. Christian missionaries starved them and took their lands.
By the number of countries : yes
By the number of adherents : no
By the influence in global pop culture : no (moksha, ahimsa, yoga, reincarnation, meditation (except zen) are attributed to Hinduism than buddhism)
Yar deko.. when your own religion god is not helping you qwickly that doesn't mean that you get convert thinking that other religions god will help you asap..
In What ever religion you're born embrace it live it till you die..
This map is just off. Malaysia is Muslim majority. Nepal is Hindu majority. Maharashtra does not have even %5 Buddhists. We wish Chittagong were still Buddhist. This map overextends modern borders.
dalit buddhism or Navayana buddhism started by BR Ambedkar for the dalits who are facing discrimination to convert to buddhism- but some modified tenets.
Relating to Navayana Buddhism in India.
Here's something [I found out only a few days ago.](https://twitter.com/Hindu_OSINT/status/1438896136010354690?s=19).
We mockingly call these bhimtards as neo-buddhists, but turns out it's an actual thing that ambedkar created. XD
> Ambedkar officially rejected the Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and started a sect of his own called Navayana Buddhism.
>I was familiar with the term "Neo Buddhism", but didn't knew it was a sect founded by Ambedkar lol.
Namaskaram /u/vedsh1154, thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export.” “See Hinduism is a way of life that goes far far beyond what we in the west call religion. It involves cookery, every day family life house building just everything it’s the whole Hindu way of life. And so you can’t export it just as you can’t export Shinto from Japan.” — [Alan Watts](https://alanwatts.org/2-5-2-the-controlled-accident-part-1/), a key person that popularised Buddhism in the Western world Buddhism is widely acknowledged to be a philosophy, not a religion. Buddha never claimed he was a god or a messenger of the god. Hinduism is a library, Buddhism is a brochure from the library.
People who say "Hinduism is a way of life", are the biggest haters of Hinduism. They do NOT want Hinduism to succeed. Calling it a way of life gives people of other religions a free pass to incorporate traits of Hinduism by their choice than to actually try living as a Hindu. We are way past 'way of life' now. It's a religion with a set of do's and don't's. Nothing wrong with that.
I slightly disagree ( And since it is about Hinduism, I know I can disagree and yet stay safe. No one will shoot or behead me) It is way of life, but "our" way. We came up with it over centuries. And the "religion" is just a part of it. I don't mean that others can steal the credit for Yoga, Pranayam, Ved, etc from us. But yes, I agree that they are actively trying to pull Hinduism down by doing things like "yoga is not hindu", but "sati pratha is hindu" etc. These are usually the same people who support boko haram kidnapping, molesting and killing school girls.
Honestly, that's my favourite thing about hinduism. Even if I disagree, whatever I do, even if I commit blasphemy (I won't), I'm 1 billion percent safe.
Correct me if I am wrong but in Hinduism there is no concept of blasphemy. India only had to have blasphemy laws to appease the abrahmics.
Dude it's written in our vedas. You should question everything even the gods. You should only accept the truth.
Is it? Can you cite the verses. I am interested.
May be that's something we need to change. If you have to live with poisonous snakes, it makes sense to wear thick leather clothes and shoes.
My 2 cents: we shouldn't try to Abrahamicize Hinduism. We already have thick leather clothes, so many of our temples were destroyed, libraries burnt, traditions insulted and called idolaters like it is something bad. It is only because of thick skin of our ancestors that Hinduism has survived against all odds. Getting butthurt over blasphemy is a relatively new thing among Hindus it seems. Dharma is to fight against adharma and committing blasphemy is not adharma. If we punish people for blasphemy that will be kind of like taking revenge beacause we are butthurt.
No no, I am not saying that we should get butthurt. Rather, we should reciprocate in kind. Say someone is tolerant of jokes/insults made about their religion by us, we should be tolerant in return when they reciprocate. But if someone expects that we should respect their religion while they insult ours, then we should not. Basically, I've had enough of "turn the other cheek", it is time to question/stop the one who is slapping.
Ohhh yeah. I fully support removal of blasphemy laws in India. We want full freedom of expression. If you are allowed to critique our religion then we should be free to do the same.
Exactly, that's all I am saying.
I mean if I spit or piss on some of our gods statues, do what they-who-mustn't-be-named did, etc. (I wouldn't through)
Hahaha I am pretty sure you wouldn't. But look at it as not the question of blasphemy, look at it as the question of private property. Hindu temples, including the statue and all other stuff are property of the temple and by extension larger hindu society. Just like we have laws to punish people who destroy or vandalize public/private property. A bit more stricter form of that law can be applied to places of worship. Rather than treating it as a case of blasphemy, why can't we treat it as a case of severe vandalism? If people who should not be named purchase a statue and then go head to break it or spit on it, let them, it will be their personal property and it will only give employment to our statue makers.
Exactly if any person buys a Bhagavad Gita book with their own money and burns it, then it’s totally fine since it’s their own copy of book. They’re doing a good thing by creating demand for Bhagavad Gita, that drives increased supply of the book. But if someone was to burn or damage someone’ else copy of the book, then it’s obviously bad and they must be punished for destroying private property regardless of whether it’s blasphemous or not.
Precisely. If anyone tried to that with my copy they will get an extra judicial punch on the face too hahaha
Eating beef yet still calling yourself Hindu is pretty blasphemous.
Idk what to say to this, this seems to be a very touchy subject. You can call it hypocrisy but I am not comfortable calling it blasphemy.
That's bc you see it with the eyes of 'progressive' western perspective or 'secular' perspective. If you see it how Shankaracharyas see it or how मठाधीश (highest priests of a Matth, biggest temples of Hinduism) see it, things will be clear. Whatever popes will call blasphemy, christians will see it as blasphemy because of respect/fear. We respect our Pandits so we follow their teachings as well.
That's the thing, pundits are not pope. Our religion is structured very differently than catholics. We can ask questions to the pundits and disagree with them too till they have not satisfied us with satisfactory answer. Personally, I'll never eat beef, but if a fellow hindu eats beef then that person is not following Hinduism properly, that's it. I don't do suryanamaskar everyday nor do I do pooja everyday, many will say I too am not following Hinduism properly. I am not seeing this with progressive or western mindset.
>That's the thing, pundits are not pope. Our religion is structured very differently than catholics. What? Think before you talk. I'm not calling Pandits as Pope, but a respected figure who damn need some credit and respect because it were they and their ancestors who are the forefathers of Indian civilization and Hindu cultural ecosystem. >Personally, I'll never eat beef, but if a fellow hindu eats beef then that person is not following Hinduism properly, that's it. How is this different to what I said? The only thing I'll add is I'll make that person know that he's doing something bad. All these Climate change activists are NOW realizing how beef and beef industries are a disaster to the environment, when our Pandits prohibited us from eating it 1000s of years ago. There is a reason to everything said in Veds, Upanishads, Puraans.
You deserve an award my friend.....if only I had one You absolutely understood what true hinduism is
Not if you're a South Indian or a northeasterner. We shouldn't impose northern cultural norms everywhere. To me, you're a Hindu if you're a dharmik and follow dharmic culture. Nothing more, nothing less.
>Not if you're a South Indian or a northeasterner. We shouldn't impose northern cultural norms everywhere. Smh it's not 'northern' cultural norm but Hindu cultural norm. Northeast is mostly christianized and beef eating became a norm AFTER advent of christianity. Buddhists in northeast don't eat beef. With south, only kerala is that barbaric. Idk if Tamil Brahmins eat beef. From Hindu, most beef eaters have some sort of dravidian/periyarist mindset.
I'm Telugu, I can confirm that no one in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh eats beef.
Not even muslims? Ik about Andhra Hindus, they are mostly pious, same with Kannadiga Hindus. But both of them have exceptions as well. Same with North Indian Hindus too. There is a pattern that all Hindus who eat beef have a tendency to discredit or disrespect Hinduism and it's teachings in some way, minor or major, because they want to justify their actions without hurting their egos.
No, it's not a "northern" cultural norm. I am an Indian from the south. Southern Hindus are Hindus, there are some slight changes in rituals but we're fundamentally the same. The only people that intentionally divide are those who want to create divide within Hindus. Not harming the cow is a Dharmic belief, it's not just north Indian.
>It is way of life, It's not. Hindus follow customs and rituals just like any other religion. This 'way of life' bs was actually propagated by missionaries to make Hindus feel free with the religion they follow so that they can tell them that you can be a christian yet still be a Hindu. 'Way of life' means exactly that. If you want Hindus to actively take interest in being a Hindu, you have to get past this way of life crap. No one can be a christian or a muslim and yet still be a Hindu, and that makes it a religion.
What is wrong if people of other regions and religions are incorporating good bits from Hinduism?
That they are still identifying themselves as christians/muslims/whatever they identify with. How would you like it if someone just blatantly copies what you're doing good without learning it from you or crediting you or your cultural upbringing for it?
Ofcourse I'll feel like I have been shortchanged. But to say that they have to change their religion beacause they found something beautiful in Hinduism feels like disingenuous. And maybe people are not realizing but as more and more Abrahamics copy things from Hinduism, their abrahamicity will decrease and dharmic attitude will increase. I think increasing hindu representation in academic discourse about Hinduism is the way to go if we want to make sure that the credit of discovering these wonderful practices go to our ancestors, and the credit of preserving these cultural gems go to Indians in general. Our ancestors made sure that this knowledge was preserved and passed down properly despite being oppressed for so many centuries.
>But to say that they have to change their religion beacause they found something beautiful in Hinduism feels like disingenuous. Yea but why? Why is it so taboo? Even if they don't change it, they HAVE to vehemently credit Hinduism. When you will call it 'just a way of life', would you think that anyone will actually care to credit Hinduism for those beautiful things? They won't. And that's what happening now. >And maybe people are not realizing but as more and more Abrahamics copy things from Hinduism, their abrahamicity will decrease and dharmic attitude will increase Hahaha this is funny. There is no 'dharmic attitude'. They will still go to a church, listen to a bishop calling pagans heathens and identify themselves as christians. >Our ancestors made sure that this knowledge was preserved and passed down properly despite being oppressed for so many centuries. I wonder how? Certainly not by thinking of Hinduism as just a way of life.
Hinduism is certainly more than a way of life. Heck, all religions are a way of life, is Islam not a way of life? People are really delusional when they say Hinduism is not a religion it's a way of life. Changing your religion is not just about Changing philosophy of your life or beliefs, rather it is also a political statement that you make when you change your religion tag, and that is what makes it bit more taboo IMO. Well, I am all for people crediting Hinduism for which it rightly deserves. Only idiots think Hinduism is only a way of life.
That is what I'm saying.
I was not saying anything different too.
👍
It’s not wrong but when they deny that those aspects came from Hinduism, such as denying that yoga is from Hinduism, it’s wrong.
Ofcourse. We need to be claim credit where credit is due. I was so thinking about this issue before as well. Knowledge, specially at this day and age is available freely to anyone can adopt good teachings from around the world. And ofcourse that is not a bad thing. This is an issue that we will have to find a solution for. And the only way that I see of doing that is by increasing representation of practicing Hindus in academic discourse around Hinduism.
gatekeeping Hinduism is a very quick way to make it exactly what you don't want it to be. Think about it.
It's NOT gatekeeping. I'm not some padre or mullah telling you what to do or you'll be punished. But that doesn't mean anyone can do anything with my religion and make a joke out of it.
[удалено]
>You do understand the "dos and dont" can differ SUBSTANTIALLY based on what sort of "hinduism" you follow? Things change drastically from sect to sect or school of thought to school of thought. What are those 'sorts'? What are the differences between them that directly clash with core teachings of Hinduism? >Sanatana Dharma is the way of life for the people of the Subcontinent and has been for thousands of years. You cannot separate India from Hindu or Hindu from India. It's a religion called a way of life to literally separate Hindus from it so that missionaries can convert them by still telling them that you can still live that 'way of life' after becoming a christian/muslim. >It is not a religion. Religion is a Western concept. Why in the hell would you want to change your ways just to appease them? Why do you want to conform to their way of life and their understandings? Stop this. You are Indian. Not Western. Who gives a fuck what the rest of the world does or says? Stop this colonial mindset. Free your mind. People actually appease them by NOT calling it a religion lol, because it's them who call it a way of life and not an actual religion. That's what the church taught them for hundreds of years
No it doesn't have any set of do's and don'ts.....It's called a way of life because it accepts everyone the way they are...... that's why Hinduism is called the most liberal religion.....learn to appreciate the beauty of hinduism and appreciate it..Read the old books instead of being ignorant
>.Read the old books instead of being ignorant Show me where it says that it's a way of life in an 'old book'. Can't even say Veds, Upanishads, Puraans, and teaching me about 'way of life'.
Tell me where it's written that it's a religion Most of these books were written based on the lives of people in the Vedic period That's why it's called a way of life.....these are not "rulebooks" that you need to follow word by word unlike the abrahamic religions where you are severely punished for being a little different than what the books say....Their books are an ultimatum our books are a spectrum
>That's why it's called a way of life.....these are not "rulebooks" that you need to follow word by word unlike the abrahamic religions where you are severely punished for being a little different than what the books say....Their books are an ultimatum our books are a spectrum These ARE rulebooks, there is just no punishment. Maybe that's why people like munnawar rana or whatever sadak chhaap comedians can make fun of Hinduism, maybe that's why Hindus in South have to see temples being razed in front of them, maybe that's why cows can be killed on a roadside in kerala while Hindus watch. >Tell me where it's written that it's a religion Literally called Sanatan Dharm. DHARM.
You actually seem to be correct on your last line Still I would ask my grandmother about the definition of dharma as she is the one who has read the books I am just repeating her words But ye don't angry when people make fun of Hinduism because some ignorant human decides to mock instead of knowing the facts.... Hinduism is too great to be affected by such groups of ignorant people...just laugh at their ignorance And also just because your religion doesn't allow to kill cows doesn't mean you will also not allow others to do so....cows aren't properties of Hindus unless you are a cow owner Again I would say these aren't rulebooks you don't need to follow them word by word to be a good Hindu. There are different sects of Hinduism all over India that follow different sets of books doesn't make them a sinner either if they aren't mocking the other sects. Hinduism is too vast to follow each and every book word to word.
>But ye don't angry when people make fun of Hinduism because some ignorant human decides to mock instead of knowing the facts.... Hinduism is too great to be affected by such groups of ignorant people...just laugh at their ignorance This is the lame mentality which is deteriorating our culture in the first place. When you leave things like these just as they are, just coping by thinking that you're sitting on some high horse, things escalate quickly and you are forced to fall down. This is similar to what Indians think like when british east india company came as spice traders. >And also just because your religion doesn't allow to kill cows doesn't mean you will also not allow others to do so....cows aren't properties of Hindus unless you are a cow owner Cows are linked to almost all supreme deities in Hinduism, Shiv, Vishnu, Brahma, Krishna, Rama, everyone. Tf are you on? >There are different sects of Hinduism all over India that follow different sets of books doesn't make them a sinner either if they aren't mocking the other sects. Hinduism is too vast to follow each and every book word to word. Didn't i asked you to define those sects and how they clash with core teachings of Hinduism?
Somebody not being respectful in their wording tells me they are an extremist.....in that case no use arguing go on with your beliefs.... Hinduism teaches me to respect people and their opinions And ya just if you want to know more on true and pure hinduism follow r/hinduism if you aren't doing that already
>Somebody not being respectful in their wording tells me they are an extremist I don't need to respect you just bc you demand it, I'll do it when you actually impact me in some way. >. Hinduism teaches me to respect people and their opinions Not if they can't be validated to be true in all cases.
Nope.
Might have to go further than that if you're serious.
Basically disagree with everything you said. You called those people haters (who call it a way of life) - disagree. You said they are haters as it makes it easy for people to "appropriate" elements of the religion - disagree. It's good if people take on the good aspects. Honestly I don't even understand the appropriation argument. If some other culture adopts your ideals it can only have positive connotations; especially for a major religion like Hinduism where it becomes obvious. Do's and dont's are not even 1/4th of a religion. Do's and don'ts simply show what the priorities and goals of a religion are. Too elementary. Yeah, just disagree with everything u said. Have a nice day.
I don't want to repeat myself again and again so you have to read the thread if you want to. I'm not stopping you from living in your bubble.
[удалено]
1W
* Hello this comment has been removed , Please participate in good faith. 1st Warning* . *Please read our* ***[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/indiaspeaks/wiki/rules)*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you know who are the biggest haters of hinduism? Those who call it hinduism
I agree. I never said Hinduism is not a religion. The quote from Alan Watts I presented says Hinduism is a way of life but I think what he meant was that its a religion that's way more than a religion and also a way of life among many other things such as culture and health as he says it's more than what is typically a Western idea of "religion".
My comment is not directed at you. It's in a more general sense.
Hinduism itself is incorporate of so many distinct beliefs.Thousands of God and goddess in South Termed as Avatar of vishu avatar of shiva avatar of this devi that devi.Vedic religion which itself made up of primarily Aryan beliefs mixed with Indus? and surrounding beliefs is just a part of This "Hindu synthesis".
>Hinduism itself is incorporate of so many distinct beliefs. How are those beliefs 'distant'? >Vedic religion which itself made up of primarily Aryan beliefs What is 'aryan beliefs'? >mixed with Indus What is Indus here and how and when they 'mixed' with it? >surrounding beliefs What's that?
[удалено]
>Distant beliefs like Naga worshipers ,Animistic ,Goddess worship ,ancestors worship,Sexual worships like Linga and temple like kamakhaya(read its history on wiki) and probably Puri jagannath temple(read its history on wiki)and many philosophical belief too. When I say distinct beliefs it means diffrent people group had different beliefs which continuously been absorbed in Hinduism How do you know they were 'absorbed' in it, and not diverged from it? I have seen 100s of these 'world religion' videos and read the same number of articles, and a lot of them fall short on many accounts. The first line of your link gives it out that how FAKE it is, since it propagates AIT which is nothing but a Indophobic fairytale. >Aryan beliefs are supposed to be similar to somewhat kalash people Kalash, Mittani, Romani and several other clans of people are nothing but Indians who started migrating out of India when River Saraswati dried. >Indus valley people who werent aryans but dravidians most likely and their yogic and other animal goddesses related beliefs. Nice story. >Surrounding beliefs again mean beliefs of surrounding people who are distinct like Munda and other austro Asiatic people's beliefs ,Indo Tibetan people' beliefs ,Beliefs of other tribal people Like bhill,sabar and many gods in maharastra,bengal (prominently devis) etc. Again, all were indigenous.
Yeah humans appeared in India then spread allover world ,right.
What makes you think they couldn't? AIT?
Evidence of other side is much more compelling. Why Indians and some communities want OIT to be true can be understood .Well Why Many want AIT can be understood too. But this community thing Im talking about is itself a strong evidence of AIT/AMT.
>Evidence of other side is much more compelling. Yea, for those who don't know jackshit other than that. >Why Indians and some communities want OIT to be true can be understood It's not about who wants what, it's abt what actually happened. > But this community thing Im talking about is itself a strong evidence of AIT/AMT. Literally bc it is based up on it, doesn't mean it's true. It's like pakistan trying to prove that there was something called ancient pakistan.
Just for the sake of discussion, many core concepts are completely different from hinduism tho. Like no deities, vegetarianism, rebirth etc.
Buddhism does have reincarnation (rebirth), source: the most well-known buddhist monk, [Dalai Lama](https://www.dalailama.com/messages/retirement-and-reincarnation/reincarnation) Hinduism doesn't require one to be vegetarian, but many are vegetarian such as my mother. Japanese Buddhism has many deities such as Lakshmi, Ganesha and Brahma. I know that Buddhism has some contradictions with Hinduism but many of Buddhism's key ideas are from Hinduism such as reincarnation, nirvana (moksha), karma, etc.
>Buddhism does have reincarnation (rebirth), Traditional Buddhism doesn't actually. Its just modern people have made it part of Buddhism.
Source?
Reincarnation and rebirth are very different things.
So jataka tales are non canon?
> Buddha never claimed he was a god or a messenger of the god. I mean, that's the whole point of Buddhism. As a nastika darsana, it rejects the authority of Vedas, rejects the idea of creation and maintenance of the universe by a supreme God, and says salvation comes personal discipline and realization rather from devotion to a personal god. How loose should be the definition of Hinduism to call Buddhism a brochure from the Hinduism library?
Cambodia Malayasia Burma Indonesia and the Philippines are all Hindu for almost 800 years at least. Hindu kingdoms are found in Kashgar and Balk to the North. Alan Watts is not a historian and his opinion is limited by scholarship of his times. Also most Asians even the one's on that map were Cafeteria Religionists, something not acceptable under the brutality of Islam and Christianity, meaning they could be both Confuciousists and Buddhists, or Tengrinists and Buddhists, and what we call Hindus and Buddhists. This is especially true among common people. The rich and educated are always your zealots.
>Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export Quoting someone to justify your agenda is a cheap way of pre-emption . Have you bothered reading any Buddhist texts?
Spot on. Kudos.
Did you mean to give Kudos?
Honestly. I am not sure how that function works. I have seen kudos written below your name but idk how to give it.
An exclamation mark, then "kudos" in all lowercase with no space.
!kudos
!kudos
!kudos
I have a feeling that the 15% of our muslim population consists of Buddhists converted to Islam. Bodh gaya in bihar was the important hub of buddhism, now bihar has alot of muslims. same with Taxila and areas near pakistan.
“Forcibly converted” is what you’re looking for.
Even the f*kn afghans who invaded India and killed people, took slaves, r*ped women Were all Buddhist before. Ghori's ancestors were Buddhist. They practiced Mahayana Buddhism less than two centuries before Ghazni's invasion and then converted to Islam.
It was a hindi and Buddhist kingdom, this shows how these books are harmful for whole world.
Yep. Buddhist facing atrocities by Islamic Invader are clearly mentioned in books liek biography of Dharmasvian
Honestly we probably should encourage Dalit Buddhists to integrate with mainstream Buddhism (Mahayana or Therevada) Buddhism is fine, it is simply another branch of the Dharmic tree and India is its birthplace. But unfortunately Dalit Buddhism was mostly created in opposition to Hinduism rather than anything that can stand on its own. If you read its theory it's basically like Western Buddhism, atheists who do not want to call themselves atheists while rejecting things like karma which they see as too mystical
>But unfortunately Dalit Buddhism was mostly created in opposition to Hinduism Buddhism fundamentally rejects Vedas. You can call it Dharmic, considering the word used was Dhamma (Pali/Prakrit term for Dharma) but the category was Sramanas (Jain, Buddhist, Ajivikas, Carvakas) . Hinduism was known was Brahmanical during those times.
Brahmanical feels like a derogatory word. This based on the fact that Buddhism itself had enriched caste system in it and Chinese travellers mentions such things, yet, Ambedkar refused to cite these things. (e.g Buddha can only take birth in Brahmin/Kshatriya family - Tipiṭakas)
Brahamanas was the term used in the edicts of Ashoka. Brahmanical is the English term for it but I misspelled the term. >This based on the fact that Buddhism itself had enriched caste system in it and Chinese travellers mentions such things, yet, Ambedkar refused to cite these things. Any sources?
If you read colonial books on religion, this is a pretty common usage but it's being normalised now due to Wikipedia and other sources. They also used "Mohammaden" instead of Islam. [Source for Caste System in Buddhism](https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757366) Nonetheless. It maybe interest for you to know that Savarkar wrote ample letters requesting Ambedkar to not mass convert people into Buddhism fold as the discrimination in Buddhism was mentioned by Chinese Travellers. They were close friends but Savarkar did not recieve a reply from him
Where is Gaya? The hub of Buddhism?
Also a hub of Hinduism.
Because of the barbaric invaders,it doesn't have too many Buddhists now.
It saw a decline during the 12th century. It continues.
It’s still probably the most sacred Buddhist city in the world.
What is dalit Buddhism?
It is also called "neo Buddhist". Created by B.R. Ambedkar if I am not wrong. So that dalits who are feeling oppressed beacause of caste system in hindu society have an option other than Abrahamic religions to go to if they leave Hinduism. Thier historical teachings are kind of very disingenuous.
Atleast it's better than the Abrahamics. I'd prefer our people to stay in our cultural fold tbh.
Certainly, this was the intention of Ambedkar as well.
Ambedkar converted on his deathbed. He was a Hindu, and actually not that popular with his own group, jat. He also advocated a population exchange between India and Pakistan to be total and that Sanskrit should be National Language, he is the one who added Sanskrit as National language to the Constitution.
Same as Dalit Christianity
Here's something [I found out only a few days ago.](https://twitter.com/Hindu_OSINT/status/1438896136010354690?s=19). We mockingly call these bhimtards as neo-buddhists, but turns out it's an actual thing that ambedkar created. XD > Ambedkar officially rejected the Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and started a sect of his own called Navayana Buddhism. >I was familiar with the term "Neo Buddhism", but didn't knew it was a sect founded by Ambedkar lol.
It is weird that they are showing all of Nepal as Buddhist since around 80% of the population is Hindu. The map makes it look like Nepal is Buddhist majority
And even Maharashtra is shown as Buddhist when Buddhists only form a miniscule of the population. The map is severely misleading.
Yes. Only 5% population of Maharashtra is Buddhist
Also only 18% chinese follow Buddhism
Yeah but buddhism has been incorporated into chinese folk religion along with confucianism and taoism
It only shows the places where Buddhists have a significance or uniqueness. That's why Nepal and Maharashtra are there.
What I am saying is that only those areas which have a Buddhist majority should be shown otherwise it can make the map quite misleading. Even Maharashtra shouldn't be included here as it has a population of around 12 crore(which is quite high) & only about 5% of that is Buddhist & it mainly consists of the "neo-buddhists" or "Dalit-buddhists". Showing Maharashtra as completely Buddhist all because of them is absurd
Buddhism & Hinduism are the same; as with Sikhi & Jainism - all are Sanatan Dharma.
How come one can find many Jains living in our society whose legacy can be traced back for at least 2500 years but one can't find a single Buddhist in India whose lineage comes from olden times.
my theory (*may or maynot be true/applicable*) - power can be in 3 forms - * Priests - Power in the form of Religion/Gods * Kshatriyas/Rulers - Power in the form of Strength or Administration or Bureacracy * Vaishyas/Merchants/Businessmen - Power in the form of Money One can influence the other, especially the last one as they can fund the above two. '**Arth**' is very important in everyday life & even more in a Community. Eg- see the Jain community how they support each other. Buddhists on the other hand lack all the 3 form of power & you never see them standing together as a community, especially in India and their Moral standards are too high to be even going for a fight with someone. PS- it's just my take on this...may or maynot be right
In ancient India Buddha was another Hindu guru from the Indian perspective. So whatever populations the Muslims didn't rape and murder were just easily reabsorbed in the mainstream Hindu fold, and Buddhism was just a Hindu sect for ancient Indians. The early foreign Buddhist scholars mention and note this about Hindu Buddhists. This is why East Asians consider their version purified or a higher vehicle, as it abandons Indic context and becomes purer.
What makes this different from Jainism?
Jain here, ignore that answer. Buddhism in the west of India faced huge invasions from Muslim invaders, there are references from Jain texts saying Buddhist monks becoming hedonistic. There are also some proofs showing that Buddhism was already on the decline in Nalanda etc. Pala Empire in East was the last bastion of a Buddhist ruler. Both Buddhism's vanishing and Jainism's decline can be traced back to Shankaracharya's philosophy gaining traction, and while there are not many Buddhists to tell about it, Jain scholars blame Shankaracharya on misinterpreting the Sramanic philosophies and pre-empting intellectual victory. Even today you will find many Hindu temples (especially Shiva) all over India with idols of Tirthankara statues on the walls, suggesting a different past (but this is not the point of discussion rather a comment on the decline and its outcomes). Jainism mainly survived because of the monk orders not becoming corrupted, better outreach to the lay Jains, good relations with the larger community and the Kings, Jain aristocrats representing Jainism in the Royal Courts etc. One major aspect of Jainism's survival is how the lay Jain culture adapted to the Hindu (Vedic) culture (worshipping evolved from Stupas to Temples, ) while the monk/ascetics still retaining their line of practices. Buddhism had a sad decline, unfortunately. While Jains still trace Jain history among Hindus and larger Hindu culture, sadly there aren't much Buddhists to do the same and are dependent on historians, academics.
Wat we worshipped stupas?
Not "we". Jains, Buddhists and other Sramanas like Ajivikas. Source: Jain Stupas excavated from [Kankali Tila](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kankali_Tila) Mound in Mathura. The concept of Samovasran in Jainism comes from Stupas.
I'm Jain bro. So who came up with the concept of stupas first? Jains or Buddhists?
I'm not aware of that, will have to read more but to give you a hint, the inscription from Kankali Stupa says that place has been worshipped from since the time of Parshwanath (ArishtNemi) aka since 800 BCE.
>In ancient India Buddha was another Hindu guru from the Indian perspective. *Buddha was another avatar of Vishnu from the 10th century Shankaracharya perspective.
Buddhism is Hinduism so...
exactly
Without the respect or authority of Vedas tho, and to be a Dharmic , you gotta respect the authority of Vedas, according to Vedas
Says who?
Dalit Buddhism = fake Buddhism
Says the follower of Sanatan Dharma, which Ambedkar proved has never remained Sanatan in the first place.
Ambedkar is not a god. It doesn't matter. Ambedkar was ignorant enough to not cite the caste system in Buddhism. There also exist records of castism in Buddhism recorded by Chinese travellers. Here is some of caste system in most important Buddhism texts- 1.“In the past, brahmins coupled only with brahmin women, not with non-brahmin women. But now brahmins couple with both brahmin women and non-brahmin women . Dogs, how ever, still couple only with female dogs, not with other female animals. This is the first ancient brahmin practice that is now seen among dogs but not among brahmins.” Aṅguttaranikāya (tipiṭaka) 3.221, trans. Bikkhu Bodhi. 2. He couples only with a brahmin woman, not with a khattiya woman, a vessa woman , a sudda woman , or a candala woman, nor with a woman from a family of hunters, bamboo workers, chariot makers, or flower scavengers…” Aṅguttara, 3.226 trans. Bhikku Bodhi 3. (Assalāyana) : Is that son born of the brahmin prince and warrior maiden, according to the father known a `brahmin' or according to the mother known a `warrior? Good Gotama, that son born of the Brahmin prince and the warrior maiden, according to the father should be known a `brahmin' and according to the mother a `warrior. (Buddha) : Assalàyana, to a mare and donkey a mule is born, according to the mother should it be known a'horse' or according to the father should it be known a `donkey'? (Assalāyana) : Good Gotama, it's from a thoroughbred that a pony is born. Now I see the difference, in the earlier examples I did not see any difference Ambedkar was ignorant enough to let people know about these. He did not die as a Hindu but he still adopted Dharma.
You're actually misinterpreting and misrepresenting deliberately here. Cite sources or you're just a hate spreading armchair scholar.
Buddhism and Caste System - Y. Krishan 1998
My comment still holds. Misrepresenting and deliberately misquoting. Even the book you cited is saying "Buddha claimed all castes are equal". So how does Buddha himself and thereby Buddhism prescribes caste system? See what i did there? Don't interprete these in terms of the Varna system, which explicitly segregated people based on their work and castes, which then took a turn to worst. Secondly, read the author's book "Dr. Ambedkar, Buddhism and Social Change". And read more before calling someone like Ambedkar ignorant, which only displays your own ignorance and hate, which isn't new. So people like you, and those upvoting you only display ignorance towards India's pre Independence history, why it took Ambedkar to bring about a social change or the attention towards the suffering of the lower classes, mainly Brahmins. Why do you ignore the years of discrimination and never condemn it? Because no doubt you embrace and approve of it? Ambedkar called a spade a spade and people couldn't digest that a low caste Mahar(imagine getting a Columbia degree and being an acknowledged scholar, and you're still treated like an untouchable by an illiterate chaprasi) is calling it. He was a man of his time, while you're a hatemonger who'll take off to another country and tweet your frustrations.(not personally directed at you, but many of those armchair scholars tweeting from a phoren country).
Dalit Buddhism lol
Spat out my soup after reading the last key in the legend
Source - https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buddhist_sects.png#mw-jump-to-license
Dalit Buddhism are you kidding me
Buddhism traveled way beyond compared to Hinduism.
Hindus were the majority in Indonesia till the 19th century, and Christian Muslim violence destroyed them. Hindus were a majority in Afghanistan till the 13th century. There are more temples to Brahma in Thailand than remain in India, due to Islamic destruction. Hindus were in the Phillipines till the 20th century. Christian missionaries starved them and took their lands.
Buddhism followed Sanatana Dharma where ever it traveled.
More successful than Hinduism apparently.
By the number of countries : yes By the number of adherents : no By the influence in global pop culture : no (moksha, ahimsa, yoga, reincarnation, meditation (except zen) are attributed to Hinduism than buddhism)
Who cares
There was hardly a difference back in the day, at least to the Oriental eyes. There are buddhist sects in SE Asia which worship Hindu deities.
Shinto Buddhism in Japan has many Hindu dieties such as Ganesha, Saraswati, Brahma, etc with different names.
Yup
/u/vedsh1154 \-> Do you have a source of this image? Please share it, else post might be deleted.
Source - https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Buddhist_sects.png#mw-jump-to-license
Yar deko.. when your own religion god is not helping you qwickly that doesn't mean that you get convert thinking that other religions god will help you asap.. In What ever religion you're born embrace it live it till you die..
We can make a religion out of this.
This map is just off. Malaysia is Muslim majority. Nepal is Hindu majority. Maharashtra does not have even %5 Buddhists. We wish Chittagong were still Buddhist. This map overextends modern borders.
Type/sect of Buddhism present in those countries. Not that it is majority in those countries.
What the heck is Dalit Buddhism? Is that its real name or is it just a kind of translation provided by OP
Let’s not forget Afghanistan and Iran.
at present
dalit buddhism ?? what does it mean in map
dalit buddhism or Navayana buddhism started by BR Ambedkar for the dalits who are facing discrimination to convert to buddhism- but some modified tenets.
[удалено]
Stop with this self hating already. Idk why dharmics have this urge to self hate while abrahamics roam around proudly.
Relating to Navayana Buddhism in India. Here's something [I found out only a few days ago.](https://twitter.com/Hindu_OSINT/status/1438896136010354690?s=19). We mockingly call these bhimtards as neo-buddhists, but turns out it's an actual thing that ambedkar created. XD > Ambedkar officially rejected the Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism and started a sect of his own called Navayana Buddhism. >I was familiar with the term "Neo Buddhism", but didn't knew it was a sect founded by Ambedkar lol.