Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
There's a running battle going on between ChineseTiger1986 and some others. Somehow, I have the awful suspicion that ChineseTiger1986 is pulling the legs of his opponents massively; his position seems too, too provocative to be for real.
On the other hand, it may be that ChineseTiger1986 is putting across his point of view, and should be feeling pretty frustrated by now by the storm of disapproval in rather generic terms that has descended upon him. Finally, there were crude racist attacks on him by Andross, who should simply be reported and kicked out without any further waste of time: the kind of ethnic insult used by him is completely indefensible. I am surprised that the moderators haven't caught up yet, and I am appreciative of ChineseTiger1986 not to react to this; in his place, I would have gone ballistic by now.
Perhaps one way out would be to take his comments at face value, assume that he means them, and does not intend to annoy Indian posters just to watch the fun when they lose their tempers (it is well known that we lose our tempers very readily), and try to provide him answers. It has to be pointed out that many, most, almost all the Indian posters have tried to put together a coherent picture for him, even as they were struggling with their frustration at his wicked (and I must assume tongue-in-cheek) insistence on wholly contrary facts (wholly contrary to all that is known about Gautama Buddha's personal life, that is).
Let me try to pull together the threads that other Indians have already mentioned, and try to present a coherent picture to ChineseTiger1986. I will do that at the end, and will try to comment on individual posts as we go along seeing these individual posts.
Yes, this was a two-fold reaction, not just to British colonial attempts to capture information that they found in the Vedas, and to convert that information into a model for Indian history whereby successive waves of conquerors came and ruled the country, in whole or in part, but also to a parallel reaction to this colonialist model which emerged from the Dalit camp, and was first proposed by Jyotiba Phule. The Indian supremacist doctrine was a response to both, and has elements of caste supremacy built in to contest Phule's propositions.
Regarding India never officially supporting Buddhism, this is not correct. India was not a name that Indians used about their land, it was a name that Europeans, later, following them, the Arabs used about India. So if you mean that no state calling itself India ever supported Buddhism, you are right. If you mean that no state comprising of the land mass of India supported Buddhism, you are wrong. The Maurya Empire, which comprised most of the land mass of India, and was in addition very extensively spread into present-day Afghanistan and Central Asia, not only supported Buddhism but was responsible for the first concerted attempt to promote Buddhism, which had till then spread by word of mouth and by adoption by enthusiasts.
@ChineseTiger1986 - in extension of my remarks above.^^^^^^
The significance of what Karthic Sri has mentioned is in the Kshatriya ancestry of Gautama.
You may be aware of the controversy going on in another thread, the Battle of the Hydaspes, about the caste origins of Porus, the Indian king who was defeated by Alexander (although there is circumstantial evidence that this may not have been quite the defeat that was reported by the Greek historians who wrote about it several hundred years later; the evidence indicates that it may even have been a drawn battle), it was impossible to prove the caste of Porus. The Greeks mentioned it in one allusive passage, and no Indian source talks about Porus or about the battle, therefore it is not possible to come to any conclusion about Porus; no authentic account of his caste is to be found, and Greek accounts simply are not reliable as they do not know the subject of caste at all well.
In contrast, the Kshatriya status of Gautama was not only known, it was almost a necessary condition for the prince's enquiries and his development of the doctrine of Buddhism. In some ways, both his revolt against late-stage Puranic Hinduism, which had got completely divided into two streams, one day-to-day labouring to complete a series of complicated sacrifices as the only form of religious expression known any longer, the other a series of philosophical enquiries of the very highest order of complexity and subtlety, and still nothing to do with religious expression in day-to-day life. It was against this loss of direction by the Brahmin priests that the Kshatriya princes, Gautama and Mahavira, rebelled within a short time from each other, and in uncannily similar directions. A comparison to the ferment in the Middle East, in Palestine, around the time of Jesus Christ, with a number of sects like the Essenes, the authors of the Dead Sea scrolls, is inevitable.
These Kshatriya princes challenged Hinduism from inside. They were born to rule. They were part of the highest social class, the ruling class, outranked, possibly, only by the Brahmins; all the fruits of social domination was theirs. These were members of the core of Indian society then, not mlecchas, as Kiratas were, not people whose speech could not be understood, therefore barbarian, not suspicious borderline characters, best left unacknowledged lest an investigation should reveal them as unrecognisable within society. There is no doubt, either in the Buddhist scriptures, the Jatakas, for instance, which describe the Buddha's many lives, or in hostile Hindu scripture or writing, that Gautama was the bluest of blue-blooded princes, and that his revolt shook society to its foundations.
Unfortunately, this is based on a completely uninformed view of Nepalese history. While a detailed treatment of Nepal's history is out of place here, please take into account that until the penetration of the Gorkha tribes, the Kathmandu valley was ruled by the Newars, who were far from Tibeto-Mongoloid. In fact, even their residence of the Kathmandu valley was of recent origin, the original residents being closer to what is today called the Madhesis. In those days, they were not so called, because the occasion did not arise.
If you are insisted, I can dwell on this point in detail.
Incorrect. Those who looked alien, those who spoke in an alien manner were rapidly characterised as mleccha, those who spoke badly. In the increasing domination of Indian society in the Gangetic plain by the Indo-Aryan speakers, and their rapid domination of the existing language uses, the deference paid to one cultural segment, the segment which could be assimilated, and the hostility towards the other, the segment that could not be assimilated, was crystal-clear.
@ChineseTiger1986: Put with undue vehemence, but quite correct, actually. From east of Bodh-Gaya, there was famously no caste; this in part may have been due to the increasingly different cultural standard and norm to be found to the east, and rather reminiscent of the other cultural divide, the southern. Many Bengalis, and Bangladeshis, if we must tip our hats to political correctness, especially those east of Dhaka, have high cheekbones, sallow skins, slanted eyes, but no epicanthic fold. There is therefore a transition of physical appearances as we travel further and further east. By the end, in the Chakma Hills, or in the Lushai and Jaintia Hills, we find full-blown Burmese looks.
@ChineseTiger1986: Again, quite accurately so. I could list the tribes, if you wish, and inform you which are Tibeto-Mongoloid and which are plainsmen settled for several centuries in the region known as Nepal.
True.
Of the far-flung empires, it was the Mauryas and the Palas who were most supportive, but other dynasties offered a lot. Xuanzang's benefactors, the Varma kings of Assam (Kamarupa) for instance.
I am unable to understand these two references as the original context did not get quoted. if you can explain what was meant by them originally, I can try to provide an answer from historical information.
@ChineseTiger1986:The cultural and religious milieu in Bengal and in the east of India in general is very complex, and I advise readers not to get into it without a guide!!
He was not Mongoloid, as such differences were carefully, systematically referenced by specific words used to describe them. His Kshatriya descent and his status in society were freely mentioned. Nor were any differences in appearance even hinted at.
@ChineseTiger1986: On the contrary. His high position allowed him to break open the doors of society to a new way of thinking. Initially not a religion, simply a way to lead life.
On the other hand, it may be that ChineseTiger1986 is putting across his point of view, and should be feeling pretty frustrated by now by the storm of disapproval in rather generic terms that has descended upon him. Finally, there were crude racist attacks on him by Andross, who should simply be reported and kicked out without any further waste of time: the kind of ethnic insult used by him is completely indefensible. I am surprised that the moderators haven't caught up yet, and I am appreciative of ChineseTiger1986 not to react to this; in his place, I would have gone ballistic by now.
Perhaps one way out would be to take his comments at face value, assume that he means them, and does not intend to annoy Indian posters just to watch the fun when they lose their tempers (it is well known that we lose our tempers very readily), and try to provide him answers. It has to be pointed out that many, most, almost all the Indian posters have tried to put together a coherent picture for him, even as they were struggling with their frustration at his wicked (and I must assume tongue-in-cheek) insistence on wholly contrary facts (wholly contrary to all that is known about Gautama Buddha's personal life, that is).
Let me try to pull together the threads that other Indians have already mentioned, and try to present a coherent picture to ChineseTiger1986. I will do that at the end, and will try to comment on individual posts as we go along seeing these individual posts.
Yes, this was a two-fold reaction, not just to British colonial attempts to capture information that they found in the Vedas, and to convert that information into a model for Indian history whereby successive waves of conquerors came and ruled the country, in whole or in part, but also to a parallel reaction to this colonialist model which emerged from the Dalit camp, and was first proposed by Jyotiba Phule. The Indian supremacist doctrine was a response to both, and has elements of caste supremacy built in to contest Phule's propositions.
Regarding India never officially supporting Buddhism, this is not correct. India was not a name that Indians used about their land, it was a name that Europeans, later, following them, the Arabs used about India. So if you mean that no state calling itself India ever supported Buddhism, you are right. If you mean that no state comprising of the land mass of India supported Buddhism, you are wrong. The Maurya Empire, which comprised most of the land mass of India, and was in addition very extensively spread into present-day Afghanistan and Central Asia, not only supported Buddhism but was responsible for the first concerted attempt to promote Buddhism, which had till then spread by word of mouth and by adoption by enthusiasts.
@ChineseTiger1986 - in extension of my remarks above.^^^^^^
The significance of what Karthic Sri has mentioned is in the Kshatriya ancestry of Gautama.
You may be aware of the controversy going on in another thread, the Battle of the Hydaspes, about the caste origins of Porus, the Indian king who was defeated by Alexander (although there is circumstantial evidence that this may not have been quite the defeat that was reported by the Greek historians who wrote about it several hundred years later; the evidence indicates that it may even have been a drawn battle), it was impossible to prove the caste of Porus. The Greeks mentioned it in one allusive passage, and no Indian source talks about Porus or about the battle, therefore it is not possible to come to any conclusion about Porus; no authentic account of his caste is to be found, and Greek accounts simply are not reliable as they do not know the subject of caste at all well.
In contrast, the Kshatriya status of Gautama was not only known, it was almost a necessary condition for the prince's enquiries and his development of the doctrine of Buddhism. In some ways, both his revolt against late-stage Puranic Hinduism, which had got completely divided into two streams, one day-to-day labouring to complete a series of complicated sacrifices as the only form of religious expression known any longer, the other a series of philosophical enquiries of the very highest order of complexity and subtlety, and still nothing to do with religious expression in day-to-day life. It was against this loss of direction by the Brahmin priests that the Kshatriya princes, Gautama and Mahavira, rebelled within a short time from each other, and in uncannily similar directions. A comparison to the ferment in the Middle East, in Palestine, around the time of Jesus Christ, with a number of sects like the Essenes, the authors of the Dead Sea scrolls, is inevitable.
These Kshatriya princes challenged Hinduism from inside. They were born to rule. They were part of the highest social class, the ruling class, outranked, possibly, only by the Brahmins; all the fruits of social domination was theirs. These were members of the core of Indian society then, not mlecchas, as Kiratas were, not people whose speech could not be understood, therefore barbarian, not suspicious borderline characters, best left unacknowledged lest an investigation should reveal them as unrecognisable within society. There is no doubt, either in the Buddhist scriptures, the Jatakas, for instance, which describe the Buddha's many lives, or in hostile Hindu scripture or writing, that Gautama was the bluest of blue-blooded princes, and that his revolt shook society to its foundations.
Unfortunately, this is based on a completely uninformed view of Nepalese history. While a detailed treatment of Nepal's history is out of place here, please take into account that until the penetration of the Gorkha tribes, the Kathmandu valley was ruled by the Newars, who were far from Tibeto-Mongoloid. In fact, even their residence of the Kathmandu valley was of recent origin, the original residents being closer to what is today called the Madhesis. In those days, they were not so called, because the occasion did not arise.
If you are insisted, I can dwell on this point in detail.
You know that today's Nepalese look Chindians.
Before i thought Buddha may look like a Northern Indian man like this guy.
Now i just change my mind since he has possibly more of Mongoloid background, only his religion was Hindu.
Incorrect. Those who looked alien, those who spoke in an alien manner were rapidly characterised as mleccha, those who spoke badly. In the increasing domination of Indian society in the Gangetic plain by the Indo-Aryan speakers, and their rapid domination of the existing language uses, the deference paid to one cultural segment, the segment which could be assimilated, and the hostility towards the other, the segment that could not be assimilated, was crystal-clear.
@ChineseTiger1986: Put with undue vehemence, but quite correct, actually. From east of Bodh-Gaya, there was famously no caste; this in part may have been due to the increasingly different cultural standard and norm to be found to the east, and rather reminiscent of the other cultural divide, the southern. Many Bengalis, and Bangladeshis, if we must tip our hats to political correctness, especially those east of Dhaka, have high cheekbones, sallow skins, slanted eyes, but no epicanthic fold. There is therefore a transition of physical appearances as we travel further and further east. By the end, in the Chakma Hills, or in the Lushai and Jaintia Hills, we find full-blown Burmese looks.
@ChineseTiger1986: Again, quite accurately so. I could list the tribes, if you wish, and inform you which are Tibeto-Mongoloid and which are plainsmen settled for several centuries in the region known as Nepal.
True.
Of the far-flung empires, it was the Mauryas and the Palas who were most supportive, but other dynasties offered a lot. Xuanzang's benefactors, the Varma kings of Assam (Kamarupa) for instance.
I am unable to understand these two references as the original context did not get quoted. if you can explain what was meant by them originally, I can try to provide an answer from historical information.
@ChineseTiger1986:The cultural and religious milieu in Bengal and in the east of India in general is very complex, and I advise readers not to get into it without a guide!!
He was not Mongoloid, as such differences were carefully, systematically referenced by specific words used to describe them. His Kshatriya descent and his status in society were freely mentioned. Nor were any differences in appearance even hinted at.
@ChineseTiger1986: On the contrary. His high position allowed him to break open the doors of society to a new way of thinking. Initially not a religion, simply a way to lead life.
THE REST LATER.
