India

Rama Called Buddha A Thief?Rubbish


The harm the Invaders inflicted on Indians and Hindu culture is unimaginable.

Right from Max Mueller,to today’s secular authors.

But there are some well meaning people who do not understand Sanskrit propagate Hinduism do more harm to Hinduism than good.

One such is a piece in Quora where the author states that Lord Rama called Buddha a Thief!

And the article quotes Ramayana of Valmiki.

pop56-56

Shankaracharya on Reality in Brahmasutra

And the author asserts  that there have been interpolations in the Rmayana and people should be careful in reading the Ramayana!

No doubt there have been interpolations in The Ramayana and people are aware of it

a336374af756060ea2fb7a1d46f4e1ce

Buddha on Reality.Image credit

And one who knows Sanskrit and History also knows how to sift the chaff from the grain.

In the meanwhile, people who very little of Sanskrit mus refrain from writing on these issues without adequate knowledge of Sanskrit and History.

In the present case, the term Buddha means one who discusses things intellectually and nothing more,.

The term Buddha also means enlightened one according Buddhism.

So when the term Buddha is used in the Ramayana  it is in the sense of one who discusses things  as an Intellectual.

Buddha is venerated as a Great Philosopher  for His interpretation of Reality is as aspect of Brahman.

The Sunyavada of Buddhism is very close to Advaita, though not similar.

“Valmiki Ramayana mentions Buddha in bad light.

Valmiki Ramayana has divisons called Kandas like Bala Kanda , Ayodhya kanda , Yuddha kanda etc.

Bala kanda deals with the balyam i.e childhood of sri rama. Ayodhya kanda,  deals mainly with events that happened after the Rama getting married i.e preparation for coronation of Rama and Rama leaving Ayodhya.

In the beginning of Ayodhya kanda Rama was made to leave kingdom resulting in cascade of event like death of Dasaratha death , recalling of Bharatha urgently from his uncles kingdom and now Bharatha comes back to Ayodhya and comes to know about his mothers wishes , Rama’s exit to forests and death of his father .  He feels very sad for the things that happened and now he thinks about going to forest with many important people like his mothers, his ministers , soldiers etc to persuade rama to accept the Ayodhya kingdom and rule as the king.

After meeting Rama the screen play starts, one by one starts requesting Rama to return to Ayodhya  using their oratory and logical skills and  now comes the turn of Jabali i.e one of the ministers of Ayodhya kingdom. In the replay given to Jabali shunning his logical arguments Rama criticises Buddha.

In Ayodhya Kandas chapters called Sargaa. In ayodhya kanda in 109th sarga  has many poems and in the 34 poem Rama calls Buddha as theif and abuses his religion as atheistic  and bad.

Here is the text:

यथा हि चोरः स तथा हि बुद्ध |

स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विध्हि |

तस्माद्धि यः शङ्क्यतमः प्रजानाम् |

न नास्ति केनाभिमुखो बुधः स्यात् २-१०९-३४

Source.https://www.quora.com/Is-Buddha-mentioned-in-the-Ramayana-What-does-that-imply-for-the-date-of-composition-of-the-text

yathaa hi choraH sa tathaa hi buddha |
stathaagataM naastikamatra vidhhi |
tasmaaddhi yaH shaN^kyatamaH prajaanaam |
na naasti kenaabhimukho budhaH syaat 2-109-34( Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda,Sarga 109. Sloka 34)

34. yathaahi tathaa hi= It is an exact state of the case; saH= that; buddhaH= a mere intellection; choraH= (is deserves to be punished) as a thief; viddhi= and know; naastikam= an atheist; atra= here; tathaagatam= to be on par with a mere intellectual; tasaat= therefore; yaH= he who; shaN^kya tamaH= is the most suspectable; prajaanaam= (should be punished in the interest of) the people; na syaat= In no case; buddhaH= should a wise man; abhimukhaH= consort; naastikaa= with an atheist.

‘In sarga 110 & shloka 34 of Ayodhyakanda Rama saysto  Bharata, ” Buddha & his followers are thieves. They don’t believe  in God. It is better to be away of them.”

तस्य ज्येष्ठो असि दायादो राम इत्य् अभिविश्रुतः |
तद् गृहाण स्वकम् राज्यम् अवेक्षस्व जगन् नृप || ३४

34. asi = you are; jyeSThaH = the eldest son; tasya = of that Dasaratha; abhivishrutaH = very well known; raama iti = as Rama; daayaadaH = the heir who can claim over the inheritance; nR^ipaiH = O; king!; tat = for that reason; gR^ihaaNa = take over; svakam = your; raajyam = kingdom; avekSasva = look after; janam = your people.

“You are the eldest son of that Dasaratha, very well-known as Rama, the heir who can claim over the inheritance. O, King! Hence, take over your kingdom and look after your people there.”

“It is an exact state of the case that a mere *intellection deserves to be punished as it were a thief and know an atheist to be on par with a mere intellectual. Therefore he is the most suspectable and should be punished in the interest of the poeple. In no case should a wise man consort with an atheist.”

* It is the word that is responding to the chanllenge, which we call intellection. Truth/God is very subtle. A mind that is caught in the net of words/arguments cannot understand truth/God.

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga109/ayodhya_109_frame.htm

http://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/valmikiramayan/ayodhya/sarga110/ayodhya_110_frame.htm

https://ramanan50.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/ancient-maps-india-timeline-ramayana-mahabharata/

Standard
India, Uncategorized

Indian National Anthem on George IV Tagore Replies


There is a view that the Indian National Anthem ,Jana Gana Mana was wrttien by Rabindranath Tagore in praise of King George IV.

rabindranath_tagore_unknown_location

Rabindranath Tagore who wrote The Indian National Anthem. 

I had written on this.

Tagore had replied  to this criticism  thus,

Tagore was a premier literary figure when Emperor George V and Empress Mary came to the Delhi durbar of 1911. In this context a few royalists asked him to compose a song in praise of the monarch. In answer, Tagore wrote to his friend P.B. Sen thus: “…A certain high official in His Majesty’s service, who was also my friend, had requested that I write a song of felicitation towards the Emperor. The request simply amazed me. It caused a great stir in my heart. In response to that great mental turmoil, I pronounced the victory in Jana Gana Mana(abbreviated, JGM) of that Bhagyavidhata [god of destiny] of India who has from age after age held steadfast the reins of India’s chariot through rise and fall, through the straight path and the curved. That Lord of Destiny, that Reader of the Collective Mind of India, that Perennial Guide, could never be George V, George VI, or any other George. Even my official friend understood this about the song. After all, even if his admiration for the crown was excessive, he was not lacking in simple common sense…”

The song rendered at the Calcutta session of the Indian National Congress that year. The same day, another song, written in praise of the emperor, was also sung. Sections of the press messed up the reporting, and thus started the confusion, that has since persisted.

During his lifetime Tagore was asked more than once about JGM being written in praise of the emperor. His reply was: “I should only insult myself if I cared to answer those who consider me of such unbounded stupidity as to sing in praise of George IV or George V as the Eternal Charioteer leading the pilgrims on their journey through countless ages of the timeless history of mankind.”

Source.

http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/tagore-and-that-song/article7342972.ece

I am unable to find a clear statement that Tagore had not written the song in praise of King George IV.

He could have said

‘No, I have not written in praise of King George IV.  The song was written in praise of India’

Instead poetic interpretations ?

Some replies reveal more.

Standard
India, Islam, Uncategorized

Why Vande Madaram Was Dropped As Indian National Anthem


I wrote an article that Indian National Anthem ‘Jana Gana Mana’ written by Rabindranath Tagore was originally written in praise of King George IV.

images

Vande Madaram by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee.

 

While there were favorable comments,there have been few criticisms.

I shall write on the explanation provided by Tagore in another post.

In the meanwhile there isca lot of heat with a group calling for Indians to hail India as ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’- Victory unto Bharat(India)’ , Mother.

Predictability Muslims refused this saying that they will not as their Religion forbids worshiping any one other than Allah.

 

The other side calls them unpatriotic.

During the Freedom Struggle the song Vande Madaram was sung to rouse people and it was quite popular.

There was a concerted move to have this song as Indian National  Anthem.

As expected Muslims objected to this.

Now read on,

But as communalism aggravated, its ‘importance’ got pumped up. The Hindu Mahasabha organised a ‘Vande Mataram Day’ in October 1937. In March 1938, Jinnah wrote: “Muslims all over [India] have refused to accept Bande Mataram… as a binding national anthem.” It was clear the freedom fighters would have to stall these ‘divide and rule’ tactics.

Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru approached Tagore for advice. In a remarkable letter to Bose, Tagore wrote: “The core of BM is a hymn to goddess Durga: this is so plain that there can be no debate about it… no Mussulman can be expected patriotically to worship the ten-handed deity as ‘Swadesh’….The novelAnandamath is a work of literature, and so the song is appropriate in it. But, Parliament is a place of union for all religious groups, and there the song cannot be appropriate…” In a post script, he added: “…[S]ince there are strong feelings on both sides, a balanced judgment is essential. In pursuit of our political aims we want peace, unity and good will — we do not want the endless tug of war…”

Not surprisingly, both Tagore and Gandhi came under attack from zealots. However, the national leadership stood firm. By end-October 1937, the Congress Working Committee, which included Nehru, Bose, Vallabhbhai Patel and Abul Kalam Azad, declared that “…[the first two stanzas] described in tender language the beauty of motherland… absolutely nothing in them to which objection could be from the religious or any other point of view…” However, they stated that “[the other stanzas] contain certain allusions and a religious ideology which may not be in keeping with the ideology of other religious groups in India. The Committee recognises the validity of the objection raised by Muslim friends to certain parts of the song… [T]aking all things into consideration therefore, the Committee recommend that wherever the BM is sung at national gatherings only the first two stanzas should be sung with perfect freedom to the organisers to sing any other song of an unobjectionable character…”

A sub-committee was constituted to decide which other songs could be sung at formal gatherings. Thus, while BM remained in use as a slogan, the song per se was sent into ‘retirement’ by the finest of Indians. This was no easy choice, given that many of them had a personal attachment to it. But they were pragmatic enough to banish their ‘musical weapon’ rather than allow the enemy to misuse it.’

This is it.

One should not waste time in trying to tell Muslims what  one should do.

They are beyond Nation.

Beyond country’s Laws.

One cacan not force a guest/ refugee to follow the Nation’s ethos.

For them their ‘Umma’ comes first.

Period.

Citation and reference.

http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/tagore-and-that-song/article7342972.ece

Standard
India

Three Gentlemen Or Three Idiots Of Dadri ?


India is one country, where under the garb of Freedom of Speech one can get away with any thing, even murder, literally if your additional qualification is that you belong to a minority community, meaning not a Hindu!

Salman Khan, Shah Khan and AmirKhan.jpg Salman Khan, Shah Khan and AmirKhan.

Dilip Kumar.jpg Dilip Kumar.

And if you are a tinsel God, your word is the Bible, even if you have just touched the shadows of an educational institution.

You can air your views that were a  part of bed room talk between a husband and wife.

I have ceased writing on these issues for quite some time as they are trivial , it seemed to me.

But the recent non sensical discussion on Intolerance in India forces me write for leaving these gentlemen’s statements uncontested makes them bolder and as Goebbels dictum goes, the more audacious the lie, more likely that it will be believed.

I read an article in the Tamizhaka Arasiyal , a Tamil Political bi weekly from Chennai which answers most of the issues raised by Amir Khan on intolerance in India.

The article was titled Three Idiots.

His statement that the present situation in India made his wife wonder whether India is a safer place live and whether they should consider relocating.

The article is well  written and I am writing  this article based on the Tamil Article.

It is difficult to catch the flavour of the original nor the force of the article in English.

I shall  attempt.

‘ I am worried about the future of our children’

Said Kiran Rao Mohammad  Amir Hussein  Khan, wife of the Tinsel town Hero Amir Khan.

 

This, the 50-year-old actor disclosed in the Goenka Award function, alluding to the recent ‘incidents’ in India, which to him and his wife was a cause for concern.

 

While no body can deny the right of Mr.Khan to express his views in a country like India,a democracy, it is what he left unsaid is more pungent  that is bound have an impact on people who treat him as a demi God.

He could have stated that the recent incidents had hurt him,

Stray incidents are blown out of proportions,

In a vast country with over 23 languages and different practices, these small issues are bound to be and these should be condemned,

Or he could have said, as another legend of actor, Kamal Hassan did ( who normally takes shot at Hinduism in his movies ,though carefully skirting around Islam or Christianity), that beef eating is a matter of personal choice.

But the great Khan said neither.

Well, one can not expect anything better from one who has just touched the shadow of an educational institution!

He had not said as to which of these incidents had directly ‘threatened ‘ his child’s future. he could/should have.

 

An honest Man would have.

One who had a taken a Movie PK where Hindu Gods were insulted, where Lord Shiva was portrayed as hiding behind a Toilet should pause.

Had he portrayed Gods of other Religions even in a slightly satirical fashion, especially Prophet, would he be alive today?

 

Mind you, this movie was released by the Censor Board of India, when the much maligned Hindutva Party, BJP is in power!

When  some objected to the portrayal of Hindu Gods in PK thus, it was Hindus who raised their voice against this.

Does he remember that One Yousuf Khan had to change his name to a Hindu name so that he could be accepted by the masses.

He was the Legendary Dilip Kumar!

Which party was in power then?

Definitely not BJP

 

He could have expressed his concern about the incidents .

.No. he did not.

How could one who was appointed as the Ambassador was Clean India drive, Swach Bharat, by the same BJP Government?

Was he not threatened then?

Was he not concerned when his Hindu bashing movie raked in 300 Crore at the Box Office?

How come he had a heart to sow the seeds of poison among the Muslims of India, I am talking of normal Muslims, who partake food, functions and even in Temple festivals?

 

The irony is that Khan’s first wife Reena and his second wife Kiran Rao are Hindus.

Had he been in Saudi, Pakistan, can his wives call themselves this way, mixing up Hindu and Muslim names?

Well, if you have deicided to move away from India, which is intolerant, you could have, to liberal regimes like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia, where people are killed in the name of Law and Order in Public or by terrorists,

Pakistan where one does not know when the next attack would come.

Or To Europe or USA where Islamophobia is ranging, where in the US there is, on an average one Public shooting a Day in this year, or where a Black child was shot dead for carrying a Knife!

Despite these incidents in the US, US citizens did not consider moving away from the US,

Instead, they have made Obama, a Muslim as their President.

In India we revere Dr. Zakir Husssian, Abdul Kalam, Fakhruddin Alil Ahmed former Presidents of India,Nawab of Pataudi,Azharuddin, Bismiilah Khan, Mammotty,Shah Rukh Khan, Amir Khan, Salman Khan ,

We see them as Indians, and not merely as Muslims!

Well, if you are an Indian by heat these thoughts would not even crossed your mind.

If you had a bed room discussion, better keep it there.

India may not be filthy rich .

It  has economic inequalities.

Its roads are not clean.

Might be there have been instances of the sort he mentioned here and there.

Should we not correct them?

Does it mean that one think of running away?

One does not change Fathers because one’s is not as handsome as the neighbour’s.

 

Did Amir Khan about the ruckus created by Muslims during the release of Kamal Hassan’s film Viswaroopam , where a scene was objected to by an unruly crowd?

 

Mr.Khan, if you do not like Narendra Modi, you may attack his policies( Amir Khan earlier stated he did not like Modi or his policies), as Shatrughan Sinha, a BJP big wig does.

But nobody bothers Shatrughan for he does not promote Sedition and spoils religious harmony.

You need the claps of Indians , their money and at the slightest possible excuse you want to run away?

We have another gentleman in Shah Rukh Khan who said that India is sliding back to Dark Ages( TV interview)

Being secular has become dangerous.

He has not been able to practice his religion Islam in India.

How?

As  when he entered into a brawl with women and cricket staff at the IPL, pitch drunk?

Islam promotes Drinking and public brawl?

Part of practicing your religion?

When Shah Rukh Khan was questioned by Income Tax for irregularities in his Club Kolkatta Knight Riders, Modi is blamed for targeting Shah Rukh!

Salman Khan,

A guy who killed people sleeping on the footpath by his drunken driving and changed his version so much that one thinks the  Car was driving itself!

His movies were banned in Pakistan.

Bajrangi Bhaijaan for making reference to the terrorist Hafiz Sayed!

 

How come these gentlemen kept quite when,

Pakistan army butchered Bangladeshis in 1971?

When Professor Joseph’s Hand was cut off in Kerala by Muslims?

Subsequent to Dadri episode Mr. Poojary was killed in Public in Mangalore?

When Snapdeal apps was uninstalled by over 100000 people, Amir Khan says he has no intention of leaving India!

These guys, sensitive, socially conscious?

Three Idiots’

Translated from Tamizhaka Arasiyal dated 2/12/2015

Standard
Ashoka, Emperor of India.image.jpg
India

Greeks Followed Buddhism Ashokas Edicts


I have been planning to write on Buddhism and Jainism, the two Great Religions of India apart from Hinduism.

To begin with let me share information about the propagation of Buddhism around the world.

Ashoka Maurya (/əˈʃkə/; Sanskrit: अशोक मौर्य; 304–232 BCE), commonly known as Ashoka and also as Ashoka the Great, was an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from circa 269 BCE to 232 BCE.[1] One of India’s greatest emperors, Ashoka reigned over a realm that stretched from the Hindu Kush mountains in the west to Bengal in the East and covered the entire Indian subcontinent except parts of present day Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The empire’s capital wasPataliputra (in Magadha, present-day Bihar), with provincial capitals at Taxila and Ujjain.

 

Buddhism in the world during Asoka's Reign.image.jpg

Spread of Buddhism during Asoka’s period

Asoka took to Buddhism with great zest and propagated it around the world by sending out preachers.

He had recorded this in his edicts.

Emperor Asoka's Edicts.image.jpg

Emperor Asoka’s Edicts Locations.

The Ashoka inscriptions represent the first tangible evidence of Buddhism. The edicts describe in detail the first wide expansion of Buddhism through the sponsorship of one of the most powerful kings of Indian history. According to the edicts, the extent of Buddhist proselytism during this period reached as far as the Mediterranean, and many Buddhist monuments were created.

The inscriptions proclaim Asoka’s beliefs in the Buddhist concept of dhamma and his efforts to develop “dhamma” throughout his kingdom. Although Buddhism and the Buddha are mentioned, the edicts of Asoka tend to focus on social and moral precepts rather than religious practices or the philosophical dimension of Buddhism.

The inscriptions revolve around a few repetitive themes: Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism, the description of his efforts to spread Buddhism, his moral and religious precepts, and his social and animal welfare program.

Ashoka explains that he converted to Buddhism out of remorse for his conquest of the Kalingas around 264 B.C.E. in eastern India (near the present-day state of Orissa):

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas (Rock Edict Nb13, S. Dhammika).

Following his conversion, Ashoka traveled throughout India and visited sacred Buddhist locations, where he would typically erect a pillar bearing his inscriptions:

Twenty years after his coronation, Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, visited this place and worshipped because here the Buddha, the sage of the Sakyans, was born. He had a stone figure and a pillar set up and because the Lord was born here, the village of Lumbini was exempted from tax and required to pay only one eighth of the produce (Minor Pillar Edict Nb1, S. Dhammika).

Ashoka’s concept of “Dhamma” seems to be synonymous with righteousness. In order to propagate the Buddhist faith, Ashoka explains he sent emissaries to the Hellenistic kings as far as the Mediterranean, and to the peoples throughout India, claiming they were all converted to the Dharma as a result. He names the Greek rulers of the time, inheritors of the conquest of Alexander the Great, from Bactria to as far as Greece and North Africa, displaying an amazingly clear grasp of the political situation at the time.

Buddhist proselytism at the time of kingAshoka (260-218 B.C.E.).

Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni (Rock Edict Nb13, S. Dhammika).

The distance of 600 yojanas (a yojanas being about 7 miles), corresponds to the distance between the center of India and Greece (roughly 4,000 miles).

  • Antiochos refers to Antiochus II Theos of Syria (261-246 B.C.E.), who controlled the Seleucid Empire from Syria to Bactria, in the east from 305 to 250 B.C.E., and was therefore a direct neighbor of Ashoka.
  • Ptolemy refers to Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt (285-247 B.C.E.), king of the dynasty founded by Ptolemy I, a former general of Alexander the Great, in Egypt.
  • Antigonos refers to Antigonus II Gonatas of Macedon (278-239 B.C.E.)
  • Magas refers to Magas of Cyrene (300-258 B.C.E.)
  • Alexander refers to Alexander II of Epirus (272-258 B.C.E.)

Citation.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/indian_inscriptions

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

Standard