PDA

View Full Version : Was Siddhartha of the Solar Dynasty?



ShivaFan
30 December 2012, 06:05 PM
Namaste

I am working on an article for the "Wonders of India" project I have been slowly putting to documentation. Currently I am working on an article regarding Raja Harishchandra. Below is the Introduction to this article which deals with lineage. I believe I have the information correct, but I also find evidence that the Buddha was from the same lineage as the Solar Dynasty. I am seeking expert views on this. Also if you could review the introduction below and comment if the lineage looks correct. Keep in mind, the audience is for a Western audience.

Om Namah Sivaya

A Promise Kept

There are many renowned Rajas of India, often their life journey provides an example of enduring qualities that are admired by both the Gods and men. Once glorious chapter as a case in point is the epic chronicles of one of the great Rajas (Kings) of the Solar Dynasty named Harishchandra. This Raja was the very example of honoring a promise made, for keeping ones word is one of the expected characteristics of a Hindu Raja. To a true Raja, ones word is equal to ones honor, and the honor and benefit of all preceding ancestors of the Royal line.

Harishchandra was the 28th King of the Solar Dynasty, a Dynasty with many lineages to come afterwards, and many great scions of heroic fame. Scions of lineage of the Ikshavaku clan, and then much later the Raghuvamsa from which we have the glorious history of Lord Rama Who was the 60th King of the Solar Dynasty and verily 32 Kings after Harishchandra.

This particular Royal line is known as Raghuvamsa which is a lineage of Kings going back to Surya the Sun God or Solar Dynasty. The name Raghuvamsa is in respect to the valorous Raja who was named Raghu of the Ikshavaku clan. Vamsha or vamsa in Sanskrit means dynasty, race or family, lineage or clan. The Ikshavaku Dynasty records its foundation back to Ikshvaku who was the Grandson of Surya the Sun God. Because of this linage, this Dynasty was also known as Suryavamsa or Solar Dynasty. The Solar Dynasty is renowned with a linage that includes the names of Gods and Kings, Saints and Yogis. This is includes Harishchandra, Lord Rama, Gautama Buddha, several Jain Tirthankaras. It was many Kings after Surya before Raghu came into the world.

The very name Raghu is related to the Sanskrit term fast, and fitting a name it was since this Raja was famous for his skilled abilities behind the chariot. And so famous was his skill behind the chariot that though he was of the Ikshavaku Dynasty, his Dynasty afterwards became known as the Raghuvamsa or from the Royal Line (lineage) of Raghu.

And what a Royal line it was indeed, for one of the very next Kings after Raghu was the famed Aja, and Aja was the father of one of the most famous Emperors in history, the famed Dasaratha of the Ramayana who was the father of Lord Rama. The fame of the Ramayana is known to the entire world and all the lokas of heavens. So we remember Raghu today as the Great Grandfather of Ramachandra (Lord Rama). We call Lord Rama Raghava in honor of this Great Raja.

Today, there are glorious men of the Rajput clans who live in Rajputana, Punjab and other areas of Mother India, and who declare ancestry back to the Raghuvanshi (vamsa tree) of Lord Rama.

Anirudh
01 January 2013, 02:06 PM
Namaste Shiva Fan,


Keep in mind, the audience is for a Western audience.

I wish you to be very successful in spreading the light of Hinduism to all parts of the Bhramaand!

Aryavartian
15 March 2013, 10:50 AM
Yes he was.Mahavira was also from Suryavansha Kshatriya lineage.Sad thing is that "scholars" like michael witzel associates SHAKYA with Sakas(Scythians) :(

I personally am a Nagavanshi Kshatriya,we traditionally worship serpents and offer them turmeric and other poojas.

ShivaFan
16 March 2013, 09:01 PM
Namaste Aryavartian

Let me give my respects to the Nagavanshi Dynasty of India, it is most ancient indeed, and to Vasuki, Sheshanaga. I recall seeing naga stones of nagas in India. Also thank you for your confirmation of what I have as far as information so far on this one project.

Om Namah Sivaya

Aryavartian
10 May 2013, 09:29 AM
Namaste Aryavartian

Let me give my respects to the Nagavanshi Dynasty of India, it is most ancient indeed, and to Vasuki, Sheshanaga. I recall seeing naga stones of nagas in India. Also thank you for your confirmation of what I have as far as information so far on this one project.

Om Namah Sivaya


Thank you ShivaFan.Yes it seems that Nagavanshis are quite ancient,they reigned before the Nandas,shortly after the time of Lord Buddha.

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

Sorry for late reply btw,i was inactive....

Alter ego
30 December 2013, 11:28 PM
Yes he was.Mahavira was also from Suryavansha Kshatriya lineage.Sad thing is that "scholars" like michael witzel associates SHAKYA with Sakas(Scythians) :(

I personally am a Nagavanshi Kshatriya,we traditionally worship serpents and offer them turmeric and other poojas.

There is a reason why scholars associate Shakyas with Saka.

In the Pali texts, There is constant reference to incest and inbreeding(cousin/sibling marriages) of Buddha's clan. For instance , see Dasaratha Jataka. These customes were unknown to Indo Aryans. Infact , Dharmasturas condemn sibling marriage. However , shakyas explain them as the only means to maintain their regal purity .

Amongst ancient Iranians ,Incest and inbreeding were considered most pious acts


http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/marriage-next-of-kin

Also the Shakyas were known to have confederated with other tribes like Malla , vrji and licchavi. These tribes resided in northwest(Madra) during Panini's time(520 BC) .However , they were to be found in the east by the time pali canon was composed(350 BC) .

Ambatta sutta provides more clues. Here a Brahmana accuses shakyas of aggression(A saka trait). Ambatta sutta(92) records that Buddha had blue eyes. Hence the insistence of scholars

BTW , Gautama is named after his mother's clan(Gotama) .This is in keeping with Indian tradition of being named after mother's clan(karna--radheya)

Aryavartian
31 December 2013, 11:40 AM
In the Pali texts, There is constant reference to incest and inbreeding(cousin/sibling marriages) of Buddha's clan. For instance , see Dasaratha Jataka. These customes were unknown to Indo Aryans. Infact , Dharmasturas condemn sibling marriage. However , shakyas explain them as the only means to maintain their regal purity .

They only did that when they ventured deeper into the Himalayan regions,to maintain their gotra purity.





Also the Shakyas were known to have confederated with other tribes like Malla , vrji and licchavi. These tribes resided in northwest(Madra) during Panini's time(520 BC) .However , they were to be found in the east by the time pali canon was composed(350 BC) .

Any source for their association with the Madras?


Ambatta sutta provides more clues. Here a Brahmana accuses shakyas of aggression(A saka trait).


It is so because Shakyas started following a Nastika sect.You can see many Brahmins insulting Buddha as well,one even called him as an outcaste.


Ambatta sutta(92) records that Buddha had blue eyes.


So what?Blue eyes are not restricted to Scythians.

Sudas Paijavana
31 December 2013, 02:41 PM
Namaste,

Do we know how much of the the traditions regarding Buddha's physical appearance were oral? Or, when they were formalized/written down?

Alter ego
01 January 2014, 04:12 AM
They only did that when they ventured deeper into the Himalayan regions,to maintain their gotra purity.

.

I don't know of any other Himalayan tribe(such as kashmiras , khasas ,.) which engaged in sibling marriage .If you can cite any , please do.




Any source for their association with the Madras?

.

I quote both witzel and panini
Panini-


"Vrjimadrakabharyah= he whose wife is from Vrjimadra country ;vrjimadrah gana=the polity of Vrjimadra country" (Ashtadyayi:4.2.131)

Witzel-

"Again, Pånini (c. 5th cent. B.C.) still knows of the Vrji (= Påli Vajji)
as a Panjab group (4.2.131, next to the Madra), probably with a tribal
organization (gana). The Mallas, too, were still living in the desert of
Rajasthan at the time of (JB265) and some of them remained there even in
Alexander's time; they are a rather martial group, according to both JB and Alexander's historians.
Both the Malla and Vrji apparently immigrated
into the east only after the end of the Vedic period, but well before the time
of the Buddha (c. 400 B.C.) This must have been one of the last great
infiltrations in Vedic times of western peoples into the lower Gangå area"

The development of vedic canon--michael witzel--page 311

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/canon.pdf




It is so because Shakyas started following a Nastika sect.You can see many Brahmins insulting Buddha as well,one even called him as an outcaste.

.

Really? Which nastika sect did they follow? Please provide your source. In Buddhacharita , Buddha's father suddhodhana performed all the prerequisite yagnas. Buddha underwent upanayana.Their purohita was gautama

That Buddha's family followed vedic religion is also confirmed by mahavagga (1.245)




So what?Blue eyes are not restricted to Scythians

.

I agree. But there are other factors too .The list of 43 omens mentioned in brahmanjali sutta are (almost) identical to 43 omens inscribed by ancient persians .Zoroastrian core principle of Good actions , Good deeds , good thoughts(Yasna haptangaiti 35.2-Around 1200 BCE) has an exact counterpart in Buddhist kaya, vaca citta.(Later 3 vajras) .The round graves which these tribes constructed (discovered at excavations in Lauriya,Nepal) were condemned in Satapatha brahmana 13.8.1.5 as "Asurya"(demonic).These round graves are found in central Asia(Andronovo/saka) and identical to later day stupas.

There are many more , I can go on and on.

Aryavartian
02 January 2014, 06:05 AM
Namaste Alter ego,



I don't know of any other Himalayan tribe(such as kashmiras , khasas ,.) which engaged in sibling marriage .If you can cite any , please do.

Possibly the Shakyas were the first to migrate into the Kirata regions.Also the Kashmiris and Kshasas were from northern Himalayas,not the north-eastern part(home of Kiratas).






I quote both witzel and panini
Panini-


"Vrjimadrakabharyah= he whose wife is from Vrjimadra country ;vrjimadrah gana=the polity of Vrjimadra country" (Ashtadyayi:4.2.131)

Witzel-

"Again, Pånini (c. 5th cent. B.C.) still knows of the Vrji (= Påli Vajji)
as a Panjab group (4.2.131, next to the Madra), probably with a tribal
organization (gana). The Mallas, too, were still living in the desert of
Rajasthan at the time of (JB265) and some of them remained there even in
Alexander's time; they are a rather martial group, according to both JB and Alexander's historians.
Both the Malla and Vrji apparently immigrated
into the east only after the end of the Vedic period, but well before the time
of the Buddha (c. 400 B.C.) This must have been one of the last great
infiltrations in Vedic times of western peoples into the lower Gangå area"

The development of vedic canon--michael witzel--page 311

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/canon.pdf


I would be extremely cautious when quoting Prof.Witzel's works.He is well known for misinterpreting Vedic passages to suit his AIT/AMT theory and chronology.See these links :http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Open_Letter_to_Prof_M_Witzel.pdf
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/ReplytoWitzelJIES.pdf
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/VedicEvidenceforAMT.pdf

Also see Talageri's book for detailed refutation to Witzel's claims.

Anyway i will discuss your points one by one:


1) Vrijji is a state(Janapada),NOT a tribe.The the ruling class(Kshatriyas) of Vrijji were the Licchavis.The term Vrijimadra might indicate a hybrid Janapada,like Kuru-Panchalas.It does not mean Licchavis were of Madra stock!

2)Hes doesn't specify which verse of Jaiminiya Brahmana mentions Mallas.Also the migration can occur from east to west as well.

3) Lord Buddha at 400 BCE?The recent excavations at Lumbini dates Siddhartha Gautama back to 6th milln BCE,possibly predating Panini.




Really? Which nastika sect did they follow? Please provide your source. In Buddhacharita , Buddha's father suddhodhana performed all the prerequisite yagnas. Buddha underwent upanayana.Their purohita was gautama

That Buddha's family followed vedic religion is also confirmed by mahavagga (1.245)

I meant to say that Sri Buddha himself founded a Nastika sect,revolting against Vedic ritualism prevalent during his time.Having that said,he did not reject the core Vedic concepts.



I agree. But there are other factors too .The list of 43 omens mentioned in brahmanjali sutta are (almost) identical to 43 omens inscribed by ancient persians .Zoroastrian core principle of Good actions , Good deeds , good thoughts(Yasna haptangaiti 35.2-Around 1200 BCE) has an exact counterpart in Buddhist kaya, vaca citta.(Later 3 vajras) .

I'm not aware of Brahmanjali sutta,could you please post some links?



The round graves which these tribes constructed (discovered at excavations in Lauriya,Nepal) were condemned in Satapatha brahmana 13.8.1.5 as "Asurya"(demonic).These round graves are found in central Asia(Andronovo/saka) and identical to later day stupas.

Satapatha Brahmana speaks of "easterners" building round graves,but it doesn't specify which "easterners" it speaks of.It is possible that SatpBrhm speaks of the eastern part of Vedic homeland i.e Punjab-Haryana region.


See this message from Witzel,about Nepal graves:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Indo-Eurasian_research/conversations/topics/13470
(Click on first message).

He now regards it as post-Buddhist.

Also the Stupas have nothing to do with the Kurgans of central Asia,Kurgans are built directly from the ground,like a small hill.While Stupas are constructed like temples with bricks or some other materials.


There are many more , I can go on and on.

I can go on as well :D

Jaskaran Singh
02 January 2014, 07:22 PM
There is a reason why scholars associate Shakyas with Saka.

In the Pali texts, There is constant reference to incest and inbreeding(cousin/sibling marriages) of Buddha's clan. For instance , see Dasaratha Jataka. These customes were unknown to Indo Aryans. Infact , Dharmasturas condemn sibling marriage. However , shakyas explain them as the only means to maintain their regal purity .

Amongst ancient Iranians ,Incest and inbreeding were considered most pious acts


http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/marriage-next-of-kin

Also the Shakyas were known to have confederated with other tribes like Malla , vrji and licchavi. These tribes resided in northwest(Madra) during Panini's time(520 BC) .However , they were to be found in the east by the time pali canon was composed(350 BC) .

Ambatta sutta provides more clues. Here a Brahmana accuses shakyas of aggression(A saka trait). Ambatta sutta(92) records that Buddha had blue eyes. Hence the insistence of scholars

BTW , Gautama is named after his mother's clan(Gotama) .This is in keeping with Indian tradition of being named after mother's clan(karna--radheya)
Namaste,
Are you good ol' bAhlikAmlecchaH from RF? If you are, then for once I agree with you since you're providing me with ways in which to counter shUnyatAvAdI newAr nationalists on ekAntipur who claim that bauddha dharma was the "indigenous" religion of nepAl whereas shaivism was brought in from "dhoti-s" (Indians) and "chowkidAr-s" (non-newAr nepAli-s). :rolleyes:



2)Hes doesn't specify which verse of Jaiminiya Brahmana mentions Mallas.Also the migration can occur from east to west as well.
I don't know about migration, but the land of the malla-s is mentioned in the 200th khaNDa of the tR^itIyobhAgaH of the jaiminIyabrAhmaNam, in which the land is considered to be not very bountiful (मघवन्मामुया भूम) as if it were gradually crumbling/decaying into sand (पांसून्प्रध्वंसय):

तं ह बबाधे मल्लोऽसीति।
स होवाच मघवन्मामुया भूम।
तेभ्यो वै नस्त्वं तद्देहि।
येन वयं जीवाम।
त्वद्वै वयं जाता स्म इति।
स वा एतानन्तरांसयोः पांसून्प्रध्वंसयस्वेति।
तान्ह प्रध्वंसयांचक्रे।
ते हैव रजसश्च रजीयांसश्च नाम महाञ्जनपद उत्तस्थौ।
तेषां ह राजास।
तस्य होपगुस्सौश्रवसः पुरोहित आस।
स होवाच मा कश्चन यष्ट।
यो म ईशायां यजते।
ज्येयस्सः।
न वै देवा अहुतस्यादन्ति।
न पर्णाहुतिश्च न होतव्येति।
स हेन्द्र उपगुं सौश्रवसमेत्योवाच याजयानि त्वेति।
स होवाच न वा इह यजन्ते।
यो वा इह यजेत।
जिनीयुर्वै तमिति।
तं ह लोकं लोकं दर्शयांचकारेममिमं वै लोकमिष्ट्वा जयतीति।
स हेक्षांचक्रेऽपि त्यं जिनन्तु।
हन्त यजा इति।
तं होवाच याजय मेति।
तं ह याजयांचकार।
स्वयमेव सदोहविर्धाने उत्तस्थतुः।
उल्खले सोममभिषुषाव।
स होवाचारादेव कुत्सादिहागहीति।
स ह कुत्समेवोपेयाय।
तं होवाच कमयज इति।
उपगुमिति।
एतमुपगुं जिनीतेति॥३.२००॥

Transliteration:
taM ha babAdhe mallo'sIti|
sa hovAcha maghavanmAmuyA bhUma|
tebhyo vai nastvaM taddehi|
yena vayaM jIvAma|
tvadvai vayaM jAtA sma iti|
sa vA etAnantarAMsayoH pAMsUnpradhvaMsayasveti|
tAnha pradhvaMsayAMchakre|
te haiva rajasashcha rajIyAMsashcha nAma mahA~njanapada uttasthau|
teShAM ha rAjAsa|
tasya hopagussaushravasaH purohita Asa|
sa hovAcha mA kashchana yaShTa|
yo ma IshAyAM yajate|
jyeyassaH|
na vai devA ahutasyAdanti|
na parNAhutishcha na hotavyeti|
sa hendra upaguM saushravasametyovAcha yAjayAni tveti|
sa hovAcha na vA iha yajante|
yo vA iha yajeta|
jinIyurvai tamiti|
taM ha lokaM lokaM darshayAMchakAremamimaM vai lokamiShTvA jayatIti|
sa hekShAMchakre'pi tyaM jinantu|
hanta yajA iti|
taM hovAcha yAjaya meti|
taM ha yAjayAMchakAra|
svayameva sadohavirdhAne uttasthatuH|
ulkhale somamabhiShuShAva|
sa hovAchArAdeva kutsAdihAgahIti|
sa ha kutsamevopeyAya|
taM hovAcha kamayaja iti|
upagumiti|
etamupaguM jinIteti||3.200||

oM namo nArAyaNAya

Aryavartian
03 January 2014, 03:31 AM
I don't know about migration, but the land of the malla-s is mentioned in the 200th khaNDa of the tR^itIyobhAgaH of the jaiminIyabrAhmaNam, in which the land is considered to be not very bountiful (मघवन्मामुया भूम) as if it were gradually crumbling/decaying into sand (पांसून्प्रध्वंसय):

तं ह बबाधे मल्लोऽसीति।
स होवाच मघवन्मामुया भूम।
तेभ्यो वै नस्त्वं तद्देहि।
येन वयं जीवाम।
त्वद्वै वयं जाता स्म इति।
स वा एतानन्तरांसयोः पांसून्प्रध्वंसयस्वेति।
तान्ह प्रध्वंसयांचक्रे।
ते हैव रजसश्च रजीयांसश्च नाम महाञ्जनपद उत्तस्थौ।
तेषां ह राजास।
तस्य होपगुस्सौश्रवसः पुरोहित आस।
स होवाच मा कश्चन यष्ट।
यो म ईशायां यजते।
ज्येयस्सः।
न वै देवा अहुतस्यादन्ति।
न पर्णाहुतिश्च न होतव्येति।
स हेन्द्र उपगुं सौश्रवसमेत्योवाच याजयानि त्वेति।
स होवाच न वा इह यजन्ते।
यो वा इह यजेत।
जिनीयुर्वै तमिति।
तं ह लोकं लोकं दर्शयांचकारेममिमं वै लोकमिष्ट्वा जयतीति।
स हेक्षांचक्रेऽपि त्यं जिनन्तु।
हन्त यजा इति।
तं होवाच याजय मेति।
तं ह याजयांचकार।
स्वयमेव सदोहविर्धाने उत्तस्थतुः।
उल्खले सोममभिषुषाव।
स होवाचारादेव कुत्सादिहागहीति।
स ह कुत्समेवोपेयाय।
तं होवाच कमयज इति।
उपगुमिति।
एतमुपगुं जिनीतेति॥३.२००॥

Transliteration:
taM ha babAdhe mallo'sIti|
sa hovAcha maghavanmAmuyA bhUma|
tebhyo vai nastvaM taddehi|
yena vayaM jIvAma|
tvadvai vayaM jAtA sma iti|
sa vA etAnantarAMsayoH pAMsUnpradhvaMsayasveti|
tAnha pradhvaMsayAMchakre|
te haiva rajasashcha rajIyAMsashcha nAma mahA~njanapada uttasthau|
teShAM ha rAjAsa|
tasya hopagussaushravasaH purohita Asa|
sa hovAcha mA kashchana yaShTa|
yo ma IshAyAM yajate|
jyeyassaH|
na vai devA ahutasyAdanti|
na parNAhutishcha na hotavyeti|
sa hendra upaguM saushravasametyovAcha yAjayAni tveti|
sa hovAcha na vA iha yajante|
yo vA iha yajeta|
jinIyurvai tamiti|
taM ha lokaM lokaM darshayAMchakAremamimaM vai lokamiShTvA jayatIti|
sa hekShAMchakre'pi tyaM jinantu|
hanta yajA iti|
taM hovAcha yAjaya meti|
taM ha yAjayAMchakAra|
svayameva sadohavirdhAne uttasthatuH|
ulkhale somamabhiShuShAva|
sa hovAchArAdeva kutsAdihAgahIti|
sa ha kutsamevopeyAya|
taM hovAcha kamayaja iti|
upagumiti|
etamupaguM jinIteti||3.200||

oM namo nArAyaNAya

Namaste Sri Jaskaran,thanks for clarifying! Although it would have been nice if you have provided the English translation of these verses from JB.I'm an amateur in Sanskrit,especially when i'm coming from anti-Brahminist & anti-Sanskritist communist/muslim/christian/secular dominated state.Although,i will surely learn Deva Bhasha in near future so that i can read the ancient Vedic texts without relying on Indologist translations :)

Jaskaran Singh
03 January 2014, 05:08 PM
Namaste Sri Jaskaran,thanks for clarifying! Although it would have been nice if you have provided the English translation of these verses from JB.I'm an amateur in Sanskrit,especially when i'm coming from anti-Brahminist & anti-Sanskritist communist/muslim/christian/secular dominated state.Although,i will surely learn Deva Bhasha in near future so that i can read the ancient Vedic texts without relying on Indologist translations :)
Apart from those references of un-bountiful regions (maghavan [bountiful] + mA [not] + amuyA [there]+ bhuma [land]), the region itself is not heavily described in detail. The rest of the passage is a bit irrelevant when considering the region, except possibly the portion where the R^iShi says they (nastvam, we and you) should nourish others/give them life (jIvAma). Witzel's conclusion that therefore they must be a rAjasthAn desert tribe (on that link you gave) is a bit rash, but what I found more funny while reading that link is that ati mUrkh Witzel said "the Vedic texts admonish that one should keep watching one' back (= west)," lol.

Alter ego
04 January 2014, 01:22 AM
Namaste Alter ego,




Possibly the Shakyas were the first to migrate into the Kirata regions.Also the Kashmiris and Kshasas were from northern Himalayas,not the north-eastern part(home of Kiratas).



I dont get your point. I assert that sibling incest is an Iranian custom(Criticised by greeks, chinese and even Indians) .You claimed it was himalayan and Indian purity custom.( Even the himalayan Newars have no such custom!)Please show any reference . No point in beating around bush .

Migration ? From where? what is your assertion ?And please put up the relevant reference. I thought you were arguing about indegenity of shakyas
:banghead:




would be extremely cautious when quoting Prof.Witzel's works.He is well known for misinterpreting Vedic passages to suit his AIT/AMT theory and chronology.See these links




Why do you bring AIT/AMT into all this? Even the pro Hindutva scholars like elst and byrant concede the foreign origins of shakyas.






1) Vrijji is a state(Janapada),NOT a tribe.The the ruling class(Kshatriyas) of Vrijji were the Licchavis.The term Vrijimadra might indicate a hybrid Janapada,like Kuru-Panchalas.It does not mean Licchavis were of Madra stock!



Playing dumb? Vrji not a tribe? Vrjis don't exist? Before contradicting my statement in CAPITALS a little bit of reading even WIKIPEDIA would have sufficed.


"The name of this Mahajanapada was derived from one of its ruling clans, the Vrjis"


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


[lest I be harangued for quoting wikipedia] "The Master turns to Ananda: 'Have you heard, Ananda, whether the Vrjis have frequent assemblies, are devoted to the Assembly?"(Indian Buddhism-AK warder page page 67)

Anyway , this whole line of argument is futile . He is saying that vrjis and madras were neighbours just like kuru-panchalas and not necessarily of one stock







Satapatha Brahmana speaks of "easterners" building round graves,but it doesn't specify which "easterners" it speaks of.It is possible that SatpBrhm speaks of the eastern part of Vedic homeland i.e Punjab-Haryana region.






Eastern part of Vedic homeland is Punjab-Haryana region?

Now you are talking purely like the aryan invasionists whom criticised above. Are you saying that east of punjab is unknown to vedic aryans?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Talageri whom you cited says exactly the opposite.So you conveiniently pick out whichever is comfortable to your argument.

Anyway , Haryana was not east but centre of Satapata brahmana . Punjabis/Haryanis (Kurus) had square mounds and not round mounds of easterners in the videha region
punjab-hayana region(see below)




See this message from Witzel,about Nepal graves:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Indo-Eurasian_research/conversations/topics/13470
(Click on first message).

He now regards it as post-Buddhist.


so what?




Also the Stupas have nothing to do with the Kurgans of central Asia,Kurgans are built directly from the ground,like a small hill.While Stupas are constructed like temples with bricks or some other materials.



Oh really?Nothing to do?

"While the Kurus and Pañcålas built small square grave mounds of about a yard
high the "easterners and others(!)" are reported by ŚB 12.8.1.5 to have round
graves, which the text interestingly calls åsurya "demonic". Such mounds have
indeed been found at such places like Laurīya on the Nepalese border. These
graves have a great similarity or are virtually the same as the later stūpa of the
Buddhists (and the kurgan type grave mounds in S. Russia)."

Witzel--vedic hinduism page 86.

And witzel is not the only one .The same assertion has been made by parpola(2000) and JP mallory (2001)

Early stupas constructed with bricks like temples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ButkaraStupa.jpg

Alter ego
04 January 2014, 01:37 AM
2)Hes doesn't specify which verse of Jaiminiya Brahmana mentions Mallas.Also the migration can occur from east to west as well.

3) Lord Buddha at 400 BCE?The recent excavations at Lumbini dates Siddhartha Gautama back to 6th milln BCE,possibly predating Panini.




The migration can occur from east to west?

Your reference itself says

"The Sakya (and Malla, Vajj/Vrji) are NEW in Bihar, and not found in
the Late Vedic texts at *that* location, but first in the Pali canon
(compiled c.250 BCE) ."

Buddha at 600 BCE? If you are a member of history groups(like Indo eurasian research group or histoforum) you will know this is considered the "Joke of the year" by historians. The senseless media ,of course , believes only in sensation.

One such sample of criticism--

http://jayarava.blogspot.in/2013/11/the-earliest-buddhist-shrine.html

Alter ego
04 January 2014, 02:21 AM
Namaste,
Are you good ol' bAhlikAmlecchaH from RF? If you are, then for once I agree with you since you're providing me with ways in which to counter shUnyatAvAdI newAr nationalists on ekAntipur who claim that bauddha dharma was the "indigenous" religion of nepAl whereas shaivism was brought in from "dhoti-s" (Indians) and "chowkidAr-s" (non-newAr nepAli-s). :rolleyes:


I don't know about migration, but the land of the malla-s is mentioned in the 200th khaNDa of the tR^itIyobhAgaH of the jaiminIyabrAhmaNam, in which the land is considered to be not very bountiful (मघवन्मामुया भूम) as if it were gradually crumbling/decaying into sand (पांसून्प्रध्वंसय):

तं ह बबाधे मल्लोऽसीति।
स होवाच मघवन्मामुया भूम।
तेभ्यो वै नस्त्वं तद्देहि।
येन वयं जीवाम।
त्वद्वै वयं जाता स्म इति।
स वा एतानन्तरांसयोः पांसून्प्रध्वंसयस्वेति।
तान्ह प्रध्वंसयांचक्रे।
ते हैव रजसश्च रजीयांसश्च नाम महाञ्जनपद उत्तस्थौ।
तेषां ह राजास।
तस्य होपगुस्सौश्रवसः पुरोहित आस।
स होवाच मा कश्चन यष्ट।
यो म ईशायां यजते।
ज्येयस्सः।
न वै देवा अहुतस्यादन्ति।
न पर्णाहुतिश्च न होतव्येति।
स हेन्द्र उपगुं सौश्रवसमेत्योवाच याजयानि त्वेति।
स होवाच न वा इह यजन्ते।
यो वा इह यजेत।
जिनीयुर्वै तमिति।
तं ह लोकं लोकं दर्शयांचकारेममिमं वै लोकमिष्ट्वा जयतीति।
स हेक्षांचक्रेऽपि त्यं जिनन्तु।
हन्त यजा इति।
तं होवाच याजय मेति।
तं ह याजयांचकार।
स्वयमेव सदोहविर्धाने उत्तस्थतुः।
उल्खले सोममभिषुषाव।
स होवाचारादेव कुत्सादिहागहीति।
स ह कुत्समेवोपेयाय।
तं होवाच कमयज इति।
उपगुमिति।
एतमुपगुं जिनीतेति॥३.२००॥

Transliteration:
taM ha babAdhe mallo'sIti|
sa hovAcha maghavanmAmuyA bhUma|
tebhyo vai nastvaM taddehi|
yena vayaM jIvAma|
tvadvai vayaM jAtA sma iti|
sa vA etAnantarAMsayoH pAMsUnpradhvaMsayasveti|
tAnha pradhvaMsayAMchakre|
te haiva rajasashcha rajIyAMsashcha nAma mahA~njanapada uttasthau|
teShAM ha rAjAsa|
tasya hopagussaushravasaH purohita Asa|
sa hovAcha mA kashchana yaShTa|
yo ma IshAyAM yajate|
jyeyassaH|
na vai devA ahutasyAdanti|
na parNAhutishcha na hotavyeti|
sa hendra upaguM saushravasametyovAcha yAjayAni tveti|
sa hovAcha na vA iha yajante|
yo vA iha yajeta|
jinIyurvai tamiti|
taM ha lokaM lokaM darshayAMchakAremamimaM vai lokamiShTvA jayatIti|
sa hekShAMchakre'pi tyaM jinantu|
hanta yajA iti|
taM hovAcha yAjaya meti|
taM ha yAjayAMchakAra|
svayameva sadohavirdhAne uttasthatuH|
ulkhale somamabhiShuShAva|
sa hovAchArAdeva kutsAdihAgahIti|
sa ha kutsamevopeyAya|
taM hovAcha kamayaja iti|
upagumiti|
etamupaguM jinIteti||3.200||

oM namo nArAyaNAya

Namaste ,

please excuse me but I dont think I know you. Please remind me if I do.

I agree with you .Even according to Buddhist texts , Shakyas migrated to Nepal from Ayodhya .Vedic religion already figures in nepalamandala . Apparently it was part of Janaka's rajya

NBPW in kapilavastu

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0ef5nNwbkzU/UD2GVYCB3HI/AAAAAAAADuc/0IP0Bp9bNqQ/s1600/Piprahwa%20soapstone%20casket%20found%20by%20KM%20Srivastava.jpg

Thank you for the citation.

Alter ego
04 January 2014, 02:25 AM
Namaste,

Do we know how much of the the traditions regarding Buddha's physical appearance were oral? Or, when they were formalized/written down?

Namaste Sudas,

Early Buddhist traditions were oral , not unlike Bhagavata and vedic traditions.

First inscriptions from tripitaka have been discovered at bharhut(200 BCE) . The earliest manuscripts date to 100 AD.

Jaskaran Singh
04 January 2014, 10:48 PM
Namaste ,

please excuse me but I dont think I know you. Please remind me if I do.
praNAm,
Oops, I probably mistook you for someone you're not (your writing style seems familiar). I apologize, :o .


I agree with you .Even according to Buddhist texts , Shakyas migrated to Nepal from Ayodhya .Vedic religion already figures in nepalamandala . Apparently it was part of Janaka's rajya
Yes. I even mentioned how a vedic R^iShi, yAj~navalkya, was from mithilA and how sahadeva is said to have died near shrAvastI, but they claim that since they weren't ethnically "nepAlI," Hinduism is still foreign. Your Iranian theory counteracts their claim that Buddha was a Limbu, and hence "indigenous.":rolleyes: I wish that anti-Indian idiot DilipRai from Youtube never spouted his racist nonsense.

Aryavartian
05 January 2014, 02:18 AM
I dont get your point. I assert that sibling incest is an Iranian custom(Criticised by greeks, chinese and even Indians) .You claimed it was himalayan and Indian purity custom.( Even the himalayan Newars have no such custom!)Please show any reference . No point in beating around bush .

Migration ? From where? what is your assertion ?And please put up the relevant reference. I thought you were arguing about indegenity of shakyas
:banghead:


I NEVER said it is a Himalayan or Indian custom!!!! It was practiced by Sakyas when they ventured deep into the Kirata region in order to maintain their gotra purity.Shakyas were orthodox Kshatriyas,surely they won't marry a Kirata tribal.

Here i quote from Ambattha sutta :


'Long ago, Ambattha, King Okkâka, wanting to divert the succession in favour or the son of his favourite queen, banished his elder children--Okkâmukha, Karanda, Hatthinika, and Sinipura--from the land. And being thus banished they took up their dwelling on the slopes of the Himâlaya, on the borders of a lake where a mighty oak tree grew.
And through fear of injuring the purity of their line they intermarried with their sisters.

And obviously the Sakyas were migrants to Nepal,probably from Ayodhya the capital of Iksvakus.






Why do you bring AIT/AMT into all this? Even the pro Hindutva scholars like elst and byrant concede the foreign origins of shakyas.





Seriously?You call Byrant as a Hindutva scholar?:rolleyes:




Playing dumb? Vrji not a tribe? Vrjis don't exist? Before contradicting my statement in CAPITALS a little bit of reading even WIKIPEDIA would have sufficed.


"The name of this Mahajanapada was derived from one of its ruling clans, the Vrjis"


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


[lest I be harangued for quoting wikipedia] "The Master turns to Ananda: 'Have you heard, Ananda, whether the Vrjis have frequent assemblies, are devoted to the Assembly?"(Indian Buddhism-AK warder page page 67)

Anyway , this whole line of argument is futile . He is saying that vrjis and madras were neighbours just like kuru-panchalas and not necessarily of one stock





Well,from this wiki link(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licchavi_(clan))


The Licchavis were the most famous clan amongst the ruling confederate clans of the Vajji mahajanapada of ancient India. Vaishali, the capital of the Licchavis, was the capital of the Vajji mahajanapada also.


So it means that the Vajji/Vriji was not a Janapada ruled by a single tribe....anyway i admit i was wrong about Vriji not being a tribe,thanks for correcting.Even though the term Vrijimadra has a lot more to do with close internal relationship like Kuru-Panchalas rather than just a neighborhood relationship.





Eastern part of Vedic homeland is Punjab-Haryana region?

Now you are talking purely like the aryan invasionists whom criticised above. Are you saying that east of punjab is unknown to vedic aryans?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Talageri whom you cited says exactly the opposite.So you conveiniently pick out whichever is comfortable to your argument.

Anyway , Haryana was not east but centre of Satapata brahmana . Punjabis/Haryanis (Kurus) had square mounds and not round mounds of easterners in the videha region
punjab-hayana region(see below)



I guess you didn't get my point.I guess i should have explained it more.

Here is quote my post again:


It is possible that SatpBrhm speaks of the eastern part of Vedic homeland i.e Punjab-Haryana region.


I said the eastern part of Vedic homeland i.e the eastern sates of Punjab-Haryana regions i.e like UP,Uttarakhand etc.These regions may have been inhabited by the Asura/Ahura worshiping people(early Iranians)



so what?


Duh....the so called spherical mound at Lauriya-Nadangarh turns out to be a post-Buddhist stupa and there is no evidence for the eastern Janapadas building circular graves.





Oh really?Nothing to do?

"While the Kurus and Pañcålas built small square grave mounds of about a yard
high the "easterners and others(!)" are reported by ŚB 12.8.1.5 to have round
graves, which the text interestingly calls åsurya "demonic". Such mounds have
indeed been found at such places like Laurīya on the Nepalese border. These
graves have a great similarity or are virtually the same as the later stūpa of the
Buddhists (and the kurgan type grave mounds in S. Russia)."

Witzel--vedic hinduism page 86.

And witzel is not the only one .The same assertion has been made by parpola(2000) and JP mallory (2001)

What's the point in repeating the same point about Lauriya Nandangarh?





Early stupas constructed with bricks like temples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ButkaraStupa.jpg

The Mauryan stupa depicted in that illustration looks nothing like Mauryan era stupas like that of Sanchi.

Aryavartian
05 January 2014, 02:31 AM
The migration can occur from east to west?

Of course it can.




Your reference itself says

"The Sakya (and Malla, Vajj/Vrji) are NEW in Bihar, and not found in
the Late Vedic texts at *that* location, but first in the Pali canon
(compiled c.250 BCE) ."

Buddha at 600 BCE? If you are a member of history groups(like Indo eurasian research group or histoforum) you will know this is considered the "Joke of the year" by historians. The senseless media ,of course , believes only in sensation.

One such sample of criticism--

http://jayarava.blogspot.in/2013/11/the-earliest-buddhist-shrine.html


It is not "my reference" i was just giving you the link to Witzel's message.

Anyway i will go through that link.

Jaskaran Singh
05 January 2014, 02:52 PM
It was practiced by Sakyas when they ventured deep into the Kirata region in order to maintain their gotra purity.Shakyas were orthodox Kshatriyas,surely they won't marry a Kirata tribal.
That's racist, they have great music, I just hate the fact that so many of them are turning to Maoism, tsk...tsk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru5ArJA1O-A

Aryavartian
05 January 2014, 03:15 PM
[B][I]That's racist

I never meant anything racial.But what i said is true though,Kiratas are Himalayan and north eastern tribal people....



I just hate the fact that so many of them are turning to Maoism



And christianity ;)

Jaskaran Singh
05 January 2014, 11:52 PM
I never meant anything racial.But what i said is true though,Kiratas are Himalayan and north eastern tribal people....
The way you said it made it seem as if they were inferior to Buddha's clan, that's why I said it sounded racist. :)

Aryavartian
06 January 2014, 02:46 AM
The way you said it made it seem as if they were inferior to Buddha's clan, that's why I said it sounded racist. :)

I was writing from Shakyan POV,they considered Kiratas as inferior to them,that is the reason why Shakyans didn't intermarry with Kiratas :)

Alter ego
06 January 2014, 12:29 PM
Yes. I even mentioned how a vedic R^iShi, yAj~navalkya, was from mithilA and how sahadeva is said to have died near shrAvastI, but they claim that since they weren't ethnically "nepAlI," Hinduism is still foreign. Your Iranian theory counteracts their claim that Buddha was a Limbu, and hence "indigenous.":rolleyes: I wish that anti-Indian idiot DilipRai from Youtube never spouted his racist nonsense.

Well , those newaris must know that not a single Tibeto-Burman substrate word occurs in the pali canon.For centuries buddhism has suppressed the indigenous Bon religion of Nepal and tibet

Alter ego
06 January 2014, 12:46 PM
I NEVER said it is a Himalayan or Indian custom!!!! It was practiced by Sakyas when they ventured deep into the Kirata region in order to maintain their gotra purity.Shakyas were orthodox Kshatriyas,surely they won't marry a Kirata tribal.

Here i quote from Ambattha sutta :



And obviously the Sakyas were migrants to Nepal,probably from Ayodhya the capital of Iksvakus.




Namaste Aryavartain ,

Sakyas practised incest long before they ventured into Nepal. Sakyas' Ikshavaku ancestor , Rama pandita, mated with his sister .This happened at Benares.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j4/j4025.htm



.These regions may have been inhabited by the Asura/Ahura worshiping people(early Iranians)



And what makes the Sakyas not one of them?




Duh....the so called spherical mound at Lauriya-Nadangarh turns out to be a post-Buddhist stupa and there is no evidence for the eastern Janapadas building circular graves.



Post Buddha it may be , but Buddhist it definitely isn't.





The Mauryan stupa depicted in that illustration looks nothing like Mauryan era stupas like that of Sanchi.

That is because the stupa at sanchi was rebuilt under sunga reign.It was also renovated by satavahanas and later rulers until 1100 AD.

Alter ego
06 January 2014, 12:49 PM
That's racist, they have great music, I just hate the fact that so many of them are turning to Maoism, tsk...tsk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru5ArJA1O-A

Not impossible . In the aforesaid sutra , Buddha called his rival a 'black slave' .This theme is quite recurrent in the pali canon:rolleyes:

Sudas Paijavana
06 January 2014, 06:20 PM
Pranam-s,

How valid is the following statement, can any of you confirm?


"Vidaḍūbha, the son of Pasenadi and Vāsavakhattiyā, the daughter of a Śākya named Mahānāma by a slave girl, ascended the throne of Kosala after overthrowing his father. As an act of vengeance for cheating Kosala by sending his mother, the daughter of a slave woman, for marriage to his father, he invaded the Śākya territory, massacred them and annexed it."



-from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śākya#Annexation_by_Kosala)

Is it true that the Sakya-s were not viewed favorably by other North Indic/Vedic tribes?

Jetavan
06 January 2014, 08:31 PM
The list of 43 omens mentioned in brahmanjali sutta are (almost) identical to 43 omens inscribed by ancient persians
Greetings,

Where can one find this list of 43 omens of the ancient Persians?

Aryavartian
07 January 2014, 05:46 AM
Pranam AE,


Namaste Aryavartain ,

Sakyas practised incest long before they ventured into Nepal. Sakyas' Ikshavaku ancestor , Rama pandita, mated with his sister .This happened at Benares.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j4/j4025.htm

This is a bastardized version of Ramayana! See the footnote:


"The story is like that of the Rāmāyana, except that here Sītā is the hero's sister, not his wife."

Apparently,the "Rama Pandita" is none other than Lord Sri Rama.Would you accept that the Lord,the Maryadapuroshottama, practiced incest with Sita Devi?

This is nothing but a Nastika degradation of the epic and its heroes.It is nothing new,because other Nastika sects like Jainas view that Lord Sri Krishna went to HELL!!!!

Also,please keep in mind that the Jatakas were centuries later than the early Pali cannon.




And what makes the Sakyas not one of them?

Because Skayas were simply not Asura worshippers! Even in Sutta Nipata,one of the early text of the Pali cannon,Buddhas says as the follows:

" âdiccà nàma gottena sàkiyà nàma jàtiyà,
Tamhà kulà pabbajitomhi ràja na kàme abhipatthayaü."

"From the lineage Sun(adicca nama gottena) and
the Sàkya clan(sakiya nama jatiya), I became a homeless
And have no sensual desires."

Clearly,the Sakyas were from the Surya vamsha,the same line of Lord Sri Rama and not Asura worshipers!






Post Buddha it may be , but Buddhist it definitely isn't.

Some artifacts from Lauriya-Nandangarh are present in other Buddhist stupas as well.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Wba-EZhZcfgC&pg=PA263&dq=lauriya+nandangarh+female+golden+exact+replica&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GtnLUpPbBMexrgeo8oG4Dg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lauriya%20nandangarh%20female%20golden%20exact%20replica&f=false

This could mean that the mound at Lauria-Nandangarh was obviously another Buddhist stupa.



That is because the stupa at sanchi was rebuilt under sunga reign.It was also renovated by satavahanas and later rulers until 1100 AD.

Yes,i know it was rebuilt by the Sungas,but hey,Sunga era comes right after the Mauryan rule.

Also see this stupa,this was also bult by Ashoka,and it looks nothing like a Kurgan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Dharmarajika_stupa,Taxila.jpg

Also keep in mind that the Kurgans were burials,while stupas were used for storing cremated materials and other relics.

Aryavartian
07 January 2014, 05:49 AM
Namaste Sudas,





Is it true that the Sakya-s were not viewed favorably by other North Indic/Vedic tribes?

Not really.When Buddha died all of the Kshatriya clans of Gangetic plains claimed right to own his relics.And Buddha was obviously a Shakyan.

Alter ego
07 January 2014, 01:55 PM
Pranam AE,



This is a bastardized version of Ramayana! See the footnote:


"The story is like that of the Rāmāyana, except that here Sītā is the hero's sister, not his wife."

Apparently,the "Rama Pandita" is none other than Lord Sri Rama.Would you accept that the Lord,the Maryadapuroshottama, practiced incest with Sita Devi?

This is nothing but a Nastika degradation of the epic and its heroes.It is nothing new,because other Nastika sects like Jainas view that Lord Sri Krishna went to HELL!!!!



I am not a fan of these Nastika sects either , but Buddha here intended no malice. He did not view incest as anything wrong.He proclaimed that most of his forefathers did it .He considered Rama his ancestor

I have cited this story to show that incest has nothing to do their fear of mixing with kiratas



Also,please keep in mind that the Jatakas were centuries later than the early Pali cannon.

what????????How do you know?There is NO early pali canon . There is one pali canon . Traditionally the entire canon is one , like the Rigveda. This is from khuddaka nikaya , in the sutta pitaka of tripitaka . Scholars have generally considered nikayas oldest , and this forms an early part of nikaya

quoting Oliver Abeynayake

"The Khuddaka Nikaya can easily be divided into two strata, one being early and the other late. The texts Sutta Nipata, Itivuttaka, Dhammapada, Therigatha (Theragatha), Udana and Jataka belong to the early stratum. "


So ,Jataka tales are one of the earliest resources at hand







Because Skayas were simply not Asura worshippers! Even in Sutta Nipata,one of the early text of the Pali cannon,Buddhas says as the follows:

" âdiccà nàma gottena sàkiyà nàma jàtiyà,
Tamhà kulà pabbajitomhi ràja na kàme abhipatthayaü."

"From the lineage Sun(adicca nama gottena) and
the Sàkya clan(sakiya nama jatiya), I became a homeless
And have no sensual desires."

Clearly,the Sakyas were from the Surya vamsha,the same line of Lord Sri Rama and not Asura worshipers!



So , Buddha is a Suryavanshi because he says so . By that logic , Do you also consider mihirakula to be an indigenous kshatriya of suryavanshi dynasty? Even mihirakula claimed to be a suryavanshi








Some artifacts from Lauriya-Nandangarh are present in other Buddhist stupas as well.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Wba-EZhZcfgC&pg=PA263&dq=lauriya+nandangarh+female+golden+exact+replica&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GtnLUpPbBMexrgeo8oG4Dg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lauriya%20nandangarh%20female%20golden%20exact%20replica&f=false

This could mean that the mound at Lauria-Nandangarh was obviously another Buddhist stupa.



How did you come to such conclusion?

Pagan architecture is found in churches. Does that mean that churches are pagan temples? Similarly , are mounds stupas just because stupas imitate them?

.Your own link calls it an earth goddess cult.

Stupa construction technique is not buddhist. Not even a single line is present in pali canon which talks about stupa construction . Obviously the technique of stupa construction was inherited from an existing pre buddhist culture . And this culture shares similarity with Andronovo and Saka





Yes,i know it was rebuilt by the Sungas,but hey,Sunga era comes right after the Mauryan rule.



Why then did you insist on calling it mauryan?


Also see this stupa,this was also bult by Ashoka,and it looks nothing like a Kurgan.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Dharmarajika_stupa,Taxila.jpg

.

Again , that stupa was reconstructed.

Alter ego
07 January 2014, 01:56 PM
Namaste Sudas,




Not really.When Buddha died all of the Kshatriya clans of Gangetic plains claimed right to own his relics.And Buddha was obviously a Shakyan.

why then did kosalas and kashis refuse to marry shakyas?

Jaskaran Singh
07 January 2014, 09:44 PM
Not impossible . In the aforesaid sutra , Buddha called his rival a 'black slave' .This theme is quite recurrent in the pali canon:rolleyes:
Oh yeah, buddha did call one of the brAhmaNa-s who debated with him (ambaTTha) a dasIputta (dAsIputra) because he was of the kaNhAyaNa (dark-skinned/black-skinned clan) and insultingly made the statement that one of ambaTTha's ancestors stated that since he had black skin, he asked his mother to free him from this "dirt/foulness" (imasmA maM asuchismA parimochetha). I totally forgot about that; that was indeed very racist. I personally think the title kaNhAyaNa is cool, since it reminds me of kR^iShNa (kanhaiyA/kAnhA).

Sudas Paijavana
07 January 2014, 10:27 PM
Oh yeah, buddha did call one of the brAhmaNa-s who debated with him (ambaTTha) a dasIputta (dAsIputra) because he was of the kaNhAyaNa (dark-skinned/black-skinned clan) and insultingly made the statement that one of ambaTTha's ancestors stated that since he had black skin, he asked his mother to free him from this "dirt/foulness" (imasmA maM asuchismA parimochetha). I totally forgot about that; that was indeed very racist. I personally think the title kaNhAyaNa is cool, since it reminds me of kR^iShNa (kanhaiyA/kAnhA).

Namaste,

It is very surprising to hear and read such quotes being attributed to someone whom many view to be an epitome of great character. I wonder if Buddhist-apologetics have addressed these racist statements attributed to Siddhartha Gautama. If the Buddha was meant to come and eradicate a casteist/racio-tribalist society...it is extremely ironic that such quotes are attributed to the Buddha. And, it's even more ironic that out of many...it was Dr. Ambedkar that saw Buddhism as the best religion and Buddha as the greatest revolutionary of anti-racist, anti-tribalistic, and anti-casteist (& anti-colorist) thought.



You do realize that ambedkar was a lackey of the British, right?

Ah. The plot thickens!

Jaskaran Singh
07 January 2014, 10:33 PM
Namaste,

It is very surprising to hear and read such quotes being attributed to someone whom many view to be an epitome of great character. I wonder if Buddhist-apologetics have addressed these racist statements attributed to Siddhartha Gautama. If the Buddha was meant to come and eradicate a casteist/racio-tribalist society...it is extremely ironic that such quotes are attributed to the Buddha. And, it's even more ironic that out of many...it was Dr. Ambedkar that saw Buddhism as the best religion and Buddha as the greatest revolutionary of anti-racist, anti-tribalistic, and anti-casteist (& anti-colorist) thought.
You do realize that ambedkar was a lackey of the British, right?
Edit: Also, the British, being descendants of Scoti, Anglo-saxons, and Normans were fond of theravAda buddhism in part because of race (Berzin 21). The buddha had surprisingly European-esque features, according to the lakkhaNa suttam (from the dIghanikAya of the tipiTaka) the buddha had blue eyes (abhinIlanetto hoti), somewhat fair skin (suvaNNavaNNo hoti), was quite tall anatomically for his time period (eNijaNgho hoti, with legs like an entelope), etc.

Sudas Paijavana
07 January 2014, 11:34 PM
The buddha had surprisingly European-esque features, like blue eyes, somewhat fair skin, quite tall anatomically (for his time period), etc.

Can we be sure on this? Or, is it poetic play on part of the Sutta-authors?

Jaskaran Singh
07 January 2014, 11:53 PM
Can we be sure on this? Or, is it poetic play on part of the Sutta-authors?
The tipiTaka was first compiled two or three centuries after the time of the buddha, so not really, although I don't see how those qualities make it more poetic (antelope-like legs, seriously?). Regardless, the tipiTaka is probably the most reliable Bauddha text (in general, the sthaviravAda texts are more reliable than the mahAyAna texts as far as I know), so if it's incorrect about the buddha, I don't know what text you can trust. You also seem to be missing the point. I personally don't care much about his appearance, I'm just explaining one of the reasons (according to Alexander Berzin) why some of the early British orientalists were fond of the buddha.

Sudas Paijavana
08 January 2014, 12:47 AM
The tipiTaka was first compiled two or three centuries after the time of the buddha, so not really, although I don't see how those qualities make it more poetic (antelope-like legs, seriously?). Regardless, the tipiTaka is probably the most reliable Bauddha text (in general, the sthaviravAda texts are more reliable than the mahAyAna texts as far as I know), so if it's incorrect about the buddha, I don't know what text you can trust. You also seem to be missing the point. I personally don't care much about his appearance, I'm just explaining one of the reasons (according to Alexander Berzin) why some of the early British orientalists were fond of the buddha.

Don't worry. I'm not missing the point. ;)

I am sure that we both agree on how this is a superficial reason to be fond of someone.

Jaskaran Singh
08 January 2014, 01:18 AM
Don't worry. I'm not missing the point. ;)

I am sure that we both agree on how this is a superficial reason to be fond of someone.
I agree, but hey, at least it's better than calling dark-skinned people slaves and even pisAcha-s (manussA pisAche'kaNhA'ti sa~njAnanti). :rolleyes:

Aryavartian
08 January 2014, 02:34 AM
according to the lakkhaNa suttam (from the dIghanikAya of the tipiTaka) the buddha had blue eyes (abhinIlanetto hoti), somewhat fair skin (suvaNNavaNNo hoti), was quite tall anatomically for his time period (eNijaNgho hoti, with legs like an entelope), etc.


I think "Suvarna" means golden skin.

Anyway it is recorded in Tipitaka that he had black hair.

Alter ego
08 January 2014, 01:43 PM
I agree, but hey, at least it's better than calling dark-skinned people slaves and even pisAcha-s (manussA pisAche'kaNhA'ti sa~njAnanti). :rolleyes:


Indeed. Hailing Buddha an anti caste crusader is a himalayan travesty

"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage"—Ambatta sutta

Further when buddha spoke of aryas , he actually meant brahmanas and kshatriyas .This was made clear

"What the Aryas say is the truth, what the others say is not true. And why is this? The Aryas understand things as they are, the common folk do not understand. […] Furthermore, they are called noble truths because they are possessed by those who own the wealth and assets of the Aryas. Furthermore, they are called noble truths because they are possessed by those who are conceived in the womb of Aryas.’”—Mahavibhasa

“The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya)”-Lalitavistara

Even all the 28 buddhas were either brahmin or kshatriya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_twenty-eight_Buddhas

Of the six prime buddhas, everyone except gautama was a brahmana.

Amongst (his) aryas , he favored kshatriyas .He actually likened brahmins to dogs in brahmana vaggo

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancakanipata/020-sonavaggo-e.html

Also Buddha urged people not to molest Aryan women , but remained silent about non arya women

Jetavan
09 January 2014, 11:24 AM
Oh yeah, buddha did call one of the brAhmaNa-s who debated with him (ambaTTha) a dasIputta (dAsIputra) because he was of the kaNhAyaNa (dark-skinned/black-skinned clan) and insultingly made the statement that one of ambaTTha's ancestors stated that since he had black skin, he asked his mother to free him from this "dirt/foulness" (imasmA maM asuchismA parimochetha). I totally forgot about that; that was indeed very racist. I personally think the title kaNhAyaNa is cool, since it reminds me of kR^iShNa (kanhaiyA/kAnhA).Greetings,

Is this the same ambaTTha who reviled the Shakyans as being an inferior tribe? It seems that the Buddha was simply giving ambaTTha a taste of his own medicine.

Aryavartian
09 January 2014, 11:30 AM
Indeed. Hailing Buddha an anti caste crusader is a himalayan travesty

"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage"—Ambatta sutta

Further when buddha spoke of aryas , he actually meant brahmanas and kshatriyas .This was made clear

"What the Aryas say is the truth, what the others say is not true. And why is this? The Aryas understand things as they are, the common folk do not understand. […] Furthermore, they are called noble truths because they are possessed by those who own the wealth and assets of the Aryas. Furthermore, they are called noble truths because they are possessed by those who are conceived in the womb of Aryas.’”—Mahavibhasa

“The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya)”-Lalitavistara

Even all the 28 buddhas were either brahmin or kshatriya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_twenty-eight_Buddhas

Of the six prime buddhas, everyone except gautama was a brahmana.

Amongst (his) aryas , he favored kshatriyas .He actually likened brahmins to dogs in brahmana vaggo

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancakanipata/020-sonavaggo-e.html



I second this.I once met a NEO-buddhist who claimed Buddha was an australoid(in his view,a SC/ST) :rolleyes:

In fact,when Buddha attained his Parinirvana all the Kshatriya kings of Gangetic-plain Janapadas(like Licchavis,Mallas,Magadhas,Koliyas etc) claimed right to own his relics.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Plus,there are Kshatriya concepts in Buddhism....like the concept of Chakravarti-raja or universal emperor.In the same Mahaparinibbana sutta,Buddha stated his body should be treated like a Chakravartin during the funeral rites.

Jetavan
09 January 2014, 11:34 AM
Indeed. Hailing Buddha an anti caste crusader is a himalayan travesty

"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage"—Ambatta sutta

Further when buddha spoke of aryas , he actually meant brahmanas and kshatriyas .This was made clear

"What the Aryas say is the truth, what the others say is not true. And why is this? The Aryas understand things as they are, the common folk do not understand. […] Furthermore, they are called noble truths because they are possessed by those who own the wealth and assets of the Aryas. Furthermore, they are called noble truths because they are possessed by those who are conceived in the womb of Aryas.’”—Mahavibhasa

“The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya)”-Lalitavistara

Even all the 28 buddhas were either brahmin or kshatriya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_twenty-eight_Buddhas

Of the six prime buddhas, everyone except gautama was a brahmana.

Amongst (his) aryas , he favored kshatriyas .He actually likened brahmins to dogs in brahmana vaggo

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancakanipata/020-sonavaggo-e.html


Greetings,

On the other hand, Dhammapada 393 (http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=393) says:

"Na jatahi na gottena
na jacca hoti brahmano
yamhi saccanca dhammo ca
so suci so ca brahmano."

"Not by wearing matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by caste, does one become a brahmana; only he who realizes the Truth and the Dhamma is pure; he is a brahmana."

Neither Mahavibhasa nor Lalitavistara are part of the Pali canon.

Alter ego
09 January 2014, 11:49 AM
Greetings,

On the other hand, Dhammapada 393 (http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=393) says:

"Na jatahi na gottena
na jacca hoti brahmano
yamhi saccanca dhammo ca
so suci so ca brahmano."

"Not by wearing matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by caste, does one become a brahmana; only he who realizes the Truth and the Dhamma is pure; he is a brahmana."

Neither Mahavibhasa nor Lalitavistara are part of the Pali canon.

You see ,that means nothing. Buddha declared that Brahmins are inferior to Kshatriyas . .So even a truthful dharmic man is below a ruthless kshatriya

Jetavan , tell me the name of one non Brahmin non kshatriya other than upali who rose to prominence in the days of formation of Buddhism or when it was dominant

In the now dominant bhakti tradition of Hinduism , there is no caste discrimination.(See Sant Ramananda and his low caste Disciples) .That didn't stop Ambedkar and Neo Buddhists from bashing Hinduism

Jetavan
09 January 2014, 11:52 AM
You see ,that means nothing. Buddha declared that Brahmins are inferior to Kshatriyas . .So even a truthful dharmic man is below a ruthless kshatriya


Greetings,

I notice that the Buddha declared Kshatriyas superior to Brahamanas in the context of responding to Ambatta, who had previously made fun of the Shakya tribe as being an inferior tribe.

Perhaps the Buddha was making fun of Ambatta? I know it sounds crazy that the Buddha would have a sense of humor, but anything's possible.

Alter ego
09 January 2014, 11:53 AM
Greetings,

Is this the same ambaTTha who reviled the Shakyans as being an inferior tribe? It seems that the Buddha was simply giving ambaTTha a taste of his own medicine.

Ambatta only complained that they were rude .He did not make fun of buddha's skin color , nor did he make fun of sakya incest

Jetavan
09 January 2014, 11:55 AM
Jetavan , tell me the name of one non Brahmin non kshatriya disciple of Buddha other than upali!

Greetings,

B. R. Ambedkar.

Alter ego
09 January 2014, 11:59 AM
Greetings,

I notice that the Buddha declared Kshatriyas superior to Brahamanas in the context of responding to Ambatta, who had previously made fun of the Shakya tribe as being an inferior tribe.

Perhaps the Buddha was making fun of Ambatta? I know it sounds crazy that the Buddha would have a sense of humor, but anything's possible.

No ! This theme of kshatriya superiority is repeated several times in aggana sutta , assalayana sutta ,tevijja sutta and many others

In a sense this is a building block of buddhism. After all siddartha is the cakkavaatti ,of material world ( as a kshatriya) as well as of spiritual world(Buddha) . hence the cakkavatti emblem of every buddhist art and wheel turning buddhas/bodhisatvas

Alter ego
09 January 2014, 12:05 PM
Greetings,

B. R. Ambedkar.

I meant any non Aryan who rose to prominence in the days of formation of Buddhism or when it was dominant

Alter ego
09 January 2014, 12:08 PM
The tipiTaka was first compiled two or three centuries after the time of the buddha, so not really, although I don't see how those qualities make it more poetic (antelope-like legs, seriously?). Regardless, the tipiTaka is probably the most reliable Bauddha text (in general, the sthaviravAda texts are more reliable than the mahAyAna texts as far as I know), so if it's incorrect about the buddha, I don't know what text you can trust. You also seem to be missing the point. I personally don't care much about his appearance, I'm just explaining one of the reasons (according to Alexander Berzin) why some of the early British orientalists were fond of the buddha.

Very true!
And the canon was compiled in srilanka ! Now why on earth would they denigrate their own skin color and attribute foreign features unless it was already there




The Buddha eventually tells Ambatta that perfection in wisdom and righteousness trumps lineage.



Where did he say that? Also perfection means the practice of celibacy and adherence to rules set up by Buddha

Jetavan
09 January 2014, 12:19 PM
Ambatta only complained that they were rude .He did not make fun of buddha's skin color , nor did he make fun of sakya incest
Greetings,

Ambatta initially interacted (http://www.buddhistlibraryonline.net/the-teachings/suttapitaka/dighanikaya/silakkhandhavaggapali/3-ambattha-sutta/8-Ambatta.html) with the Buddha as he would have interacted with "shavelings, sham friars, menial black fellows, the offscouring of our kinsman's heels". The Buddha then commented on Ambatta's excessive pride in his ancestry, a pride which could only come from a lack of training.

Ambatta then gets angry at the Buddha, calling him "rude", and calling the Shakyas a rough, rude, and touchy tribe, violent and inferior. The Buddha then lowers the boom in discussing Ambatta's ancestry. Ambatta is humbled. The Buddha eventually tells Ambatta that perfection in wisdom and righteousness trumps lineage.

If Ambatta couldn't stand the heat, then he shouldn't have entered the kitchen.

Jaskaran Singh
09 January 2014, 07:58 PM
I think "Suvarna" means golden skin.

Anyway it is recorded in Tipitaka that he had black hair.
svarNa/suvarNa, when used in reference to skin color, generally means fair [gaura]. One of the epithets of pArvatI devI (who, by the way, is often called gaurI) in the mArkaNDeya purANam is suvarnaM. When used in other terms (like svarnabhUmi or svarnareta), it means gold, but in a strict sense su+varNa literally just means good color.


Greetings,

I notice that the Buddha declared Kshatriyas superior to Brahamanas in the context of responding to Ambatta, who had previously made fun of the Shakya tribe as being an inferior tribe.

Perhaps the Buddha was making fun of Ambatta? I know it sounds crazy that the Buddha would have a sense of humor, but anything's possible.
Giving him a "taste of his own medicine" by stating that since his ancestor had dark skin, he was hence a pishAcha? I'm sorry, but that is definitely not the way an enlightened individual who is viewed as the teacher of manuShya-s and deva-s should act. If he said something like that (that dark skin makes one a pishAcha/demon and that black skin was like filth) in the present day, he would no doubt be viewed espousing neo-Nazi or KKK beliefs.


Greetings,

Ambatta initially interacted (http://www.buddhistlibraryonline.net/the-teachings/suttapitaka/dighanikaya/silakkhandhavaggapali/3-ambattha-sutta/8-Ambatta.html) with the Buddha as he would have interacted with "shavelings, sham friars, menial black fellows, the offscouring of our kinsman's heels". The Buddha then commented on Ambatta's excessive pride in his ancestry, a pride which could only come from a lack of training.

Ambatta then gets angry at the Buddha, calling him "rude", and calling the Shakyas a rough, rude, and touchy tribe, violent and inferior. The Buddha then lowers the boom in discussing Ambatta's ancestry. Ambatta is humbled. The Buddha eventually tells Ambatta that perfection in wisdom and righteousness trumps lineage.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that buddha was merely trying to "get back at ambaTTha." Still, the statements made by ambaTTha were in regards to his teacher's (pokkharasAti) views of the [s/sh]Akya-s and others (those who come from the feet or what not). The buddha himself states/realizes that "pokkharasAtinA vAchA'ke cha muNDakA samaNakA ibbhA kaNhA bandhupAdApachchA..." Therefore, why does he target ambaTTha and call him a pishAcha due to his complexion when he was not the one who originally made the claim? In regard to his comments about "perfection in wisdom..." I agree with Alter Ego, he (*buddh)a was merely trying to in a sense convert ambaTTha to the shramaNa lifestyle; if you examine the text, he makes this clear. Out of all the people who put trust in their gotra-s (the non-shramaNa-s), the kShatriya-s are the greatest, but the people who follow the vanavAsI/shramaNa lifestyle he laid out are greater than men and gods (khattiyo seTTho janetasmiMye gottapaTisArino vijjAcharaNasampanno so seTTho devamAnuse’ti). If you read what his requirement for acheiving supreme wisdom and conduct [vijjAcharaNasampanno], and hence being greater than the men and gods (seTTho devamAnusa) is, then you would realize that he stated that living off bulbs and fruits (like a bhikkhu/samaNa) was one of them.

Aryavartian
10 January 2014, 03:33 AM
svarNa/suvarNa, when used in reference to skin color, generally means fair [gaura]. One of the epithets of pArvatI devI (who, by the way, is often called gaurI) in the mArkaNDeya purANam is suvarnaM. When used in other terms (like svarnabhUmi or svarnareta), it means gold, but in a strict sense su+varNa literally just means good color.

.

Well,Parvati(Meenakshi) is depicted as having green color here :D

http://temples.tamilnad.com/Madurai/images/Madurai_Meenakshi.jpg

Anyway let us not derail this thread :)

Jetavan
10 January 2014, 10:20 AM
Where did he say that?

'In the supreme perfection (http://www.buddhistlibraryonline.net/the-teachings/suttapitaka/dighanikaya/silakkhandhavaggapali/3-ambattha-sutta/8-Ambatta.html) in wisdom and righteousness, Ambattha, there is no reference to the question either of birth, or of lineage, or of the pride which says: "You are held as worthy as I," or "You are not held as worthy as I," It is where the talk is of marrying, or of giving in marriage, that reference is made to such things as that, For whosoever, Ambattha, are in bondage to the notions of birth or of lineage, or to the pride of social position, or of connection by marriage, they are far from the best wisdom and righteousness.'

Jetavan
10 January 2014, 10:25 AM
[B][I][COLOR="DarkGreen"]
Giving him a "taste of his own medicine" by stating that since his ancestor had dark skin, he was hence a pishAcha? I'm sorry, but that is definitely not the way an enlightened individual who is viewed as the teacher of manuShya-s and deva-s should act.

So you agree that the Buddha was enlightened, had realized mukti?

ShivaFan
14 January 2014, 01:22 PM
Namaste

There is some evidence that the last words of the Buddha to an assemblage of monks were:

"All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Endeavor to gain your own salvation."

You can find that Vivekananda used almost the exact same words on several occasions such as, "None can help you, help yourself, work out your own salvation" and "be your salvation" or "Be rishis for your own salvation", and also coupled this with the concept of change in all things verse what is not changing.

I now suspect, these last words of Buddha were actually a variant of a specific Upanishadic, Veda, Purana or other verse.

Is there any such verse that you know of that approximates this? That would demonstrate the Buddha was actually quoting Hindu Dharma? Or was Vivekananda simply borrowing from the Buddha?

Om Namah Sivaya