Ambedkarites

[morning mist]

Dr. Ambedkar's decision to adopt Buddhism was partly political and partly spiritual. The same cannot be said about his followers who converted to Buddhism en masse. For most of them it was purely a political statement against caste oppression of Hinduism. It had nothing to do with the spirituality. They were happy to get a label other than Hinduism. Had Ambedkar converted to Islam, they would happily have become Muslims. In my interaction with Ambedkarite Buddhists, I have found very few of them actually interested in Buddhist spirituality.

Since they are Buddhists, I think it is important that people share the dhamma with them. I don't know if they have proper access to dhamma or not. For example, do they have access to dhamma books or computer , etc...

I have heard that some of them had put in much time and effort to set up a vihara for their communities and yet people tear it down with the excuse that it is located on an area that is not allowed. However, close by a Hindu temple is also on unallowed area but is left standing. The women sometimes get gangraped for being Buddhist infront of the whole neighborhood and no one say anything . Some of them even became ordained as a bhikkhu but when they walk into a tea shop with other laypeople & monks, they only get verbal attack and are not allowed to be there .

[chownah]

Dr. Ambedkar's decision to adopt Buddhism was partly political and partly spiritual. The same cannot be said about his followers who converted to Buddhism en masse. For most of them it was purely a political statement against caste oppression of Hinduism. It had nothing to do with the spirituality. They were happy to get a label other than Hinduism. Had Ambedkar converted to Islam, they would happily have become Muslims. In my interaction with Ambedkarite Buddhists, I have found very few of them actually interested in Buddhist spirituality.

I have found very few Thais who are actually interested in Buddhist spirituality too....it might be that they are just not interested in Buddhist spiritualilty in the way I think of it....maybe they have their own understanding of it and I don't recognize it......
chownah

[morning mist]

There should be some programs to help uplift these people because they are so suppressed and face so much violence /cruelty in society just because they were born to a certain family.

[freefall68]

Since they are Buddhists, I think it is important that people share the dhamma with them. I don't know if they have proper access to dhamma or not. For example, do they have access to dhamma books or computer , etc...

RPI (Republican Party of India), which is an Ambedkarite party, brings out a journal named Dhamma Vaani from Mumbai. Journal is only nominally about "dhamma". In fact it does not hesitate in blatantly twisting Buddha's message to suit its political ends. You may find quotes on this journal on the lines that "Buddha said: Unite and fight for your rights till justice is done" etc.

I have heard that some of them had put in much time and effort to set up a vihara for their communities and yet people tear it down with the excuse that it is located on an area that is not allowed. However, close by a Hindu temple is also on unallowed area but is left standing.

This is certainly not true. For most of Hindus who do not care for philosophical nuances, Buddha is simply another incarnation of Lord Vishnu just like Rama or Krishna - though not as popular, still an incarnation of God. Visit any Buddhist shrine in India and you will find Hindus outnumbering Buddhists.

The women sometimes get gangraped for being Buddhist infront of the whole neighborhood and no one say anything . Some of them even became ordained as a bhikkhu but when they walk into a tea shop with other laypeople & monks, they only get verbal attack and are not allowed to be there .

Violence against Dalits is not because of their being Buddhists, but being Dalits. Brunt of violence against Dalits is borne by Dalit Hindus because even today most of Dalits are Hindus. Converting to Buddhism or Sikhism or Christianity does not immediately change their status in the eyes of the people of their community. Usually it takes generations before their Dalit identity gets dropped.

The irony is that a substantial portion of violence against Dalits is committed not necessarily by Brahmins or upper castes but by backward castes who themselves are victims of caste oppression but are higher than Dalits in caste hierarchy. India's most populous state UP, has a Dalit Chief Minister with poll alliance between Dalits and Brahmins. On the other hand their main adversary party is backed by backward castes other than Dalits.

[morning mist]

You may find quotes on this journal on the lines that "Buddha said: Unite and fight for your rights till justice is done" etc..

This is another reason why dhamma should be made available to them.

This is certainly not true. For most of Hindus who do not care for philosophical nuances, Buddha is simply another incarnation of Lord Vishnu just like Rama or Krishna. Visit any Buddhist shrine in India and you will find Hindus outnumbering Buddhists.

I am wondering why you see Krishna and Rama Temples everywhere , but not Buddhist temple. Is it because they are also being taught that the Buddha's dharma is for demons or really bad people . Therefore , they shouldn't follow it. So many misinformation is being perpetuated to masses.

Violence against Dalits is not because of their being Buddhists, but being Dalits.

[/quote][/quote]

When someone is a Buddhist, there is no caste distinction in Buddhism. I wonder why are they being treated with violence for being a lowcaste when they are a Buddhist. Either way , whatever the reason may be for such violence toward innocent people, it is unjustifiable. And I can't believe how the whole village could watch this kind of violence and not bother to say anything. For example:

"Dalit Buddhists killed because of their caste"

Kherlanji, India -- Like many Indians, their hopes of a good life were basic: a decent education, a life that was lived with self respect and a livelihood which disturbed no one. But in India, Surekha and her family were tortured for many years because they chose to live the "basic life". The reason - because they were Dalits, untouchables in the eyes of Hindu purists whose status are merely better than animals.

On September 29, 2006, in the town of Kherlanji, near Nagpur - a new center of Buddhist movement in India - Buddhists Surekha and her daughter Priyanka were beaten, paraded naked and gang-raped in full public view for an hour before they fell dead.

"Sticks were pushed into their private parts," said a policeman, who asked not to be named. Around 50 to 60 women were involved in the barbaric, inhuman act.

Surekha's husband, Mr. Bhotmange was forced to witness his wife and child's being brutally hacked to death in full view of his entire village. Not only were the female members of his family tortured, his sons were stabbed repeatedly and their private parts mutilated as they refused to rape their sister.

Intriguingly, the post-mortem report says the women were not raped. "Doctors were managed and the police bribed," whispered another voice who requested that his name not to be revealed."

[freefall68]

I am wondering why you see Krishna and Rama Temples everywhere , but not Buddhist temple.

Among the holy trinity of Hinduism "Brahma- Vishnu & Shiva", Brahma has got just one temple in whole of India - in Pushkar.

..Is it because they are also being taught that the Buddha's dharma is for demons or really bad people .

This is a view prevalent among Vedantins, who constitute a tiny tiny part of Hindus. I am a Hindu but I had never heard this story until I got interested in Vedanta. Ironically, among Hindus only Vedatins are knowledgeable about Buddha's teachings.

[morning mist]

Among the holy trinity of Hinduism "Brahma- Vishnu & Shiva", Brahma has got just one temple in whole of India - in Pushkar.

Originally Vishnu and Shiva are minor devas according to the Rig Veda. But after Brahma loose prominence someone designated them as being all powerful. The majority of the population now thought that they have always been all powerful since the beginning of time. Some even say that the Buddha learned kamma and rebirth from the Shaivite or Shiva's teaching . But back then during the Buddha's time there was only Brahmanism and Brahma as the main creator. But can I blame them , this is what people are being fed with.

The Buddha talked about being various devas in his past lives, but never once did he mention being Vishnu. I wonder who made this up and why did they do this. It is contrary to what the Buddha said about himself.

This is a view prevalent among Vedantins, who constitute a tiny tiny part of Hindus. I am a Hindu but I had never heard this story until I got interested in Vedanta. Ironically, among Hindus only Vedatins are knowledgeable about Buddha's teachings.

Sankara incorporated so much Buddhist teachings into Advaita Vedanta that it is referred to as being a copy of Buddhism. Ironically, their followers are being fed with the misconception that the whole Buddhist teaching came from one of the technique of Shiva's tantra when Shivanism wasn't there during the time of the Buddha. Also many thought that the Buddha's teaching of rebirth and kamma came from the existing culture when he actually rejected the existing teaching on rebirth whereby a permanent consciousness move from life to life and taught a different mechanism without a self going from life to life based on what he realized after enlightenment. The Buddha also rejected the existing teaching on karma held by Brahmanism and Jainism and taught about the workings of kamma according to what he realized during enlightenment.

[flamos44]

well im a nontheist myself who takes a liberal view on all religions being right in their own way but i think hinduism is being misunderstood.

you see the caste system was never supposed to excist in the first place or the concept of dalits. according to the sages of hinduism as originol meaning was that all 4 castes were equal. that apl contributed equally to society and all should be treated with reverance and respect for what they do. however this system was changed and later on became the untrue practices that were prevalent in india during buddhas time and even now.

Also all castes had to make sacrifices.

Also it was believed then during the originol period that when people were born to a certain family they would be so devoted to that field that they wouldnt have time to do other things. except if one really wanted in some schools of hindu thought not all people could move up or down castes depending on what they did or how they behaved during life.

In a similiar manner the so called deities are not real. the sages perceived natural phenoma an wanted to explain it and so they explained comex terminology through stories which later became personified.

also the so called brahmin is simlly a term for energy. see the true teachhings of hinduism are that the world was created from energy which expanded and evolved. As such their is no god per say but that god is energy which when people die once more become part of and are reborn because energy takes new forms. tha is the true meaning of those points which were misunderstood.


by the way brahma is not brahman.

Dont have much time but will explain more later sorry for the necri.

aslso from this you can see that it is similiar to budhism and atmman by the way never excisted in the originol vedas clearly. only soul.

[flamos44]

Let me now continue. Hinduism basically refers to the indigenous religions of the Indian subcontinent. The only connection they had was the vedas which is not true for buddhism as such buddhism cant be considered a hindu school as people make it out to be you are correct. However you must note that basically the buddha didn't c\say the vedas were false. last i checked i may be wrong he said that the vedas were changed and in their original form by a certain group of sages like Kashyappa spoke truthfully but because this was changed he would not follow the vedic teachings of his time which was combined with puranas and upanishads. In effect by doing this he created from scratch his own religious school which is named after him called buddhism.
However buddhism does not contradict all the vedas. If you look at it it contradicts the puranas , yujurveda, etc.

You see the vedas were basically a way for the sages of that time to write and explain about the concept of energy to common people. The devas and all the "dieties mentioned are simply various forms of energy that naturally occur on earth such as sun, wind, air, lightning, thunder, etc...

The pujas and such performed simply is a way those sages at the time thought they could chant and do in order to invoke the energy. However nowhere does it say in the rig veda that you have to and must do yagna. Yagna is one way to try to achieve the realization of what energy is. However at the same time one can realize the energy without doing puja.



The whole concept of atman came later on. In the orignal veda their was no atman or self so the buddha was correct because all the orignol veda reffered to was soul.

hinduism however has so many schools but They are all correct in their own way like Mahayana and Thereveda Buddhism are correct in thier own way. It is a pluralistic religion or was supposed to be.

The way i view buddhism and hinduism is that hinduism decayed became completely different from the original form and was stuck on caste, sacrifices, and the literal meaning of the texts so he rejected it. Thus it can be said buddhism is different from modern hinduism or even classical hinduism. However it does not contradict the original hindu texts but because he approached it differently than the existing hindu schools and because now and then in his lifetime the vedas were supposed to go together with Purana and etc the two religions are different.

But at the same time Buddhism and the original hinduism before it was changed or being interpreted literally are similiar but different because the buddha created his own philosophy and views that were however influenced in part by the original vedas as spoken by people like kashyappa but cant be considered as hinduism because hinduism truly gained form in the classical period of indian history and late vedic period with the addon of additional texts and so buddhism is different from "hinduism".

But many of the misconceptions held should not be thier because you cant literally interpret the texts of the vedas. Basically the vedas can be interpreted athiestically-polytheistically-monotheistically.

hope this makes more sense. You can say basically that what was hinduism started out as a scientific concept-energy tha needed to be explained through stories and pictures and hymms and pujas but was adapted into the indigenous religious of the subcontinent and thus it became a religion and way of life later on.

It is sad however to see hinduism so butchered and changed by now.

But both buddhists and hindus belong to eastern religions and so you guys shoudl work together rather than fight among yourselves. For IMO all paths lead to the same result in the end and so we should work together to create a peaceful society of toleration and coexistence and understanding rather than hatred and misunderstanding of one another.