One such ‘intellectual’ is Jamanadas. He is opposed to caste system and his writings reveal that he is an Ambedkarite. He squarely blames the Brahmins for all the evils in the Hindu society. Above all, he accuses their forefathers of having usurped many Buddhist shrines by force. The title of his book ‘Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine’ reveals the crux of his arguments. Let us deal with this ‘masterpiece’ of Jamanadas and see what merit it has in it. Dr. Jamanadas (hence forth referred as ‘J’) argues that the murti at Tirumala must be that of Avalokiteshwara/Padmapani.
In the ‘Author’s Preface’ he says:
“During the process which went on for centuries, many Buddhist shrines were converted for Brahmanical use. The purpose of this writing is to show that the great shrine of Tirupati was one of them, a claim which was not made by any previous author. Many ancillary subjects are discussed besides this main theme, and many new directions are shown for the scholars of tomorrow to pursue. Certain new claims have been made, e.g. the Rathas of Mahabalipuram are thought to be Buddhist, the Kalabharas are thought to be supporters of Buddhism, the traditional story of Alvaras describing the Murthi of Lord of Tirumalai is disputed, the evidence of Silappadhikaran is shown to be of no use, the importance of tonsure in Tirumalai is stressed and Rathayatra is shown as a Buddhist tradition.”
The selective blindness of the author is seen here. He dismisses all those sources which prove the claim of the Vaishnavas that the shrine was that of Vishnu. Then he invents some ideas and plants them on the readers as truth. The claims of the author shall be reviewed in this critic one by one. In some cases, where I do not have adequate knowledge, I shall deal with them in short leaving it to other competent persons.
The book has 30 chapters. We shall consider the merit of these chapters taking one at a time.
Chapter 1:
The author claims:
“It is a well known fact that Lord Buddha had revolutionized the old Vedic religion and the whole country was once Buddhist.”
Does it ring anything?? The very first sentence of the chapter is baseless. When was the country Buddhist?? At no point of time was the Vedic religion completely overwhelmed throughout the country. The author says that ‘the fact(?)’ is very well known. No proof to substantiate this ‘well known fact’!!
He continues:
“However, there was a counter-revolution and Brahmanism gained ground and the religion of
Buddha, declined the country of its origin. The Bhikkus were killed and the remaining were compelled to migrate to foreign lands, taking with them some religious literature.”
Once again, the same ‘secularist’ (pseudo) lie is parroted again and again. Where is the proof?? Buddhists remained in India. They were not driven out of the country nor was there any general persecution of Buddhist Bhikkus. E.g. Nalanda was functioning very well in India. No Hindu ruler ever thought of destroying Nalanda. It was destroyed by the Islamic invaders. The author appears to be hell bent on deriding the Brahmins and he does not even worry about providing proof because he claims that his claims are ‘well known facts’.
His next claim:
“On the point of absence of Buddhist texts Chaudhari has observed:
"... In a region where the philosophic doctrines of Buddhism and Jainism flourished for over three centuries, the absence of literature seems inconceivable. PERHAPS there was a king of literary vandalism at the hand of literary vandalism at the hands of Hindu zealous..." [Chaudhari:1984:50]” (caps and bold are my additions)
What a wonder! His proof is a quote from Chaudhari and that proof begins with ‘Perhaps’! Muslims destroyed the library at Nalanda. Buddhism suffered from its own rigid customs and ‘shunya vada’. No lay man could understand or practice their philosophy which is based on ‘shunya vada’. As Buddhism lost the hold on its followers, there was no one to preserve the palm leaf manuscripts. Even many Hindu scriptures have been lost. Many Vedic shakas have become lost. Shall we say that the Buddhists persecuted the Brahmins and destroyed their Vedas?? Palm leaf manuscripts are bound to be lost even under extreme care. Then what to speak about those Buddhist manuscripts which had no one to care for them. Buddhism lost its hold on masses due to the Bhakti movement. It was not destroyed with sword.
He also adds:
“Most of the important ones were appropriated by the Brahmins and converted for Brahmanic use. It is already shown by many scholars that the Lord Jagannatha of Puri, Lord of
Badrikeshvara, and Vithoba at Pandharpur in Maharashtra were once Buddhist.”
As far as I know, the murti of Badrinath / Badri Narayan has Discus and Conch. I have not been to Jagannath Puri and Pandharpur. I leave it to some competent person to write about these places in detail. The case of Badrinath shall also be dealt in detail by persons who know about its history very well. I’ll confine myself to those parts of Southern India of which I have some knowledge.
Let’s go to his next claim:
‘It goes without saying that the present day Hinduism is mostly influenced by Buddhism. Let us see what the scholars have to say about the influence of Buddhism on Hinduism and its residual effects which are seen even now, L. M. Joshi, observes: "In his speeches and writings Swami Vivekananda has often noted the diverse Buddhist influences on Hinduism. He had observed that "Modern Hinduism is largely Pauranika, that is, post-Buddhistic in origin." He pointed out that Buddhism was mainly responsible for stopping or lessening the customs of drinking wine
and killing living animals for sacrifice or for food in India. He rightly traced the origin of Hindu images and temples to Buddhist models. About the relation of Vaishnavism to Buddhism, he was declared that "Buddhism and Vaishnavism are not two different things. During the decline of Buddhism in India, Hinduism took from her a few cardinal tenets of conduct and made them her own, and these have now come to be known as Vaishnavism." It should be noted here that Vaishnavism does not consist mainly of a few cardinal tenets of conduct. The Swami is briefly referring to moral principles and practices, such as ahimsa, karuna,maitri, respect for the guru, control of the mind and the senses of yoga, etc. which Buddhism transmitted to Vaishnavism. The Bodhisattva ideal and the idea of Buddhavatar also became integral parts of Vaishnava theology." [Joshi:1977:348]’
I am reeling under ‘laughter stroke’. Some quotes from Swami Vivekananda and then some wholesale ‘ideas’ of some Joshi is cited as proof. Let us consider them one by one.
While Vivekananda was certainly a great Hindu saint, many of his thoughts were influenced by the then ‘researches’ of the colonial masters. This must be kept in mind while dealing with his sayings.
The dates of Puranas are largely unknown. Chandogya Upanishad (III.4-1) speaks about ‘Itihasa Purana’. Therefore the claim that the Puranas are post-Buddhist (as made by AIT/AMT and Communist Historians) is baseless. The Puranas definitely existed during the Later Vedic period (or even earlier as Athatvangiras are said to have derived their sustenance from the Puranas). They are stratified texts and hence they could contain some texts which may be later additions but to paint the entire Puranas as post-Buddhist is clearly wrong.
The claim about temples and images is also wrong. The garuda stambha of Heliodorus, shows that the doctrine of Pancaratra(Bhagavata doctrine) existed even in the 2nd century BCE:
“This Garuda-column of Vasudeva (Visnu), the god of gods, was erected here by Heliodorus, a worshipper of Vishnu(Bhagavata), the son of Dion, and an inhabitant of Taxila, who came as Greek ambassador from the Great King Antialkidas to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior, then reigning prosperously in the fourteenth year of his kingship."
I think the above proof is more than enough. We could add the cases of Ghosundi, Nagari (Chittorgarh District), Mora well inscriptions etc. The excavations undertaken by Sri Khare in Bedsa have brought to light a temple dedicated to the ‘Five Heroes’ (Panca Vira – Krishna, Balarama, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Satyaki). We must remember that worship of Buddha’s murtis was a later development. Ashoka did not build any Buddhist temples with Buddha’s murtis. This shows that the Buddhists borrowed the concept of temples and murtis from the Hindus and not the other way around. Moreover, the early Buddhist theology did not recognize Buddha as a God or any Devata worthy of worship.
Similarly the Guru-shishya parampara is found from the Vedic period. We know that Vedas were transmitted from generation to generation under this method. To say that Guru shishya parampara is borrowed from Buddhism is both baseless and wrong. Similarly yoga is found in the brahma vidyas of the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras.
As for ahimsa, Jain Tirthankaras practiced Ahimsa from time immemorial. Buddha Himself must have copied it from Jains. Being so, to claim that Brahmins copied ahimsa from Buddhists is clearly misleading.
‘Karuna’ and ‘maitri’ are inherent principles of most religions as they are basic human emotions. One need not ‘copy’ it from any religion.
The author has not cited any primary source. Secondary sources do not form strong proof. Even the secondary sources cited by the author are largely ‘opinions’ and ‘ideas’ of various people.
Let’s go to his next claim and proof:
‘About the ideals and morals taken up by Brahmanism to make it stand among the people of this country, L.M.Joshi further observes:
“Speaking of Buddhist ascetic ideals and institutions, Swami Vivekananda has said that the monastic vow and renunciation began to be preached all over India since the time of the Buddha, and Hinduism has absorbed into itself this Buddhist spirit of renunciation. The ochre robe found a lasting home in Hinduism also. The Hindu teacher not only accepted the Buddhist institution of monks. They occupied the Buddhist monasteries also. The many monasteries that you now see in India occupied by monks were once in the possession of Buddhism. The Hindus have only made them their own now by modifying them in their own fashion. Really speaking, the institution of Samnyasa originated with the Buddha. In conclusion the Swami has stated that Hinduism has become so great only by absorbing all the ideal of the Buddha. Swami Vivekananda has been a pivotal figure in modern Hinduism and his
opinions are representative of the educated Hindus.” ‘
Once again, Swami Vivekananda’s ‘opinions’ form the proof. We must remember that the Vedic lifestyle ordains sanyasa as the final ashrama. As such one can say that Buddhism copied ascetism from Hinduism. The above claims made by J have no proof whatsoever. One must keep in mind that ascetism was a part of Jaina religion as well. Also, red robes and monastic order are mentioned in Maitrayani Upanishad.
The opinion about ‘monasteries’ is also wrong. Can anyone say which Buddhist monasteries were occupied or usurped by Brahmin monks after driving away or killing the Buddhist monks?? These opinions are based on colonial concoctions about Indian history. Till now, the author has not provided any solid evidence for any of his claims. Mere quotes from Vivekananda’s sayings are not enough to prove anything.
In this chapter, he has cited a lot from Joshi. Let us see some other quotes:
“On the other hand, Buddhism opened the doors to higher religious life and the highest goal for all those who sought them, including the members of the lower strata of society. Although Buddhism was not directly concerned with the abolition of castes, it strongly opposed the caste system and repeatedly taught the evils of casteism.On the other hand, Buddhism opened the doors to higher religious life and the highest goal for all those who sought them, including the members of the lower strata of society. Although Buddhism was not directly concerned with the abolition of castes, it strongly opposed the caste system and repeatedly taught the evils of casteism.”
Buddhist scholars and Buddha were more concerned with liberation (moksha) and not with normal social situations. The Buddhist doctrine expounds the Karma theory. If someone is born to a slave, it is because of his karma. Joshi himself states that Buddhism was not directly concerned with the abolition of castes. Untouchability was practiced and advocated by Buddhists themselves. Let’s see what Fa-Hien says:
“The only exception is that of Chandalas. That is the name for those who are wicked people and they live apart from others. When they enter the gate of a city or a marketplace, they strike a piece of wood to make themselves known, so that men know and avoid them and do not come into contact with them……… Only the Chandalas are fishermen and hunters, and sell flesh meat.”(Chapter XVI)
Even a cursory view shows that Buddhists treated the Chandalas who engaged in meat trade as untouchable. Fa-Hien does not condemn the practice. This shows that even Buddhism supported and practiced untouchability. This is a primary source. May we know the esteemed opinions of our ‘intellectuals’?
Another quote from the esteemed Joshi:
“Buddhism along with Jainism but unlike Brahmanism gave the equality of opportunity in religious culture to women. Some of the female members of the earliest ascetic order known to history were the Buddhist Theris or nuns whose religious poetry has come down to us in the Theriagatha. The eminent position attained by large number of women in Buddhist
history, viz. Khema, Patacara, Dhammadinna, Subha, Kisa, Sujata, Visakha, Samavati, Ambapali, Upplamanna, and Soma, etc. shows that Buddhism had done much for the emancipation of women in Indian society.”
It seems our author does not know that Rg Veda has many women Rsikas. As for moksha, anyone can attain moksha under Hindu pantheon. The Bhagavad Gita is accessible to everyone and the way for moksha is open to all as per the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. Remember that the Bhagavad Gita has no Buddhist influence. It is essentially a condensation of various Upanishadic teachings along with some improvements to them.
Another quote from J:
“It is already shown by Dr. Ambedkar that many among the Buddhists were condemned to be untouchables. If proper study is made, we feel that it is possible even now to recognize the population groups who got converted to Hinduism. Some minor groups are identified by Joshi:”
We have shown that Buddhism itself practiced untouchability. To say that Buddhists, who converted to Hinduism, were condemned to be untouchables is baseless. If Buddhists who converted to Hinduism were considered as Untouchables, then why would any Buddhist convert at all? Surely, forcible conversions were not done in a large way (all available evidence show that such a thing never took place).
Another quote from his book:
“Nagendranath Basu has investigated the forest areas of Mayurbhanj and discovered the people there, being Buddhists”
Does this mean that all the tribals were Buddhists? No. Bengal-Bihar belt had significant Buddhist population even until the 11th century CE. Mere attestation of one Buddhist tribal group in the ancient Buddhist belt does not mean that all the tribes of India were Buddhists. Many tribes are Hindus. Shall we say that all the tribes were Vedic people in the past? It has to be noted that most tribes are non-vegetarian. This is against the character of Indian Buddhism.
His criteria for identifying descendants of ancient Buddhists are as follows:
“(1) One of the clues could be that all those groups for whom derogatory remarks and various hidden, and not so hidden, abuses are showered in the medieval Brahmanic texts, did in fact belong to Buddhist sects. (2) The other clue could be all those groups of people who are and were successful in getting educated, and acquiring literacy in spite of opposition of Brahmins during the middle ages could be conveniently recognized and identified as Buddhists of olden
times. (3) Many groups in higher castes also who are not given status of equality within the same caste, can be identified as Buddhist of olden times.”
Many medieval Brahminical texts are full of derogatory remarks against the Mleccha Turushkas. Shall we say that they were Buddhist??
Does the author say that only descendants of Buddhists will be able to counter the so-called Brahmin hegemony and that purely Hindu people do not have the ability? By the way, the Brahmins were not opposed to any person getting educated. They denied Vedas to the non-Dvijas and other than that everyone had access to normal education. A cursory view of Dharampal’s works is more than enough to understand the literacy level among the masses.
The final point is a great comedy. In Tamil Nadu, the Sri Vaishnava Brahmins are generally divided into two broad categories: 1. Chozhiya and 2. Non-Chozhiya. Each of them considers the other to be lower in status. Shall we say that both the sects belonged to Buddhism?? Similar case is found among the Smartha Brahmins who are divided into 4 categories.
Basic pragmatism is found lacking in the above mentioned criteria.
J has the following to say about tirtha yatras:
“L. M. Joshi observes:
"The practice of visiting the holy places (tirthas) possibly originated with the Buddhists. In the Maha parinibban sutta visit to the spots sanctified by the Buddha is recommended. In the Vedic texts, a tirtha was understood to mean a place where animal sacrifices were performed. But in the Epics and Puranas, which teach the cult of tirthayatra or pilgrimage, killing of animals in sacrifice in holy place is prohibited. The eighth chapter of the Lankavarara sutta perhaps contains the strongest exposition of vegetarianism which became central feature of Vaishnavism in medieval India." [Ibid:337] Shri K. A. Nilkanata Sastri acknowledges this fact as follows:
"...The temple and the palace are both indicated by one word koyil in Tamil, and prasada in Sanskrit, and it universally recognized that temple - worship was not part of the original Vedic religion..." [Sastri:1966:64]
It is usually accepted that the first image that was manufactured in India for the purpose of the worship was that of the Buddha. Whether it was first manufactured at Mathura or in Gandhara could be a debatable point, but that the images of Vishnu and other Hindu gods were manufactured later than the image of Buddha, is universally accepted by scholars.”
Even in the Rg Veda, certain rivers (Sarasvati, Ganga, Sindhu etc) and places (Kurukshetra – mentioned as Ilayaspada) are often eulogized. The roots for tirtha yatra are found in these very hymns.
Vegetarianism is attested even more strongly in Jaina religion. Of course, some ancient Vedic seers were probably non-vegetarians. But it must be remembered that Vedas form the first step in the evolution of the Hindu religion and that subtler values were added to the religion at each and every phase of its development. Vegetarianism could have been developed by Hindu scholars themselves. There is no compelling evidence which shows that vegetarianism was borrowed by Hinduism from Buddhism or vice versa.
No one is claiming that Vedic seers worshipped at temples. But it is entirely wrong to state that Brahmins borrowed temple worship from the Buddhists. As shown earlier Vishnu temples were in existence in the 2nd century BCE. Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’ (4th century BCE)(Arthashastra 2.4.17, 2.4.18, 2.4.19, 2.5.6, 2.36.28 etc) mentions Hindu temples. Arthashastra(2.4.17) mentions deities like Aparajita, Jayanta, Vijayanta, Shiva, Ashvins, Sri etc. Thus, temple worship must have been borrowed by the Buddhists and not by the Hindus. In the original Buddhist philosophy, there is no room for any sacrifice or worship. On the other hand, temple wo