 Return to LNP
This News Site:
Lanka Newspapers is the largest Sri Lanka News forum online. Thousands of Sri Lankans from around the world gather here daily to discuss current news events of Sri Lanka. Join Today!
|
|
|
Hindus set to convert to Buddhism
Full News Article
KURAL
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4556
Member Profile
|
10 Dec 2006 21:15:36 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Shelley,
The only thing i can say about Indian culture is that there are a lot of variation from an area to another one !
By the way do you really think that caste system don't exist in Sri lanka and among the Sinhalas ?
If yes , you are false.
So i still don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Sinhalas are more friendly than Indians !
You answered me that it is due to the society, and caste system in India.
But let me ask you WHAT differ in SRI LANKA ? |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
10 Dec 2006 21:25:03 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Saervek
Buddhism is well established, and accepted as a true world religion throughout academic and social circles the world over. It is this acknowledgment and acceptance that the hindus are attempting to steal for themselves, by publicizing that Buddhism is a part of hinduism, which is a complete falsification.
I am neither a Hindu nor a Buddhist but I do have some general knowledge on both.
The Brahminical religion what is known as Hinduism today is very ancient, it existed thousands of years before Buddha. The Vedas, Upanishads and the Bagawath Gita were much older than the Buddhist scriptures Tripitika (Vinaya, Sutta and Abhidhamma).
I do not have much time to continue this discussion, but when time permits, I can show you hundreds of identical verses found in both the Hindu (Brahminical) scriptures, the Vedas/Upanishads/Gita and the Buddhist scriptures (both Theravada and Mahayana).
You are talking about the greatness of Buddhism, I will not disagree but let me ask you a blunt question.
Even though Buddhism has nothing to do with the Hindu Gods, most of the Sinhala Buddhists follow Hinduism along with Buddhism without admitting it in public, as we see at Katharagama, Muneshwaram, (Kovil/Devale) and at most of the Buddhist temples, you find Hindu Gods even at the Dalada Maligawa. WHY???
It is believed that the Buddha himself told the Jathaka stories about his previous lives as a Bodhisathva. You also find many identical stories with some minor difference in the Mahabaratha.
What I believe is, the Buddha told Jathaka tales as moral stories for people to understand what he preached in a simple manner, it is something similar to Aesop fables, or Pancha Tantra or Parables.
With all respect to what you believe, may I ask you, do you think that the Buddha would have told these Jataka tales as true stories?
Lets consider some examples,
In Nandivisala Jataka, we have an intelligent talking bull that could pull hundred carts.
The Mirga Jataka talks about a deer that saved a drowning merchant and later preached the Dhamma to the king who was hunting.
In Sivi Jataka, king Sivi redeemed a pigeon by giving his own flesh, an exactly identical story is found in the Mahabharata.
I do not want to list all the Jatakas here to elaborate my point, but take a closer look at them and think, do you believe that they are true?
It can be clearly proved that the bulk of these stories which form the Jataka are pre Buddhistic and merely adaptations of Hindu tales and fables which are much older.
The Buddhist scriptures were written long after Lord Buddha?s passing away by disciples most of whom were Brahmins. Thus, it is not surprising that a lot of Brahminical myths and concepts, which the Buddha has discarded, crept back into the Suttras and Jataka tales.
Another Jataka story which the Buddhists strongly believe is the Kusa Fathakaya, where the Bodhisattva was born as Kusa, and married a beautiful princess Pabawathie.
Sakra the king of Gods came unnoticed by any one while Pabawathie was asleep and rubbed her navel with his toe. This caused her to conceive without any intimacyual congress.
This is very similar to the virgin conception (mother of Jesus Christ) and oral conception (mother of Sri Rama).
My common sense tells me that these are nothing but fairy tales.
The Hindus worshipping the cow is somewhat similar to the Buddhists worshipping the Bo Tree.
My suggestion to you is exactly what you said to Tigress. You should think before you write, rather than publicizing the gaps in your knowledge to the world.
Before you criticize what others believe, try to read their scriptures, NOT just look at their rituals (not found in the scriptures) and make your comment.
Edited By - LuLa - 10 Dec 2006 22:32:18 GMT |
shelley
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 98
Member Profile
|
10 Dec 2006 21:48:18 GMT Report for Abuse
|
| Kural, i know caste does exist in sri lanka, but nowehere near as much as india, where people ask you upon meeting them what caste they're in, and thus, this is ONE of the reasons why indians are like this, though not the single one. Also, sri lankan caste is based more on the feudal land system, not the status of birth as in hinduism, so that's also why it's weaker there. Also, why are you arguing this and making enemies with me? I stand behind what i've experienced, and if you don't believe me, go to india, get close to indians, and see what it's really like there. I can guarantee you that it's not as rosy as it seems. on a side note, what does this have to do with my original question, 'why do so many sinhalese buddhsit people(young and old generation) want to marry only with other sinhalese buddhsit people, as opposed to muslims or even sinhalese christians?' |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 03:35:23 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LuLa,
Actually you misunderstand me, I have no need to glorify Buddhism, by 'true world religion' I was illustrating the point that Buddhism is inclusive of a wide variety of ethnicities and nationalities (rather than some point of doctrine) whereas Hinduism remains largely an Indic religion. This gives the impetus for the Hindu attempt to absorb Buddhism, because it brings with it an International reach, and legitimacy.
The Jataka Katha were not told by the Buddha, they were composed post-Nibbana. They are not Buddha Vachana, and should not be treated as such. They form part of what might be called 'Buddhist Mythology'. No doubt some of them along with various rituals are adapted from Hindu sources. Personally this does not bother me because I do not believe in the Jataka Katha, god, gods, or any other superstition. They are not Buddha Vachana, and I have no need to believe them.
The cow was (part of) an illustration of the differences between Buddhism and Hinduism. For reasons known only unto yourself, you've ignored the others and focused on this one. The point being made was that the Buddha himself rejected the core of Hinduism, ergo he cannot be a Hindu or an avatar of a Hindu god, because it is not logical.
By all means you can suggest my advice back to me, but only by following it yourself my friend, besides your clear error on the Jataka Katha, you've rather misunderstood my point. As a general rule, if the Hindu's decided to worship Alpha Centauri as the next incarnation of god, I wouldn't mind. That's between them and their god. However, I do object to this (the Buddha as a Hindu) because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to support such a conclusion. The remaining evidence expressly argues against it in fact, the Buddha (for example) absolutely denied any divinity, so it is most unreasonable to then go an postulate that he is an avatar of vishnu.
Edited By - Saervek - 11 Dec 2006 03:37:09 GMT |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 04:36:33 GMT Report for Abuse
|
You will have to excuse me if multiple posts come up, because there was a problem when I tried to reply.
Shan,
Please read the example as it is meant to be read, the point was about the divergences between Buddhist and Hindu thought, and why the evidence available does not validate the assumption made.
Kural,
Buddhism recognises a continuous line of Buddha's across time, all of whom preach the Dharma. Accordingly, the presence or absence of Hinduism is a non-factor, because either way a Buddha will preach the Dharma, regardless of the environment.
You are making the incorrect assumption that because some of the words used (such as Karma, Dharma etc) are the same, that the concepts behind them are also the same. This is not so. Karma in Hinduism (for example) allows a role for god, whereas this is not so in Buddhism. Likewise, the Dharma in Buddhism purely refers to the Buddha Dharma, which is not the same as the Hindu Dharma. |
Kulakottan
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2582
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 06:39:00 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Guys,
Did this arguement/debate start because of Tigeress's comment:
by the way bhudda too a hindu by religion!
Perhaps she should have said that Prince Siddhartha was a hindu!!
Edited By - Kulakottan - 11 Dec 2006 06:40:20 GMT |
LuLa
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2316
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 18:21:02 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Saervek
Leave the Hindu Vedas, Upanishads and the Bagawath Gita what Prince Siddhartha, his disciples and his parents followed before he became a Buddha. From your above post, it is very clear that you have NOT read even your own scriptures (Tripitika) properly. You are totally denying Buddha?s 550 rebirths as Bodhisattva.
It is pointless continuing a discussion with people who do not know their own faith and totally ignorant about others faith.
My advice to you is, first try to read and understand your own scriptures and then try to read and understand the scriptures of those with whom you want to argue.
Once you are ready, please poke your nose here and we will continue, till then Bye bye. |
shelley
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 98
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 19:37:13 GMT Report for Abuse
|
| Why do the buyddhist monks have strong political influence in sri lanka? also, why are SOME of the monks attackign christians or their chruches, from what i've read? |
GreyFox
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1192
Member Profile
|
11 Dec 2006 20:38:16 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Unearthing the roots of an island nation
By Asgar Hussein
A study using the ground-breaking technique of dental morphological analysis indicates that ancestors of the present day Sinhalese could have established the island's megalithic culture.
It also concludes that the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilisation of Harappa had dental traits resembling Sinhalese much more closely than Tamils or other Dravidian speaking populations.
This evidence emerges from the work of American anthropologist Dr. Diane Hawkey. Her thesis is titled 'Out of Asia: Dental Evidence for Affinities and Microevolution of Early Populations from India/ Sri Lanka.'
To draw her conclusions, Dr. Hawkey had compared the teeth of pre-historic and early iron age groups of Sri Lanka with the present communities as well as ancient and modern populations in India, South East Asia, Australia and the Middle East.
The findings could demolish the myth that Dravidians established the island's megalithic culture. Dr. Hawkey shows that the skeletal remains at Pomparippu clearly indicate they possessed dental traits much more similar to Sinhalese than Tamils, Veddas or the more primitive Balangoda Man.
The Pomparippu dwellers (who probably lived around 500-1000 BC) followed the iron age burial custom of placing their dead in large clay vessels which were then buried.
In fact, dental morphology shows a close affinity between the Sinhalese and the Austro-Asiatic people of Eastern and North Eastern India. This implies they are of common stock.
Dr. Hawkey's study also debunks the myth that Dravidians are descended from the inhabitants of the great pre-historic Indus Valley Civilisation of Harappa. It concludes that Harappans and East Indian Austro-Asiatics resemble Sinhalese in dental traits much more than Sri Lankan Tamils, peninsular Indians or South Indian tribal groups.
Interestingly, the Harappans (who practised international trade) also display dental similarities with Egyptians and Nubians who lived in the second millennium B.C. The available evidence indicates a genetic inflow into Egypt from North West India in ancient times. Furthermore, the ancient Egyptians possessed only few dental similarities with the populations in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The recent findings also contribute to a new theory that anatomically - modern humans originated in South and South East Asia. This stands as a rival to the 'Out of Africa' theory that held they evolved in the dark continent, which went unchallenged until recently.
It is indeed significant that Dr. Hawkey had incorporated much evidence unearthed in Sri Lanka to support the new theory. The oldest evidence of modern humans in Asia came from the Fa-Hien Lena Cave in Sri Lanka and the Niah Cave in Borneo. The specimens are 35,000-40,000 years old.
Interestingly, there are no dental similarities between Africans and early/modern South Asians. Indeed, pre-historic South Asians resemble the present day populations (in the region) more closely than any other people in the world, indicating overall homogeneity. As time progressed however, they became increasingly heterogeneous, as differences are evident during the iron age.
It is believed than an ancient group of humans evolved in South and South-East Asia and later migrated elsewhere. In fact, dental traits similar to Balangoda Man have been found in specimens from Ukraine. This suggests a dental pattern which at one time prevailed in South Asia, South East Asia and South East Europe.
Another interesting finding by Dr. Hawkey is that Balangoda Man shows stronger dental similarities to the Melanesians in the Pacific region than to the Australian Aborigines.
Veddas are racially akin to Balangoda Man, although the former show racial fusion with the early Sinhalese and Tamil groups. It is however noteworthy that veddoid teeth bear a closer resemblance to that of Balangoda Man than Sinhalese or Tamils.
Another important conclusion is that those communities of Balangoda Man living in Sri Lanka less than 10,000 years ago possessed more primitive dental morphological traits than contemporary Indian groups. This indicates that although the two countries were then connected by the land link known as Adam's Bridge, the gene flow between its peoples during that period was not significant.
This finding lends support to Dr. Siran Deraniyagala's view that the island may have been a 'cul-de-sac' where weaker communities sought refuge.
He believes that stone age pre-historic man would have preferred to migrate to certain areas in peninsular India where food was more abundant, compelling the weaker groups to enter Sri Lanka.
In fact, archaeological evidence on 'carrying capacity' indicates that the stone age communities who remained in some parts of the Indian sub-continent were more numerous in number than those who inhabited Sri Lanka.
With archaeologists continuing to unearth more evidence and anthropologists using new techniques to analyse them, we would later have a greater understanding of the early inhabitants of the island and their affinity to populations of the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere. All this will go a long way in disproving false beliefs. History may well have to be rewritten if the truth is to reign supreme.
Edited By - GreyFox - 11 Dec 2006 20:40:08 GMT |
Saervek
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 102
Member Profile
|
12 Dec 2006 03:13:24 GMT Report for Abuse
|
LuLa,
You have made a rather simplistic and confused reading of the situation. It is correct that the Jataka Katha are part of the Khuddaka Nikhaya of the Sutta Pitaka, however the Jatakas themselves are dated generally as not earlier than the third century BC and not later than the fourth century AD (post First Council). Moreover, it is well-known by anyone who knows the subject that the Tripitaka contains not only the word of the Buddha, but also occasionally those of his chief disciples, along with some later additions, much like the Jatakas above. This is why most Buddhists entirely legitimately do not credit the Jataka Katha as being Buddha Vachana. Since you are not a Buddhist, I would not expect you to have understood this, however kindly do not cast aspersions on the lack of knowledge of others when your knowledge on the topic is far from complete.
Your initial posting essentially divulges your confusion on the issue, just look at the plethora of positions you have taken;
It is believed that the Buddha himself told the Jathaka stories about his previous lives as a Bodhisathva.
So first, you state that the Buddha told factual stories about his past lives. Fine. Now;
What I believe is, the Buddha told Jathaka tales as moral stories for people to understand what he preached in a simple manner, it is something similar to Aesop fables, or Pancha Tantra or Parables.
So now, they are not stories of the Buddha's past lives, but rather allegory.
It can be clearly proved that the bulk of these stories which form the Jataka are pre Buddhistic and merely adaptations of Hindu tales and fables which are much older.
So now, they are no longer the Buddha's stories at all, but rather stories that he stole off the Hindus. And finally;
My common sense tells me that these are nothing but fairy tales.
Now you've reduced them to fairytales. Well done. Just out of interest, how many people did you get to write all this? Surely one person could not have confused himself/herself quite so thoroughly.
It is pointless continuing a discussion with people who do not know their own faith and totally ignorant about others faith.
I agree completely. I don't know whether you understand your own religion, since you've never mentioned what it is, but you most certainly do not understand Buddhism. The key to your post is the mountain of 'what I believe'. That much is correct, unfortunately for you, it is not what the rest of the universe believes. |
|
Search All News and Discussions