Dharmic Schism Fallacies: Atrocities vs Power
Schism-seekers - both historical and contemporary - are laid to rest by evidence and facts.
Emperor Ashoka is said to have proclaimed that one who honours one’s own sect and disparages other sects harms one’s own religion while one who honours other sects contributes to the glory of his own. Before, in and for several centuries after his reign - and indeed that of other monarchs of the various kingdoms and empires within and including any part of the Indian Subcontinent - this had largely held true. However, even over a period of several centuries before the “Bhakti” tradition was scholastically backed, the devotion of the masses to their Gods had been growing. Swaying the hearts of the Indic Sanatan masses, while having their philosophy logically refuted and rising devotion among the masses (as shown in Part 3, “Ascendant Heterodoxies vs Divisions”), was proving to be a particularly difficult proposition for Buddhist Orders since the dawn of the Common Era (CE).
This difficulty is compounded by the wide and deep roots of Sanatan divinity.
Chain of Dharmic Cultures
Many leading lights of colonial-era intelligentsia found support for their so-called “manifest destiny” with regard to the Indian Subcontinent in the discovered ruins of the Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, cities of planned grandeur and vision that surpassed that of Rome in its ancient glory. These leading lights contended that these cities were razed and the inhabitants massacred by a foreign tribe called the “Aryans” who went on to impose their culture on the Subcontinent. Thus, the Europeans were only the latest in the natural order to dominate these lands. Unlike other lands, their mission is to enlighten these poor heathens and show them the ways of “proper civilization”. Schism-seekers in the present, often with many credentials, parrot this assertion as proof of the alienness of “Hinduism” to Indic culture.
Subsequent archaeological efforts went on to make these two cities the chronological foci for discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization, which covers a significant portion of the northwestern frontiers of the Subcontinent in both present-day India and Pakistan.
One site of interest is Lothal, which contemporary research reveals had an intricate system of jetties, harbours and warehouses dating back to at least the 2nd millennium BCE, with officials administering operations with methods including a sophisticated system of weights and measures for the computation of import and export duties on merchants. Thus, Lothal was a focal point of the Indus Valley Civilization.
A hint as to why the invasion argument is baseless lies in the fact that, in the present day, the digs at Lothal - including said jetties, et al - are 19 kilometers inland from the sea. Contemporary research states that a receding of the coastline was largely caused by tectonic disturbances that changed the shoreline somewhere around the end of the 2nd millennium BCE. The region was particularly prone to earthquakes, with a particularly severe one in the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE having a severe effect on Dholavira, a nearby city which was also a major center of the Civilization’s commerce. This was just one of the issues that plagued the Civilization: a complex set of changing weather patterns led to heavier winter monsoons and summer droughts, which strained the network of dams built by the civilization. Over the course of a millennium, the cities were abandoned due to the lack of water and (possibly) resulting unrest, with the people moving on quite peacefully. In fact, contemporary examinations conclude that no archaeological or biological evidence exists for invasions or large-scale migrations into the Civilization’s hinterlands between 1900 and 600 BCE. Also, cultural traditions remained unbroken from 4500 BCE till 600 BCE. So much for the schism-seeker’s “invasion” argument.
Towns and villages surrounding these cities and with access to water carried on as before but the resulting political landscape was a shadow of the Civilization that modern findings confirm existed since the middle of the 8th millennium BCE. Furthermore, archaeological digs in the Keeladi Valley dating back to at least the 2nd century BCE is beginning to confirm the assertions in Tamil Sangam literature citing their Tamil (or “Dravidian”) civilization had extensive links with the Indus Valley. In 2020, the “Aryan Invasion Theory” was further diminished into irrelevance upon discovery of artifacts of an “Ochre Coloured Pottery culture” in the Gangetic plains with a local culture going back to the 10th millennium BCE which practiced Vedic rituals and heavily interacted with the neighbouring Indus Valley Civilization and possibly beyond. Also, historical analysis of Rigveda lend significant strength to the assertion of the Vedas being divined in the Subcontinent. So much for the schism-seeker’s “alienness” argument.
Sangam literature also makes extensive references to their lands trading with European and West Asian cultures. This was confirmed by the travels of Cosmas, a Greek merchant during the reign of Emperor Justinian in the Eastern Roman Empire of the 5th century CE. King Sargon of Akkad, a Mesopotamian kingdom, boasted that his capital Agada receives the ships of Dilmun (present-day Bahrain), Magan (present-day UAE and Oman) as well as the Indus Valley Civilization in inscriptions from the 3rd millennium BCE. Mesopotamia’s extensive trade relations with the Indus Valley even had them importing water buffalos, which were possibly considered sacred, from there.
Sumeria, in the southern half of the Mesopotamian civilization, was classically held by colonial-era historians as being populated by people with origins in the Subcontinent, which even reflected in their traditions and practices. Similarities in the written language have also been noted. Furthermore, contemporary research involving genetic analysis largely corresponds with the assertion that the two peoples are genetically related, although the possibility that this due to the samples being from merchants from the Subcontinent isn’t entirely ruled out. Further discoveries will likely shed some more light on this.
With regard to ancient Egypt, Swedish Count Magnus Björnstjerna, a Swedish nobleman who was a soldier, diplomat and amateur historian, wrote in his 1843 book “Om Hinduernas Theogoni, Philosofi och Kosmogoni” that scholars of his time noted that the temples of upper Egypt are of greater antiquity than those of lower Egypt, with reports from ancient historians such as Josephus, Julius Africanus, and Eusebius testifying that chronicles in the ancient temples of Abydos and Sais stated that the Egyptian faith proceeded from India. Subsequently, the likes of Herodotus, Plato, Salon, Pythagoras, and Philostratus also concluded the same. Furthermore, he states, reports show that the lingam of the Shiva temples of India is also represented in the Phallus of Ammon temple of Egypt, which barren women visit and ask for a boon of fertility - much like the tradition in many Shiva temples in the present day.
The Count, rather interestingly, lambasts Western ignorance for assuming that the lingam is the male genital organ, calling it a continuance of “Greek ignorance”. Rather, he states, “Phalish” simply means Lord Giver of Fruit. The serpent Shesha, a central figure in Egyptian religion, is represented as the serpent “Shesha Naga” in the Vedas.
In his 1859 book “Histoire d’Egypte”, German Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch stated that its likely that Indian emigrants from over 8,000 years ago came to Egypt with their art and civilization, leading to Egyptians naming the Subcontinent as the land of “Punt”. In 1967, excavations on a pyramid estimated to have been built by the 3rd millennium BCE revealed a verse from the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita inscribed within.
While contemporary research shows that ships from the Indian Subcontinent have been trading with ancient Egypt’s ports for millennia, further confirming or refuting these classical theories about the faith is still a work in progress.
Around the Egyptian domain were two notable kingdoms that were distinctly Dharmic: the Mitanni Empire - that lasted 300 years in northern Mesopotamia, parts of Syria and Turkey and with a system of intermarriages between their royalty and that of Egypt - worshipped Indic Gods Varuna, Mitra and Indra while the Kassite Kingdom - that lasted 400 years in western Iran - had Sanskrit names and worshipped the Indic solar deity Surya and the thunder deities collectively known as the “Maruts”. Little is known of both these kingdoms outside of mention in Egyptian, Hittite and Assyrian records but a drought in Iraq two years ago has revealed an ancient Mittani palace and raised hopes for more historical analysis.
Closest to the Subcontinent is Persia, with which Dharma has a rather interesting connection. Both the Sanatani “Rigveda” and the Zoroastrian “Avesta” show enormous similarities in legends, events and even names of Gods and notable personages. Classical historians had concluded that the Indic Gods (“devas”) were antithetical to the Persian Gods (“ahuras”, which are also referred to as “asuras” in the Vedas). While the Vedas held the former to be Gods, the Avesta held the latter to be “true gods”. This created a split, leading to migration, invasion of the Subcontinent, et al. Given the lack of evidence of migration or invasion, this could be put to rest as well.
The Vedas, particularly the Rigveda, treat the term “asura” quite interestingly: it is generally accepted to simply mean “powerful” or “mighty”. God-king Indra, fire god Agni and mother-goddess Aditi are described as “asuras”. Even Lord Shiva, as Rudra, receives numerous “asura” descriptions. All of them are also deemed “devas” (“Gods”). Only latter texts begin to delineate between the two. For instance, the Bhagavad Gita states that all beings in the universe have both “daivi sampad” (divine qualities) and “asuri sampad” (demonic qualities) in them.
This provides an interesting point of reference, which contemporary research frames around the question of a “Central God”. While both Persians and the Indics shared the same Gods and had similar legends, scholars of the former framed Ahura Mazda as the “Central God” (with all ahuras as his associates and all devas his enemies) upon learning that the scholars of the latter were beginning to consider Varuna as the Central God. In other words, it was a scholastic schism.
Subsequent iterations of contemplations on the Avesta also brought most of the devas into the fold of “Mazdayasna” consideration but the differences between those who worshipped deva and ahura remained in currency. (Note: “yasna” means “worship” in the Old Iranian Avestan language). Subsequent legendary figures in the texts depicted them battling and defeating “devayasna” legions. The Vendidad - which, much like the latter texts of Sanatana, was written a substantial period of time after the Avesta - enjoined Zoroastrians to seize the properties of “devayasna” adherents. This movement likely prompted consideration of the “asuras” as forces of Chaos in Indic post-Rigvedic scholasticism as well.
Stepping into this (all things considered) superficial yet considerable schism was Xerxes I of the Achaemenid Empire who - in addition to proclaiming himself Emperor of the Subcontinent - also issued a proclamation that he stomped out “devayasna” worship within his Empire with the aid of Ahura Mazda. Contemporary research puts the location of this suppression as being south of the Caspian Sea and the Alburz Mountains. However, subsequent Achaemenid monarchs - starting from Xerxes’ son Darius - were pointedly more tolerant of religious diversity while affirming their firm commitment to Zoroastrianism.
Despite Xerxes and his successors’ claims of dominion, Achaemenid rule in the Subcontinent - which incorporated large swathes of modern-day Balochistan, almost all of Afghanistan and some parts of the Indus Valley - is described as being unobtrusive in the Subcontinent. After its dissolution, the erstwhile Empire’s Scythian, Persian and Greek troops stationed in these regions were enlisted by Chandragupta Maurya in the battle for Magadha, resulting in the founding of the influential Mauryan Empire.
While the “Sintashta culture” along the northern Eurasian steppe in the 2nd millennium BCE already showed iconography and religious worship similar to that of the Indics, the 2007 discovery of the remains of a highly-populated city in the southeastern part of European Russia with an idol of Lord Vishnu suggests that this wasn’t a passing phenomenon.
Given that this is a much older city than Kiev - which is the cornerstone of Rus culture - further research is likely underway as it suggests that Russia’s spiritual foundation lies eastwards. Explorations into pre-Christian beliefs of the Slavic peoples of Eastern and Central Europe also indicate the proto-Advaitic conception of divinity as being impersonal and polarities of “Rod-Rozanica” and “Zhibog-Zhiva” espoused in their faiths linguistically identifiable as Sanskrit pairings रुद्र-रुद्राणी (Rudra-Rudrani) and शिवभग, शिवा (“Shivabhaga-Shiva”).
While some commonalities are postulated between the shamanic practices in the steppes of Central Asia and the Vedas, the former are generally considered too commonly extant worldwide to suggest a concrete link. For example, the Mongol fire ritual bears some resemblance to that in Zoroastrian and Vedic fire rituals. Research by German historian Nikolaus Poppe in the Tengriist religious tradition indicated that Ahura Mazda bore substantial resemblance to their deity Qormusta Tengri while Darqan Guejir Tengri, described as the pleasant lord of the steppes and a patron deity to one of Genghis Khan’s generals Jelme, is described as “Maqa Kalan” with some other points of resemblance to “Mahakalan”, one of Lord Shiva’s names. The influence of Dharma is possibly the result of centuries of interaction of the Hun Khaganates - known as the “White Huns” (श्वेतहूण) in the Subcontinent who were precursors to a number of tribes in Genghis Khan’s confederation - with the Kushanas, who syncretized both Zoroastrianism and Sanatana in their Empire.
The Central Asian and Persian traditions for pluralistic tolerance - especially when it came to Dharma - is exemplified in more recent times with the Atesgah Temple in modern-day Azerbaijan which was originally centered around an “eternal flame” - itself fuelled by gas deposits under the earth, which were exhausted by Soviet mineral extraction efforts in the area.
Estimated to have been built in the 7th century CE and subsequently reduced by iconography-loathing Islamic prescriptions, the temple was resurrected by merchant caravans from India in the 17th or 18th century CE on account of its extensive facilities for fire rituals. Inscriptions saluting Lord Ganesha were added with Zoroastrian approval. The Azerbaijani government now pipes gas to the Temple so that the “eternal flame” can be lit for the benefit of visitors.
Now, schism-seekers occasionally provoke an ardent response from some quarters who proclaim that the Vedas - and thus Sanatana - were dominant throughout the ancient world. Such responses aren’t grounded in present evidence. It is however possible that the same metaphysical truths that founded the Vedas were manifest in the faiths of Mesopotamia and beyond (and almost definitely so in Persia), thus forming a “Chain of Dharma” across Asia that possibly extends into Central as well as Eastern Europe.
It is also possible that, in these other civilization, monistic traditions and the centering of faith around a clergy-nobility alliance weakened the faith’s connection to the masses - thus leaving these faiths vulnerable to latter-day spiritual displacement. However, in the Subcontinent, strong scholasticism coupled with enduring popular beliefs in Indic deities by the masses made Sanatan Dharma extremely robust.
Some schism-seekers claiming to be rational and conveniently ignoring piling evidence will continue to claim that the Rigveda is a document of invading “Aryans” who deemed the indigenous masses as “mlechhas”. As should be obvious by now, this also isn’t true.
The Vedas themselves use the term “Arya” in very different ways. In their oblations to the divine, references to the four “varnas” are made to give them the benefits of the prayer that is about to uttered, followed by the phrase “.. and also the Aryas”. In other parts of the Vedas, the term “Arya” is variously used to indicate someone who is wise, a friend or worthy of knowledge. The Rigveda mentions Lord Aryaman (अर्यमन्) as the protector of customs and mares, with his name signifying “friend”, “partner” and “companion” - which is a further indicator of the universality of the root word “Arya”. At no point do the Vedas explicitly refer to the Aryas (or “Aryans”, if you prefer) as its ethnic group. These oblations are likely meant to include all those who hold the Rigvedic truth close to their soul but aren’t organized as the Indics are.
The term “Aryan” also exists in the Avesta, wherein its employed to depict its adherents as being “wise” and “noble”. Thus, Persians identified themselves as being “Aryans”. With regard to the term, the Avesta narrows down and mirrors some of the implication of the term in the Vedas without being an exact replica. The term “Arya” was redefined around the 2nd century CE in the “Manusmriti” as someone “worthy of taking sacraments”. The “Manusmriti”, being lower than the Vedas in the hierarchy (as discussed in Part 3) cannot technically prevail in this redefinition.
The term “mleccha” doesn’t appear in the Vedas at all. However, the term “ Meluhha” is used by the Sumerians to describe the Indus Valley Civilization and is of rather enigmatic origin. Modern scholars are proposing that the term comes from the southern half of the Subcontinent: namely, “mel-akam” (“high country”, possibly in reference to the Baloch highlands). The word does get re-contextualized in the “Shatapata Brahmana”, the accompanying text of the Yajurveda estimated to have been composed around 300 BCE, as signifying someone of indistinct language. No other accompanying text of the Vedas uses this term.
The hierarchy of texts also accounted for a key facet that the Apastamba Dharmasutra made: applicability to the customs of an era. While the Vedas are an intricate set of texts with deep metaphysical truths, studying them for everyday life - which changes by era and region - isn’t possible for all. The likes of the “Puranas”, hymns, et al filled this role. For instance, the “Puranas” would distill the essence of the Vedas, explain the validity and construction of rituals, often offer philosophical insight for an era or region, connect them to the legends of the “Itihasas”, furnish recitations, postulate remedies to spiritual crises, et cetera. Despite being written in Sanskrit and comprising of thousands of verses, the lay priesthood (often distinct from the Sanatan scholar) could interpret them to prescribe spiritual solutions for the masses. The hymns derived from a “Purana” would lyrically soothe the masses’ concerns and also highlight the eternality of Sanatana. The mighty Vedas at the top of this hierarchy acted as a failsafe if a work was found to be unsuitable so it can be replaced by another. Buddhism - with an out-of-touch officialdom distant from its laity and arcane philosophical propositions offering no solution on this mortal plane - pales in comparison. Until the 12th century CE, Jainism produced around 50 texts that prescribed lifestyle and conduct for a layperson adherent while Buddhism produced one. In the meantime, Sanatan organizations produced thousands of works of varying flavours. Many of these are lost in time but have since been replaced by even more.
The Fallacy of Atrocities
Polemical arguments are par for the course in Indic scholastic discourse. For example, the seventy-first discourse of the “Majjhima Nikaya” - the foundational text of the Theravada Buddhist Order composed somewhere between 3rd and 2nd century BCE - has the Buddha disabusing two Brahmins of their beliefs and effectively converting them to Buddhism. Sanatan scholars wouldn’t have found this offensive since it was an argument about said Brahmins’ beliefs, which is a worthy pursuit for consideration. What did become increasingly problematic was Buddhist accounts of atrocities, which have been debunked as propaganda devised to further their faith. With increasing fervour for the Gods of Sanatana promoting spiritual revanchism among the masses who were hitherto Buddhist and leading monarchies towards favouring Sanatan Orders even more, Buddhist scholasticism grew increasingly shrill.
The “Ashokavadana” (अशोकावदान) - a historical narrative of Emperor Ashoka dating back to the 2nd century BCE in the oral tradition - narrates an incident wherein, on the basis of a complaint by a Buddhist devotee, the Emperor orders the slaughter of 18,000 “Ajivika” adherents (as relayed in Part 2, the “Ajivika” school espoused a philosophy highly similar to that of Buddhism and predated the Buddha by a couple of centuries). Historical evidence clearly indicates this as being false: an extensive rock-cut cave complex known today as the “Barabar Caves” was gifted by Ashoka to the “Ajivika” adherents for their solitary contemplation, followed by an additional gift of caves by his grandson Dashratha Maurya.
Pushyamitra Shunga, who replaced the fading Mauryan Dynasty with his own Shunga Dynasty, also receives disdain in the “Ashokavadana”, wherein he offers one hundred Roman denarii for every Buddhist monk’s head presented to him, attempts to destroy the legendary Kukkutarama monastery and proceed to Koshthaka - modern-day Shravasti (श्रावस्ती) in Uttar Pradesh - where he was killed by two Buddhist “yakshas” (demons). In reality, it is estimated that Pushyamitra ruled for about 40 years and the Roman denarii wasn’t found in circulation until about a century after his passing. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan Buddhist text “Mahavamsha” stated that several monasteries operated throughout his rule in the territories he reigned over. Contemporary historians now believe that these exaggerations likely resulted from reduced patronage and funding for Buddhist Orders by Pushyamitra, who preferred to favour more the increasingly-popular Sanatan institutions.
The reign of Mihirakula in the 5th century CE also received misrepresentation in some Buddhist accounts but also modern historians’ accounts. A Huna (or “Hun”) monarch in the northwestern reaches of the Subcontinent, he is depicted by Chinese Buddhist pilgrims as being particularly cruel towards their faith. Early research in the 20th century tagged him as a Shaiva king and applied a religious tint to his actions. Even historians’ accounts in the nineties recounted him destroying Buddhist monasteries and massacring monks.
However, the accounts of Chinese Buddhist monk Song Yun (宋雲), who was sent over in this time period on the orders of the Northern Wei Dynasty and reported meeting him in person, explicitly states that Mihirakula had no particular faith, was disliked by his people for the toll on their lives due to his never-ending wars and that the Sanatan Brahmins in his territories also disliked him. Contemporary historians note that a prominent Buddhist monastery in Harwan (in present-day Kashmir) was built during his time without issues and that no evidence exists whatsoever that Mihirakula deviated from general Indic monarchic policy of leaving Indic religious Orders be. Furthermore, it was determined that the evidence used to support his Shaiva affiliation were actually of the Aulikara Dynasty - whose monarchs were indeed Shaivas - who eventually reversed his territorial holdings in the Subcontinent under King Yashodharman.
A contemporary of Yashodharman in the East was Shashanka who arose from the ruins of the Gupta Empire to establish his own kingdom in Bengal and is well-regarded as an avid proponent of Sanatan Dharma. A 12th century text by Tibetan monk Dharmasvamin reported that Shashanka was a great enemy and oppressor of Buddhism who cut down the great Bodhi Tree of the Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya. In the modern day, historians have dismissed this claim, given that this was written 5 centuries after Shashanka’s reign. Furthermore, the cutting of the Bodhi Tree is a familiar trope in Buddhist writings, which attributed the same action to Ashoka and his queen.
After Padmasambhava (also known as “Guru Rinpoche”) came over from the Subcontinent in the 7th century CE to establish it, Tibetan Buddhism - in both “Mahayana” and “Vajrayana” traditions - considers itself to be to be spiritually descended from the teachings of the Nalanda University. The iconography in Buddhist monasteries and temples - which, as Part 1 recounted, was derived from Indic Gods - began to incorporate “Vajrayana” renditions of Buddhist deities and “yakshas” attacking Indic Gods. For instance, Achala (अचल; Tibetan: “Miyowa”; Chinese: 不動明王; Japanese: 不動明王; Korean: 부동명왕) evolved out of either Lord Shiva or Agni to become Chandaroshana (चण्डरोषण) in later texts leaning towards the Vajrayana tradition. In the Vajrayana “Sadhanamala” - composed between the 5th and 11th centuries CE - the tripartite Lords Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma along with Kama (the God of Love) - are described as “wicked beings” terrified of Achala since he carries a rope to bind them. Some depictions, predominantly in Nepal and Tibet, even him portray him trampling the elephant-headed Vighnaraja (a Buddhist equivalent of Lord Ganesha). Other deities are variously depicted murdering Lord Shiva and his consort Parvati, Lord Ganesha, a Jain “tirthankara”, and so forth. While Achala and these other deities continued to evolve in the East after discarding these depictions, it is intuitively likely that such creations were on account of Buddhist Orders’ animus towards Sanatana Orders’ consistent ability to question the teachings and contradictory decadence of Buddhist Orders in the Subcontinent long accustomed to state-sponsored windfalls1.
The destruction of Nalanda and devastation brought about in the region - which included the Mahabodhi Temple - by the armies of Turkic general Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji of the Ghurid Dynasty made Tibetan Buddhism the continuance of Nalanda’s scholarship. Now, despite Dharmasvamin reporting this being done by “Turushka” (Tibetan word for Turkic) soldiers, Tibetan Buddhist scholar Taranatha claimed (in the 16th century CE) that Brahmin priests burnt down the University. He also claimed that Pushyamitra’s actions led to the complete wiping out of Buddhism from the northern half of the Subcontinent within five years. Given that the founder of Tibetan Buddhism came from the same region as Pushyamitra’s territory nearly 8 centuries later and other significant inaccuracies, contemporary historians have deemed the scholar, despite being a Lama of the Jonang School, as being unreliable.
It’s pertinent to note that various Puranas - such as the “Harivamsa”, “Vishnu Purana” and the influential “Bhagavata Purana” - that were estimated to have been composed at least as early as the 1st century BCE stated that the Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The “Bhagavata Purana” credits the Buddha with leading the oppressive “asuras” (demons) away from the path of the Vedas - which they were unworthy of performing - by expounding an “impersonal philosophy”. Sometime before this - between 300 BCE and 400 CE - the Buddhist “Jataka Tales” variously mention Lord Krishna and Lord Vasudeva as being students of the Buddha in a previous life, with the “Dashratha Jataka” claiming that the Buddha was Lord Price Ram (रामचन्द्र) himself.
Latter-day Sanatan Orders have explicitly rejected the idea that the “Puranas” reference the Buddha. For instance, the Vaishnava Gaudiya tradition’s gurus have pointed out that “the Buddha” is referenced as being born to Anjana who lived in the 2nd millennium BCE and not to Maya and Suddodhana nearly a millennium later, as referenced in Buddhist texts. Gautama isn’t an uncommon name and “Buddha” (Sanskrit: बुध) also refers to Mercury in Vedic cosmology.
Despite the clear struggle for Buddhist Orders’ leadership for relevance with depleting numbers and status, fragmentary accounts from various travelers throughout the ages indicate amicable relations between the Buddhist laity and Sanatan masses, with this amity extending to even between Sanatan priests and Buddhist junior monks in everyday life. On the matter of historically questionable scholarship, nary a clarification or correction remains to be seen from Buddhist Orders’ leadership. Schism-seekers - who frequently pass themselves off as being “spiritually Buddhist” - exploit these provable misrepresentations to attack the faith of the Sanatan masses in the present day. While most of these are trenchant in social media and the digital domain - where they operate with vigour - they do make a public and highly publicized appearance in league with other groups every now and then.
For example, almost exactly a month ago, after a politician inimical to the current national administration attended a “Buddhist” event where Sanatan Gods were denigrated, Buddhist associations representing the laity wrote to the republic’s president requesting strict legal action be taken against the organizers stating, “For millennia, Buddhists and Hindus have coexisted peacefully and there has been rich interfaith dialogue between us.” The leadership of the Buddhist Orders, meanwhile, have remained mum, thus making them increasingly irrelevant to the complex and multi-layered lives of the Indic masses. Given their lack of guidance or inability to provide thus, it might soon be expedient for Buddhists to heed the Buddha’s teachings in the Kalama Sutta (also known as the “Kesamutti Sutta”), reject their Orders’ authority and inquire afresh.
Elsewhere in the East, however, both Sanatan and Buddhist Dharmas have embedded a fascinating and intertwined impression of the divine. More of that in the next part (and conclusion) “Dharma’s Braided Cords in the East”.
The author of the paper cited (which is relatively recent) is laudable for the rare frankness in highlighting Buddhist Orders’ failings in the Subcontinent. However, there’s an interesting choice of terms: “Buddhism” is compared to “Puranic Brahminism” as opposed to Sanatan Dharma or even “Hinduism”. What the Buddha is to Buddhism isn’t what a “Brahmin” is to the faith labelled “Brahminism”. In the Vedas, a “Brahmin” is a religious worker such as a priest or a scholar and wasn’t assigned a social value by birth. In the post-Vedic period, a “Brahmin” was a person assigned a social value by birth. They’re not considered to be infallible or immortal or to have transcended the cycle of rebirths.
However, neither all scholars nor all priests in any era were Brahmins by birth. For example, most of the Alvar poet-saints weren’t nor were several other influential groups not mentioned in this series. Yet, they championed Sanatana with fierce ardour. Brahmins didn’t (and couldn’t) exclusively steer the faith.
The term used is either an colonial-era remnant of ignorance or being used to point blame for Buddhism’s decline to an external “other” without accounting for a key factor: the faith of the masses.