Ambedkar erred, Buddha was Hindu
by Sandhya Jain on 19 Apr 2016 44 Comments
“Though, I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die as a Hindu.” So said Dr B.R. Ambedkar, independent India’s first Law Minister, who is credited with reviving Buddhism centuries after its decimation by iconoclasts. As Ambedkar renounced his Hindu roots in despair over repeated indignities heaped upon him, and led his followers into the Buddhist fold, he inadvertently cemented an erroneous belief that Buddhism was a separate faith that arose out of a revolt from Hindu dharma. This West-sponsored view has since found many adherents.

 

So entrenched is this belief that even the recognition of Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu is often dismissed as a fraudulent manoeuvre to soften criticism of the Hindu creed. The truth is that it was Buddha who proclaimed this lineage. In the Dasaratha Jataka, he narrates the story of Rama and says: “At that time the king Suddhodana (Buddha’s father) was the king Dasaratha, Mahamayi (Buddha’s mother) was the mother, Rahula’s (Buddha’s son) mother was Sita, Ananda was Bharat, and I myself was Rama-pandita”.

 

This was well known to Buddhists. A third century AD Prakrit inscription of the 14th regnal year of king Virapurushardatta of the Ikshvaku house of Vijayapuri in Nagarjunakonda valley, hails Buddha as “born in the family that produced hundreds of great royal sages such as Ikshvaku” (Iksvaku-raja-pravararsi-sata-prabhava-vamsa-sambhava).

 

Moreover, Shakya Muni was clearly a Vedic Hindu; Buddhist tradition asserts that following his Enlightenment, he preached his wisdom to mankind only at the urging of the Vedic gods, Indra and Brahma. It is pertinent that Indra’s weapon, the vajra (thunderbolt), is the principal symbol of Tibetan Buddhism.

 

Nor did Buddha reject the caste system per se; as an enlightened being, a person of prestige, he called himself a “Brahmin”. Most of his followers were upper caste and all later Buddhist thinkers were Brahmins. The future Buddha, Maitreya, is predicted to be a Brahmin, according to Buddhist tradition.

 

Scholars recognise that Buddhist ideas are consistent with the philosophy of the Upanishads. Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, scholar, President of India, and father of Nehruvian academic, S. Gopal, said Buddha was not untouched by the intellectual ferment of his time regarding the struggles and experiences of the soul, which were part of “that supreme work of the Indian genius, the Upanishads”. Buddha diverged from the prevalent conventional ritualistic religion, but did not abandon the living spirit behind it. He himself admitted that the dharma which he had discovered through strenuous efforts is the ancient way, the Aryan path, the eternal dharma, which he adapted to meet the needs of the age.

 

Dr Rhys Davids too, asserts that: “Gautama was born and brought up and lived and died a Hindu”. There is not much in Buddhist metaphysics, morality and teachings which cannot be found in one or other of the orthodox systems. Buddha’s originality lay in the manner in which he adopted, enlarged, and carried out to their logical conclusion principles of equity and justice admitted by important Hindu thinkers.

 

The Upanishads share Buddha’s contempt for ritualism. Buddhism shares the fundamental Hindu belief in the law of karma and the soul’s quest for nirvana. Buddha did not feel any disconnect with Hindu society and classed Brahmins along with Buddhist mendicants, bhiku being a term of honour. Buddhism became an independent faith when it travelled outside its Hindu milieu in India; within India it was nourished by kings, merchants and lay devotees within the fold of orthodox belief.

 

Like the Upanishads, Buddha repudiated the authority of the Vedas, in that both resisted the mechanical theory of sacrifices, insisting that there is no release from rebirth by the performance of sacrifice or practice of penance. Rather, liberation comes from the perception of truth, the knowledge of reality at the basis of all existence. Both admit that the absolute reality – described as neither void, nor not void, nor both, nor neither - is incomprehensible by intellect. Buddha accepted the idealism of the Upanishads and made it available to mankind.

 

Though Buddha was critical of the jati system he neither disowned it completely nor demonized it, but at times seemed to endorse it. S. Radhakrishnan observed that Buddha did not oppose caste, but adopted the Upanishadic view that the Brahmin or leader of society is not so much a Brahmin by birth as by character: “Not by birth is one a Brahmin, not by birth is one an outcast; by deeds is one a Brahmin, by deeds is one an outcast”.

 

Buddha admitted all castes into the sangha (monastic order) on the premise that all men could attain perfect knowledge through meditation and self-control. He dented caste exclusiveness, but did not abolish it, as only the erudite could fathom his complex philosophy, which is why most of his early disciples were Brahmins. Not once in his lifetime did Buddha claim to be founding a new religion.

 

Yet this canard of Buddhism at daggers drawn with Hindu dharma is being invoked to instigate caste tensions. Recently, Radhika Vemula and Raja Chaitanya, mother and brother of Hyderabad Central University student Rohith Vemula, travelled to Nagpur to embrace Buddhism on Ambedkar Jayanti. Vemula had committed suicide some months ago, possibly disillusioned with the sterile campus politics he had been lured into. Now, his family has succumbed to political mentors with an agenda and is repudiating its multi-caste identity, viz., OBC father (Vaddera) and Scheduled Caste (Mala) mother.

 

While children are entitled to claim quota benefits via the parent eligible under reservation norms, sterile politics could compromise Raja’s academic prospects. He has a prestigious Project Fellowship at the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad. His well-wishers should not instigate him to be political cannon fodder like Jawaharlal Nehru University student’s union president, Kanhaiya Kumar, who maybe stagnating academically and has grabbed the political lifeline thrown by his communist mentors.

 

India needs a new discourse on caste, given its growing divisiveness. Amidst the Bihar elections last November, Jamui MP, Chirag Paswan, expressed a desire to not be defined by ‘jati’ identity and limited to being a ‘dalit’ leader. Recently, he urged well-off SC families to renounce quotas for the benefit of the truly needy. Only such original thinking and initiatives can end the corrosiveness of identity politics. Others should take a leaf from this book and refrain from accusing Buddha, one of India’s greatest sons, of rupturing its civilisation. Reducing Buddha’s universal teaching to a casteist ideological weapon must also be firmly repudiated. 

User Comments Post a Comment

The article certainly demolishes the attempts by enemies of India/Hindu to demarcate Buddhism from hindu mainstream but gives a bit of an impression than Buddha is for jati/caste. He might have not actively opposed it as that was not his prime agenda or teaching, but by going against caste exclusiveness he did demolish the very foundation of varna. What is varna without birth based identity? and if it is not anchored in birth except limited to intellectual/philosophical discussion on social roles or human qualities, how can it have any practical significance in society. So without birth exclusiveness varna system has no practical meaning/purpose and just is another philosophical note/observation

Dr. Ambedkar has dealt on this subject extensively in his "Annihilation of caste". Buddha my refusing to accept birth exclusiveness of varna/caste practically rejected it
krishnarjun
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Very enlightening article
Vipin
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Article brilliantly demolishes anti-hindu agenda using Buddhism
Ravi
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Well researched and timely article
Balbir
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Nice. Very true.
Wang
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Sandhya your articles are always insightful and full of learning. keep them coming.
Sanjeev Nayyar
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Buddha himself did not totaly renounce caste system
Subodh
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
And, what about our 'Eminent Historians' spinning the MYTH that Hindu Kings destroyed Buddhist temples as a sign of Hindu iconoclasm ? It originated from the Marxist fields of JNU /AMU.
H. Balakrishnan
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Buddhist ideas are consistent with the philosophy of the Upanishads - very true
Kunal
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Brilliant article, demolishes the political rhetoric around Buddhism. It's time to free history of Buddhism from British colonial agenda
Rohit Srivastava
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
One of your best articles, ever
Ranjan
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Good piece
Rajesh
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Rather being diplomatic its time to say that both Ambedkar and Buddha formed a system within system.
Jay
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Buddhism is also being used as caste tool by dalit politicians and they do not know the true meaning. Your article is eye opener.
Sarjana Sharma
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Since Buddha is listed among Catholic saints' as st. Josephine and the West substitute him for Jesus' claim for a godhood which lost strong ground support, what hope do anyone hold in following these two world's greatest fraudulent spiritual teachers?.
Dennis Leslie
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Very good article. Varna system and caste system are not one and the same. I hope author would further enlighten us on this differentiation.
DEEPAK KANSAL
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
Buddha is neither a hindu, nor budhist nor any other thing.. he is just like the present elite people, who got everything at their disposal, and got illusioned with life after tired of enjoying it.. In short, budha is a psychologically affected person, due to the isolation from the reality. This made him to reject himself and all identities he was born to. This is what i call as Uprootedness.

Budha is the first person to start the corporatised religious setup by establishing the monastery and prostituting the knowledge of Yoga which he learned from the hermits in the forests by his half-baked pyscho sanyasihood. Earlier, knowledge was never universalised, nor publicised. Our rishis realised / discovered these knowledge (yoga, vedas etc) and handed over these to eligible and qualified persons.

Budha instigated everyone to indiscriminately prostitute the knowledge they had to all scoundrels who joined his sangha. People from various jathi who joined his sanga, threw away their acharams, duties (dharma), and restrictions and started the culture of consumerism where everything has to be consumed for human pleasures / comfort. And this continues till today in various forms and in various platforms that derived from this budhist sangas.


IN short, there was no concept of Religion during the time of budha. No Hindu, and NO bullshit. We had only different ethnic groups across bharat of which brahmins were one of the ethnic group. After advent of budhist monasteries and the network it formed across world, does the corporatised religious dogmas were formed. Various vested interest groups within these sangas, attempted to control the discourse and started the concept of religous dogmas.

Judaism was the FIRST such thing. Followed by it were christianity and islam. and the latest is the Hinduism project formed by the colonial forces, by converting varna setup in to religion.

To say budha is a hindu is outrightly wrong and illogical. Budha is NOT an avatar of vishnu. If at all, he was an avatar, he should have been the avatar of kali purusha.

senthil
April 19, 2016
Report Abuse
"Buddha diverged from prevalent conventional ritualistic religion, but did not abandon the living spirit behind it" - was Hindu at core
Ashok
April 20, 2016
Report Abuse
Ambedkar was powerfully supported and brought forward by Maratha ruler Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad of Baroda, the same visionary who provided Court Patronage to the rebel British explorer Richard Francis Burton and Raja Ravi Varma, the trendsetter painter from Kerala. In fact, Ambedkar's wife, Mai, (nee Dr. Savita Kabir), was a Brahmin, who dedicated herself to furthering his vision. There was malicious revisionism following his death, and these events were not so far down in history that people in Maharashtra are not aware of the truth! All else is petty politics to cash in on revered Marathi reformers, including Jyotiba Phule and his wife, Savitribai. Caste and gender reformism in Maharashtra goes well back in the mists of history in Maharashtra, including the greatest patron of Hinduism that was the widow Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar (of the OBC shepherd caste), and most spectacularly Shivaji Maharaj, who laid the foundation of Hindavi Swarajya in the heart of foreign jihadi-controlled segments of India. Shivaji's reign not only offered important positions to Dalits & Brahmins, but also to 'native' Muslims. All this is recorded history, ignored by the pedestrian purveyors of colonialist mental slavery in the name of revisionist history of this anciant land. Moreover, the Varkari Sampraday in the heart of Maharashtra (and Karnataka) is a totally non-caste reformist Hindu initiative, with a long tradition of all-caste and all-gender Saints who have a glorious place of honour in the annals of true history of a resurgent India over the centuries! Western non-civilisations may eat their heart out at the shining example of Hindu India that is seriously expansive universal to its very core!
Gagan Haasya
April 20, 2016
Report Abuse
By the way, the wife of Sayaji III of Baroda, and grandmother of Gayatri Devi, was the pathbreaker Maratha wife, who presented a paper at a conference in USA in those days, when probably Oxford and Cambridge did not permit women to sully their portals as students!
Gagan Haasya
April 20, 2016
Report Abuse
Also, in those days, British Richard Burton was the maverick, who was known to invite monkeys for mealtimes company in his royal quarters. He developed a higher understanding of the language of his simian guests (in addition to Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Gujarati and Sindhi) than the primatologists of today!
Gagan Haasya
April 20, 2016
Report Abuse
Great piece on Buddha
GP
April 20, 2016
Report Abuse
And what of the contribution of Indian tantrik Nagarjuna to Tibetan Vajrayana?!!! Remember all this was in the times of no passports and no visas. Colonial stratagems changed all that.
Gagan
April 20, 2016
Report Abuse
Gagan,

The so called maratha reformers were mostly the Chitpavan Crypto Brahmins, who were infact jews masquerading as brahmins. The one who married ambedkar is a chitpavan brahmin. Orthodox Desashtha brahmin women will never marry even other sect of brahmins, leave alone a different jathi person.

After 1857, almost all existing rulers were subservient to the British East India Company. All those who opposed company raj in 1857 were brutally crushed and exterminated.

So those so called reformists were actually implementing the colonial agenda, against our own traditions.
senthil
April 20, 2016
Report Abuse
Those who criticise the birth based jathi setup, should answer, why the assets of father is inherited by the sons & daughters by birth? Why should vast empires of Dhirubai ambani should go to ONLY his sons? Why NOT a toilet cleaner in his company head the management of the companies?

Jathi is an enterprising social economic occupational structure where the sons inherit father's assets, including his occupation, title, and role in the society. The same rights that the current upper class and middle class uprooted urban people enjoy for the property and business.

senthil
April 20, 2016
Report Abuse
With attitudes and beliefs so well rooted in favour of castes how is it possible to have a casteless society? It may be possible by having all children compulsorily attending camps organized by government and/or private companies where a national perspective is taught every summer for two months freely. The attendance at these camps being made mandatory and prerequisite for getting a job. In addition to courses on thinking India as a nation and not as a mixture of people with fissiparous and fratricidal tendencies, they should also be taught life skills, sports and arts. In five to ten years the country will change for better.
Naveen Chandra
April 21, 2016
Report Abuse
Senthil.

Baloney. Neocolonialist stuff oozing there, without any understanding of the grassroots Maharashtra traditions over the centuries. Need to read serious stuff about the Bahujan Samaj movement in India, and its heroes like Shahu Maharaj, and all the others coopted without insightful commitment by peabrained politico wannabes and other shrapnel vested interests fostered in the acadamic groves of western geopolitik interests in the name of Oxford Maoism. Uneducated peurile claims to scholarship end here, Senthil! Go wash your mouth with soap. Maharashtra culture is an indestructible all caste palimpset that will withstand the tests of times to come.
Gagan Haasya
April 21, 2016
Report Abuse
Wonderful read
Jaya
April 21, 2016
Report Abuse
@Gagan,

Typical moral high handedness of the typical indian leftists & liberals. Its you who have to read the history properly. I am NOT going to believe in the mainstream utopian history being projected by vested interests.

Any grassroots movement has always the footprint of colonial agenda.

/** Maharashtra culture is an indestructible all caste palimpset that will withstand the tests of times to come.
**/

There is no such thing called maharashtra culture, just like there is nothing called tamil culture or telugu culture. Look at the demands of separate statehood by vidharba which demolishes your imagined maharashtra culture.

So instead of deriding others, just counter the points i have made. Chitpavan brahmins hijacked maratha empire, and the rest is history.
senthil
April 21, 2016
Report Abuse
Senthil speaks in the mindset of same itiha-nasha as the colonial masters, quite in the tradition of Oxford-Marxist historians like Romila Thapar and others, who deny a long history and tradition to the particular interwoven regional ethos within the broader framework of India down the centuries. It is like the affidavit flied in SC by Ambika Soni (following Sonia remote dictat) on behalf of GOI, that there is no historical evidence for the existence of Rama in Inida. To divide the Marathas on caste-lines is a typical imported ploy furthering the agenda of 'Balkanisation' of India. It will never succeed simply because it is so far removed from the ground reality of India. In fact, even under the Peshwas, all castes fought under a common banner. There was no single monolithic Peshwa rule, and in fact the rulers of States from as far as Gwalior and Indore to Baroda and Satara all fought under a single banner of entrenched resistance against foreign invaders. Underpinning the war efforts were the parallel streams of spiritual reformism that in fact led a Hindu Sadhu from Punjab to form the Khalsa panth out of the North Indian Punjabi ethos, same as the numerous saints and savants engaged in nation-building elsewhere in India. As for citing the example of Vidarbha, again Senthil is using familiar Christian ploy to divide Indians on caste basis in an obviously opaque manner. The demands for separate Vidarbha or Marathwada, for example, are old subthemes within the common Marathi unification stream after the linguistic division of India under Nehru. These are old CIA-ISI-Dalitstan stratagems, Senthil, fully exposed to the discerning Indians, whose numbers are fast growing. Pathetic! And yes, to propagate caste-hatred under any guise is despicable at this point, no matter how much currency it may have in the present corrupt ethos of criminal leaders out on the make using any sorry stratagem to divide people and score peurile points at great cost to the nation.
Gagan Haasya
April 22, 2016
Report Abuse
Thank you very much for this article, Sandhya
Subodh Kumar
April 22, 2016
Report Abuse
Buddhism was never a branch or variant of Hinduism. First of all, you have to correct yourself. There was nothing like Hinduism at the time of Buddha. There was only 'Vedic Brahmanism", which Buddha opposed.

With the rise of Buddhis, the "Vedic Brahmanism" was confined to corners of the subcontinent, where as Buddhism had spread all over Asia. Hinduism is a new offshoot of Vedic Brahmanism" and it is hardly 1000 years old.

By that time, Islam and Christianity were already present in the sub-continent. So, the so-called Hinduism is just one of the religions in India. And remember, neither Dalits, Adivasis or OBCs are Hindus, as they are below Shudras, whom Vedic religion does not consider as apart. They were simply called 'Dasas." I conclude that the original universal religion of the Indian Subcontinent is not Hinduism but Buddhism.
Vijaya Kumar Marla
April 22, 2016
Report Abuse
The commentator Vijaya Kumar Marla below is playing with words i.e. "There was only 'Vedic Brahmanism", which Buddha opposed. With the rise of Buddhis, the "Vedic Brahmanism" was confined to corners of the subcontinent, where as Buddhism had spread all over Asia". And "neither Dalits, Adivasis or OBCs are Hindus, as they are below Shudras, whom Vedic religion does not consider as apart."

He's a silly neo-Ambedkarite who does not know that Hinduism spread to the Khmer empire and the Indonesian archipelago. Many of the rishis and seers of old Hinduism belonged to what are now known as Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs. Buddhism spread and then declined as it continues to decline.

Further, many Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar do not consider Ambedkarite Buddhism as an authentic reflection of the teachings of the Buddha. Vijaya Kumar Marla is caught in a time warp of outdated ideology and needs to be educated!

Good article Ms. Jain!
Surya
April 22, 2016
Report Abuse
"India needs a new discourse on caste, given its growing divisiveness....refrain from accusing Buddha, one of India’s greatest sons, of rupturing its civilisation. Reducing Buddha’s universal teaching to a casteist ideological weapon must also be firmly repudiated." --Thank you Sandhya, for the courage it took to publish this article, which was necessary at this point in time.

Senthil's breathtaking statement, even as a lost troll, about Chitpavans hijacking the 'Maratha Empire" is prime example of the nature of divisiveness and utter falsehood being foisted upon the caste discourse. I am not a Brahmin myself, but this level of anti-Brahminism, smacking of extreme positions in the Dravidian polemics must be countered.

The Chitpavans, even after being converted to Hinduism, itself an example of the expansive sweep of Vedic inclusiveness, were eking out subsistence existence in the backwaters of Konkan, until Shivaji noticed their genius, and elevated one such to the post of his Prime Minister, and the rest is history. Maharashtra has never grudged them their glory, and apart from the Chitpavans, Maharashtra has also celebrated other Jewish (and Baghdadi) settlers on the coast, including the Aptekars and Jhirads, among others.

As for the Chtpavans, they include celebrated folk like Tilak, who gave the slogan of Swarajya as Birthright, which inspired Gandhi in the freedom struggle; Maharshi Karve, who gave India its first Women's University; V D Savarkar, who 'upended' the Britisher's putdown of the "Sepoy Mutiny" as India's first Battle for Independence; and an inexhaustible list of brilliant reformers wedded to betterment of society in whatever capacity they could, under colonial rule.

It is no surprise then, that all Dalit icons almost exclusively belong to Maharashtra, not to forget folk like Bhalchandra Mungekar, Narendra Jadhav and others. Interestingly, he chooses to ignore the Saints and savants of Maharashtra in the living stream of the Varkari Sampraday is also very telling here. To dismiss the existence of a very distinctive culture at the stroke of the mouse is the kind of chicanery that India's worst history revisionists have not achieved thus far. What Shame!
Gagan Haasya
April 22, 2016
Report Abuse
Buddha was the greatest scientist of the Mind, and his contribution to human evolution through detachment from the conditioned mind and its sankharas, is His greatest gift to humanity. The true claimants of Buddhist heritage anywhere on earth are those who are engaged in the spiritual practices that His particular genius unfolded. He is simply beyond petty politics, oneupmanship, competitiveness, and hatred. His alleged followers who returned from the sacred ivy league groves and think tanks solidly encased in petty hate ideologies in the West, courtesy Ford Foundation and suchlike in cold and petty island nations, are doing the greatest disservice to themselves and their cause, through propagating divisive imported agendas of hate. Mercifully, Buddha looms an Indian and Hindu-born collossus in lands east and west of his motherland, and His legacy will last long after the little ivory towers have crumbled into nonexistence. Simply a timely reminder, Sandhya Jain, that Buddha has nothing to do with the hate ideologies of petty scoundrels bending his name to their Masters dictat to get their back at India... like spitting on the Sun.
Pramod
April 22, 2016
Report Abuse
I have read that Buddha was a Sakya muni and a Shramanacharya. NOT an avatar. An avatar is a movement not a human; like say a rebellion. Many people could be involved with perhaps one main protagonist, or one main mindset referred to as the Bodhi tattva. One has to read history of Buddhism to know he was not the first Buddha in their tradition. He may have belonged to a family which could have been an offshoot of Ikshvakus, but they were not pure Vedic Aryas. Sakyas, according to some sources were mlecchas. They were those people who followed most Vedic principles but were not ethically and morally strong, therefore UnArya.
Sona Parivraj
April 23, 2016
Report Abuse
First of all Hindu and the word coined later a Hinduism after we came across the Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam. I don't think Buddha or Mahavira or Sankara have started the respective what we call religions during their lifetime.

We had sampradayas within sanatan Dharma. Don't mistake dharma as religion. Ramanuja, Sankara, Vallbha, chaitnay prabhu etc. tarted ampradayas like Advita, Dwaitha etc. with different upasana paddhathis. So calling Buddhism as a separate religion is a misnomer.
Mahan Murphy
April 24, 2016
Report Abuse
Vedas say clearly that CHAATURVARNAM MAYA SHRUSTYAM GUNA KARMA VIBHAGASHAH as pronounced by Bhagawan.
Then where is the question that caste is by birth?
Mahan Murphy
April 24, 2016
Report Abuse

/** With the rise of Buddhis, the "Vedic Brahmanism" was confined to corners of the subcontinent, where as Buddhism had spread all over Asia.
**/

This is utterly wrong.. Baudha marga (budhism) may have exerted control over politics at one point, but the budhists were driven out by all the dhesams.. infact they were driven out of bharatha varsha, and that is how they took shelter in china, and other countries.

The prime example is the history of srilanka itself.. The budhists interfered with politics and hated the vaideeha society. Their atroities on non-budhist traders were effectively checkmated by the invasion of kalinga magha, who destroyed all budhist monasteries and kicked out the shaven budhist monks from power. He coronated himself as arya chakravarthy, and established the jaffna kingdom..


/**
Hinduism is a new offshoot of Vedic Brahmanism" and it is hardly 1000 years old.
**/

It is created by chitpavan jews, during colonial british rule. It is NOT 1000 years old as being claimed.

/**
By that time, Islam and Christianity were already present in the sub-continent. So, the so-called Hinduism is just one of the religions in India.
**/

NO.. christianity and islam reached india only afte 1200 AD only after invasion of mughals. And even then it was largely followed by invaders like pathans, sheiks, etc, who are ethnically alien to bharatha varsha. IT holds true even today.

Bharath's main religion was shaivam and vaishnavam, with vaishnavam leading from the front in effectively checkmating the islamic assault. The sikhism in the north has its vaishnava roots. The vijayanagara empire is purely vaishnavaites. The rajus, naidus, naikkars, and all other communities once part of the vijayanagara empire were even today staunch vaishnavites.

Christianity got foothold only after british invasion.

/**
And remember, neither Dalits, Adivasis or OBCs are Hindus, as they are below Shudras, whom Vedic religion does not consider as apart.
**/

There is no such thing as vedic religion. There are only vedas, and the brahmins who preserved it. There were NO hindus in this land colonial invention of the term. There were ONLY bharathiyas. Brahmins were part of this bharatiya society. THe OBC's were the former rulers of these lands, who were reduced to poverty by the Indian State.

There were NO dalits, like there is no hindus. Dalit is also colonial term invented to polarise bharathiya society.

The tribal society had their autonomy over their forest lands, which was protected by the kings. They were NOT discriminated. On the other hand their life style was protected. Even in manusmriti it is clearly spelt out.



/**
They were simply called 'Dasas." I conclude that the original universal religion of the Indian Subcontinent is not Hinduism but Buddhism.
Vijaya Kumar Marla
**/

This is exactly the point i too wanted to make. Vaideeha dharma is about localism, and self-sustainability, and decentralisation. IT has never espoused universalism. Universalism is ONE of most destructive and barbaric ideology this world has ever seen. And Budhism is the first corporate entity to start these kind of universalism, destroying all other native cultures, and forcing people to adopt to same standards and beliefs.

My contention that budhism is the root cause of all religious evils has been vindicated here.
senthil
April 26, 2016
Report Abuse
@gagan,

/** Maharashtra has never grudged them their glory, and apart from the Chitpavans, Maharashtra has also celebrated other Jewish (and Baghdadi) settlers on the coast, including the Aptekars and Jhirads, among others.
**/

Thanks for acknoledging that chitpavans were jews.. that rests my case.. Brahmins were always by birth, and there was NO concept of converting to brahminism. Chitpavans projecting themselves as brahmins is itself a questionable stance, and shows their ulterior motives to capture power. Look at the history all over the world, and you find the same happening, where jews capturing / hijacking the kings / politics of the country they were.

The native brahmins of maharashtra realised this and promptly separated themselves as deshasthra brahmins.

All the reformers were sponsored the jewish bankers who were also the colonialists. The main aim was to destroy the native cultures from within.
senthil
April 26, 2016
Report Abuse
well said- Reducing Buddha’s universal teaching to a casteist ideological weapon must also be firmly repudiated.
Ashok
April 29, 2016
Report Abuse
Buddhism became an independent faith when it travelled outside India fm its Hindu milieu & adopted local practices/flavour.
Prem
April 29, 2016
Report Abuse
Many humans were born in this Bharatvarsha with exemplarary spiritual persuits and vairagya guna to renounce worldly pleasures. THE BUDDDHA was also one .He was great in his own right because he preached AHIMSA which is also told in many GOD'S upanishads
Understand from discourses of many advaita preachers that Buddhism did not spread in India because WE the Hindus rejected
non believers of SRUTI given by the creator.Shankara, Madvacharya and Ramanuja propagated their interpretation of BRAHMAN.Their preachings gathered lot of attraction and revived HINDUISM AND stopped spread of BUDDISM in India.
However we should follow all right things from all faiths
r d sarma
May 01, 2016
Report Abuse
The article is simply outstanding / extra-ordinary.

It should be widely publicised so that blind Ambedakarites open their long-shut eyes to the morning orb of rising wisdom.

Kindly send it to all Ambedker-worshippers for their own benediction.
Ramakant Tiwari
May 02, 2016
Report Abuse