friends, past few days i was searching various sources to find out the dharmakiirti-bodhidhamma issue. it appears they both may not be same people. dharmakiirti was a philosopher and there is no evidence to prove he left for china. but his theories especially the epistemology and logic are widely popular even to day in mahayana circles.
bodhidhamma may be an another man probably a prince from south india and may have traveled to china and excelled in martial arts.
the most intriguing issue is these buddhist past is not systematically explored by us. we are proud of our hindu-cholan past most of the time.
the jains are important in our script development and most of their works are preserved as 18 keezh kanakku texts( including the kurall).
there were monasteries functioning in tamilagam till 15th century(e-g nagapatnam). "buddhist-jain vs saivite" antagonism and the destruction of these faiths were very sad. its repercussions are seen today in srilankan conflict.
couple of movies ( selvaragavan and murugadoss projects)may popularise these issues in academic circles and may help in the retrieval of our past. if it offers some understanding with our buddhist brothers in srilanka then it may indeed a noble opportunity for south india and ceylon to get together.
Sir - The Nagappattinam Vihara was not destroyed by saivaite or vaisnnavite but by the Dutch. I will leave that at that.
Secondly - Budhism or Jainism were not majority religion any time in India. Silambu shows very clearly on the status of TN.
Thirdly - The Adichanallur findings have shown that the tamil letters were present atleast minimum in 5th C where as jainism in North started only in 6th C.
Again education institution by Jains -not right- we had kadigais in as far as place like the present day Mannarkoil in 3rd C itself.
Sangam has poetry by all people showing the spread of knowledge.
Just to add to Sankar's points. I also have a question.
Mahadevan often has said in many interviews (published by The Hindu or Frontline) Tamils were (and are) a literate society.
My take is - the oldest inscriptions in northern India are of Royal origin (Ashoka is an example), while in the south many excavations show names inscribed on pottery and on burial urns. The one I recall from a Mahadevan's interview is the pottery found near Karur that was used in tapping Kal.
BTW, the Adichanallur pottery inscription has been lost and cannot be found according to Irvatham Mahadevan.
With regard to Jainism, all we know most is post 6th century BC due to Mahavir. Him being the last one of the saints, is it not possible it was of much earlier period ?
I wonder if you could expand on your remark on kadigais in 300 BC. [meaning of Kadigais ? - I infer from your remark to mean a school, correct? Basis for their existence in 300 BC?]
Kindly go thro my article on Nagappattinam in the following book (Nagappattinam to Suvarnadwipa) for a review of all the early Buddhist Acharyas from the Tamil land. The most distinguished of all was Acharya Dharmapala who became the head (VC) of Nalanda University
Also, the Vihara at Nagappattinam existed in full form until 17th century AD as illustrated in this article. It suffered significant damage only during the Portuguese occupation - not before that.
Very Interesting Gokul. Actually i was pondering on this subject not on a historical prospective but on a Sociologically prospective.
I was wondering whether it would be possible for a King to be Jain. A Jain is to follow ahimsa 100%. A King who had to fight wars constantly, following Jain dharma will not be possible. Kingls like Bimpisara when he became Jain abdicated . Simillarly Mahendra Pallava was Jain when he had an absolute control over the Krishna - Cauvery land and had no war to fight. When an enemy came,he couldn't have fought Pulikesi while following Jain dharma.
Where as Sanatana Dharma kept Ahimsa only to Sanyasis and allowed Kashatriyas to fight, expand country as his dharma. It advised vegetarianism only to Brahmins, that too in kaliyug and allowed non vegetarianism to others and thatwas more practical.
The high standard of Ahimsa was practicable only to Brahmins of that day, Peasants who lease their lands and not tilling, Local traders ( again overseas traders can't be 100% veg).
That is why even today Jainism survives only in such communities like Marwaris, Gujratis, Kanndiga pesants/brahmins and Tamil pesants.
The High vegetarian standard and No war policy must be the major cause for the decline of jainism and blaming some one for that may not be right. ( Now i find every where saivaites, saivites - Adisankara and deekshidars are out of fashion now. Sambandar and Saivaites are the latest fashion in these works)
Simillarly Bhudhist slowly went away from ahimsa, dissuaded women in sangam, started more on philosophical thinkings, built viharas and became totally different from what it was in Bhuddha's time. It was very easy for Kumarilla Bhatta, Mandan Mishra and Adisankara to win over.
I strongly feel that if not by Appar - Mahendra must defenetly be converted by Pulikesin.
thank you sir, saivite deconstruction of jainism is not a matter to be disputed. it is long concluded matter. buddhism-jainism have fundamental schism. these issues play a part in srilankan conflict. as historians our duty is to do good also to the present and only to the past. if we clear the air and create clear awareness people may live peacefully in lankadweepa.
jainism was the earliest religion in india probably pre-aryan. may have been practiced in indus valley civilisation too.
let us share more informations on this matter. glad. gandhi
First Tirthankar of Jainism is a Vedic King mentioned in BhagavataShri Rishabdev !!!There are 24 thirthankars !!!Bhagvata mentions him as a an Avatar of Vishnu.Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are offshoot religions from theHindu relgion itself.In Tilak's words they have a relationship of father and Son.Quarrels among them does not dimnish their relationship...Images of Pasupati are found in yogic pose in Indus valley!! Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram
chandra gupta maurya turned to an ascetic( jain) and came deep into south and died in karnataka-somewhere near the modern sravan belahula. it is a practice then for kings to become ascetics in jain tradition.
jainism is not an off shoot of hinduism it is a religion by itself.
Ahimsa is to be practised at all times by Hindus irrespective of Caste. Shankar can read Kanchi Periyava's Samanya Dharmam lecture on this.
Kshatriya dharma is to protect people and dharma and they can wage a war for this.
In Ramayana Sri Rama himself refuses to do a Rajasuya Yagna saying that it will cause unnecessary himsa.He does the Aswamedha only.
Krishnaasks Yudhistra to proceed on doing a Rajasuya because he wants to break the power of Jarasandha who had captured 99 princes for a sacrifice.
Self defence is also ahimsa only. That is why Mahatma Gandhi called the Poland people who died fighting hitler's army as practising highest ahimsa !!!!! Buddhist and Jains are onlya rebellous sect of Hinduism. Greatest Jain Achrya after Mahavira is Hemachandra Acharya in Gujarat. When the Saivates invited him to a Shiva Templ and asked him to bow to Shiva. He famously declared that one who had controlled and won over himself is a being to be worshipped whether he was Shiva Arhat or Vishnu !!!! And bowed before the Shiva Linga !!!!
Kharvela was a king of Kalinga modern day orisa and he defeated the Greeks who entered India after Alexander and he was a practising Jain. He performed Aswamedhasacrifice!!!!
Ahimsa is to be practiced at all times by Hindus irrespective of Caste. Shankar can read Kanchi Periyava's Samanya Dharmam lecture on this.
Hi - I have quoted from his lectures only. In Hinduism Ahimsa was forced on people who can 100% follow and himsa is a sin for them. For others it is voluntary. By Making voluntary, it helped more people to follow veg .
He also differentiates Ahimsa and Vegism - Refer link
Acharya on Vegetarian food..Perhaps this has been left out of the English Translation !!!! http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/3dk159.htm Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram
I have never said that Acharya supports Non veg. What he says is that the religion did not force Veg but kept that as a High ideal and made that voluntary.
Subsequently it forced it as Compulsary for a few but many people voluntarily became Veg.
Even as a Hindu, I welcome such initiatives to research Jainism and Buddhism in South India and India as a whole. To me as a Hindu, all Indic religions - especially Jainism and Buddhism - are nothing but different sides of our Hindu religion. Ancient Indians did not classify themselves as Jainas, Hindus or Buddhists. They had philosophical debates, heated even, but there was a cultural fabric that united all the three.
I value Buddhism and Jainism as much as Hinduism. However, I like to know how much of this fascination towards B & J from some quarters in India is anti-Hinduism and how much is borne out of curiosity and interest? In the Dalit political circles, there is a natural leaning towards Buddhism (glorifying it) and anti-Hinduism. I am not talking about normal humans, but ideologues and politicians - who will not hesitate to cause divisiveness among people.
You are correct Jainism is not an off-shoot of HInduism. Because there never existed Hinduism in those times.
People followed gurus and swamis in those times. People who could debate and win people over to their way of thinking garnered more followers into their way of life.
Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism arose from that Indic source.
Jainism and Buddhism Are not off shoots of Vedic or what you call indic tradition. Bu they were a sort of response or a reaction to the contemporaneous to Vedic thoughts and philosophic stream.
Dhammapada the primary Buddhist scripture has devoted one exclusive chapter on " Who is a good brahmin " It extols Brahimin culture of Vedic tradition.
Jainism in later periods accepted even some Puranic concepts like Vishnu. They readily accepted and co-existed with Modern Hinduism.
IN Dharmasthala Jains are Maintaininig a Siva Temple of Lord Manjunatha, most popular among Kannadigas..
In fact - The true bhudhism and jainism were the actual followers of Budha and Mahaveera. But unfortunately within 50 years of their departure both divided into Mahayana/Hinayana - Digambar/Swetambar. When one group in each tried to instituanalise the religion and all the later issues were due to that.
As long as they had the individual Philosophers like Nagarjuna etc they flourished.
Where as these institutions were lost to various individual philosophers like Appar, Sambandar, Mandan Misra, Kumarilla Bhatta and later Adisankara.
Ofcourse the revived sanatana dharma also went to institutional setup. Luckily (or unlikely) it helped the sanatana dharma as the next 1000 years moved from iintelectual debate to physical violence.
But it is the individuals like Ragavendra, Raman maharishi, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Samarta Ramdas, The Makharashtrains saints, Tulasi and other Dases , Individual Alwars have enriched than the institutions.
Infact the sanatana dharma survives due to the absence of institutions.
VKR: If you read carefully you would notice that I did not say they are off-shoots of Vedic tradition. It is a myth that is spread about Jainism and Buddhism as being a reaction to Vedic thoughts. 'Vedic thoughts' imply the Upanishads, because that contains the philosophical stream. The Brahamanas (non-Upanishad parts) contain hymns and methods of ritual. Buddha borrowed (or was influenced) by the Upanishads.
I think you wrongly attribute my usage of the word 'source' to 'Vedic thoughts'. It is my opinion, based on reading, that there existed a culture that gave birth to Jainism, Vedic and Buddhist religion. That is what I meant by 'source'.
"Appar, Sambandar, Mandan Misra, Kumarilla Bhatta and later Adisankara."
Adi Shankara was not later to any of these.Appar and Sambandar were later to Shankara,Kumaila and Mandana Mishra were his contemporaries. Appar's Marumatru thirupathigam - Naamarkum Kudiallomclearly points to Advaita philosphy... "... தானும் யானும் ஆகின்ற தன்மையனை நன்மையோடும் " M.R. Kale and others have given enough scholarship materialwhich totally discards Shankara's date as being 788-820 AD. Adi Shankara is comfortably placed before 1 Centure B.C. Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram
Hinayana and mahayana are not divisions like Catholic and Protestent churches.
When Over the years, a century or two Buddhiat eattemptrd to make their way of life ,a mass movement, theey suffered the effects of 'Diffusion or Dilution' of their moral codes in particular.
Buddnism faded along with the disappearance of Maurian empire and the emergence of Guptha dynasty, from 200BC onwards till about 7th century, We are told that there was a mass-exodus of Buddhists from Magadha kingdom zone, the present day Orissa,and , along the eastern coast to Sei Lanka. Bihahar.
Adi Sankar had to encountar a very weak Buddhism, already fallen tothanthri cults.
Jainism had in the same course of history had become accepted some puranic tradition and learnt the art of co-existenceand survived a nomina l part of Modern Hinduism, similar to Lingayth sect in Karnataka..
I think the discussion on Buddhism in our forum is proceeding on sweeping generalisation. First, the division of Buddhism was not just two-fold, it was four-fold i.e. Sautrantika, Yogachara, Vaibhaashika and Vijnaanavaada. Theravaada (the name by which Hinayanaists refer to themselves) spread to SE Asian countries while Mahayana Buddhist to the Sino- Asian region. Kumarila and Shankara were alone not responsible for routing the Buddhist, it was accomplished by the Nyaaya school i.e. the Hindu-logic if I may say so. The Hindu-Buddhist interaction was very much active as late as 9th Century A.D. It was after the composition of the book Bauddha-dhikkaara or Atma-tattva-viveka by Udayanaacharya in 10th C.E that there was no one left on Buddhist side to effectively counter hisarguments. So Buddhist school of logic was very much alive and active even after Shankara and Kumarila. Another reason for the disappearence of Buddhism was that the layman couldnt identify himself with the Buddhist school in India which was mostly wrapped in Sangha structure. Whereas Jainism survived as the Jainism allowed the layman to follow its principles outside its monastic order, so we have sramana as well non-sramanas in jainism, even today.
buddha did not write anything and there were no script for another 3 centuries to come. the message was transmited orally in the sanga". asoka's patronage made a small local cult into a state religion. subsequent kushana patronage made it an international religion. how buddism ended in india i cannot say. but as for as tamilagam concerned it was a violent end. gandhi
Buddhism survived in India, and Udayanacharya famously declared in the Jagannatha Temple to the Lord himself when he found the gates of the temple closed "Open the Gates Lord, you exist because of me !!!!!" That is to say that Buddhists would have finished all temples, you remain because we have defeated them !!!!!
Shankara's greatness was that he wasthe first person whogave the Buddhists rationality argument a replybrimming with rationalism and yet keeping theold faith alive !!!!!
Harshvardhana was a Buddhist King, but the Chinese Traveller writes that Buddhism was not thriving though the King tried his best to revive the religion and was making all sorts of Grants that left him with barely the clothes that he was wearing !!!!
When the British left India in 1947, we have to remember that Still Goa, Diu, Daman, Pondichery,Mahe was there with French or the portugese Rule. And Still we had a British Person Mountbatten ruling India as the Governor General !!!!!!!!!
At some places we had to fight with our army to do away with these vistages of colonialism !!!! But that does not mean Gandhi was unsuccessful in finishing theImperialistic forces !!!!!
You will not find Buddhist religion mentioned in Chanakya's Arthasastra or Megasthanes Indica. This itself is sufficient proof that Buddhist religion was not a separate religion before the times of Asoka. Also we have to remember that Buddhist religion got a huge set back when the Buddhist monks backed Greek Kings when they invaded India just because they accepted the Buddhist religion. Sakas and Huns who invaded India wrougth a havoc until they were effectively repulsed by Indian Kings. Huns destroyed the Badrinath temple and thrown the Idol of Badrinath into the pond nearby. When Adi Sankara reached there and was told by the people of this, he plunged into Ice cold water and retrieved the Idol and reinstalled it there itself !!!!!