Paper on Buddhism -01
- From: "Prof. Bijon B. Sarma" <rangada@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:44:59 -0700
MY SUBMISSION ON RELIGIONS :
BUDDHISM- Part I
Professor Bijon Behari Sarma.
IDENTIFYING MEN'S RELIGION :
When we count heads under various religions, normally we count on the
people's names. However, the names do not always indicate religion.
After the 9/11 incident, there is increasing tendency among the
Muslims to use 'different types' of names and titles. Another way of
identification of religion is 'person's claim'. However, this also
does not always work. Persons frustrated due to the activities of the
people of their own religion are found to have lost faith in their
religion. But they cannot express that in the countries or in the
society where such 'revelation' may bring their peril. However, this
is not a general case. Hindus, Christians or Buddhists are found to
declare openly that they do not believe in their religions. But the
Muslims can express like this only in the secular countries. Declaring
the same in any Muslim or Islamic country may result in capital
punishment. Nowadays there is an increasing tendency among the Muslims
living in US and Canada to declare themselves 'apostates'. When there
was the question of identifying Hindu and Muslims, during liberation
of Bangladesh the Pakistan government used to inspect the sign of
circumcision. This one was a nasty process suitable to their taste
only.
COUNTING HEADS : The job of counting religious heads presents one
serious problem. Some religions endeavor to prove the 'superiority of
their religion' through number and superiority of their followers.
Thus, in Islam there are many divisions like, Shia (Shiite), Sunni,
Majhabi, La Majhabi, Ahle Hadith, Ahmediaya, Bahai etc. Some of these
sects fight against one another and at times declare the others as non-
Muslim. But whenever there arises the question of head count, they
include all of them for obvious reason. As for superiority of
followers, dance and music (excepting war dances) are prohibited in
Islam. A. R. Rahman is a renowned musician in India. The music he
composes can in no way be considered to have endorsement of Islam. But
still the Muslims love to call him Muslim because of his fame and
probable donations.
The Hindus do not have such complexities. Even though there is un-
touchability (contributed by the Aryans), any group of people who are
not accepted by others are free to declare themselves as Hindu. If
they do so, they are readily accepted, or at least 'not rejected' by
the Hindus.
MOSAIC OF THE WORLD BY RELIGION : Islam originated in Saudi Arabia.
Islam does not encourage the development of any religion other than
itself. At the very outset, the religion started to destroy 'other's
gods'. If two or more religions stay side by side, people can see and
judge which one is better and then they can take decision. Islam is
not prepared to give this scope. Thus, while the endeavor for
convincing the idolater-people for leaving the same and joining in the
'religion of peace' (as the name implies) could have been better, the
followers of the religion of peace in fact started the same by
destroying their gods. For expansion, they continued the same tactics
where ever possible. Thus the countries around Saudi Arabia saw the
gradual expansion of this religion through the war-lords. In such a
context, what was natural for such converts was to abandon the same as
soon as they got the scope. Spain is the best example of such act.
Countries like China, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia etc. are inhibited
mostly by people from Buddhist religions. Considerable number of
Buddhists live in Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and
India. The European countries are mostly Christian dominated. There
are both Muslims and Christians in the African continent. Even though
dominated by Christianity the countries of the American and Australian
continents are secular. As a great exception, however, there is a
'Christian belt' of countries in USA. In short this is the picture of
the religious mosaic of the world. Most of the Muslim countries do not
allow or endorse existence and expansion of non-Muslims in their land.
In case democracy, secularism, right to chose religion, UN-agreed
human rights etc. are established in these countries and even if the
non-Muslims do not migrate to those countries, a considerable section
of their own people might opt for different religions.
WHICH RELIGION HAS GOT THE MAXIMUM FOLLOWERS ?
Christian-ism has got two major groups (Catholic and Protestant)
fastened by a loose band. Muslims have many groups, some of whom
demand the expulsion of one another from their platform. Hindus have
innumerable groups whose mutual 'bondage' is as strong as their
'repugnance'. After considering all these it is easy to declare that
the largest single religion of the world is "Buddhism". If the
Christians claim the same, then they would have to add "by considering
the Catholics and Protestants together". Similar is the case with the
Muslims and Hindus.
We may raise one question here : Do all the people of a religion
follow the rules and rituals of that religion ? It is useless to ask
this question to the Hindus, Buddhists and the Christians. These
people themselves do not know what are the essential criterions of
being the follower of their religion, what are rules and rituals.
Islam, however, is different. This religion has a book, where the
essential teachings and requirements to be religious are clearly spelt
out. However, if we apply those criterions we would know, the actual
number of Muslims (real Muslims) in the world are much less than what
we may think.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BUDDHISTS IN INDIA ?
While the number of followers of Buddhism is so enormous in other
countries their number in India, the country of their origin is
meager. Quite often the people become confused to find out the answer.
It is often said that the Hindus (or Bramhanyabad) strangulated this
religion. At times it is said that the Buddhists en masse were
converted to Islam because the Hindus disagreed to accept them.
However, a careful study of the history of India in close relation to
its geography and human psychology may reveal the truth, which differs
from the above propositions. During the reign of Ashoke, Buddhism
reached to countries like Afghanistan (Please remember the titanic
replica of Buddha in Bamiyan), Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Vietnam,
Indonesia, Thailand, China, Mongolia, Japan etc. In the 8th to 11th C
AD, Islam came to India through the following major gateways :
(01) Mountain passes in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan,
(02) Karachi port and adjacent area of Pakistan,
(03) Bombay port and adjacent area of India and
(04) Chittagong and other ports of the then eastern India.
Islam came from the west. Afghanistan turned to a Muslim country
first, it was followed by Pakistan. The city famous for the beautiful
Peshpur Buddhist Bihar turned to Peshawar. The Sikh dominated Punjab
however, stood as a great barrier against this religion. By nature the
Sikh religion is militant and for the same reason, real rival to
Islam. During this period there were weak Buddhist kingdoms in Bihar
and Bengal. The Muslims could somehow pass through the Sikh buffer and
occupied Delhi. Then they had fight with the local kings for
expansion. While the Hindu kings fought a number of times, none of the
Buddhist kings could stand against the Muslims. The failures of their
kings influenced their activities. Naturally the Buddhists of Bihar
and East Bengal accepted Islam.
DID THE HINDUS FORCE THE BUDDHISTS TO CHANGE RELIGION ?
Quite often it is said that Hindus were responsible behind the
conversion of the Buddhists to Islam. "How ?" They say, the Hindus
oppressed the Buddhists. This proposition is completely erroneous and
some people's imagination. The reasons of failure of the Buddhist
kingdoms existed within their own system. The two major reasons were :
(01) Too much of tolerance and minimal reaction even for self
defense, and (02) No understanding between the rulers and the common
people.
History has proved, Buddhist religion cannot form a strong and
organized nation. Also it has been seen that the Buddhist religion
flourishes only when it is nourished by the ruler and it collapses as
soon as the royal funding ends. The Buddhist kings constructed the
Buddhist temples, Bihars (rainy-season asylum for the preachers) etc.
throughout the kingdom. Because of the "tolerant-nature and greatness"
of Buddhism many Hindu kings also funded such establishments. Both the
Buddhist and Hindu king instructed the villagers around such
establishments to supply essential items to the pious men. These
villagers were exempted from government taxes. The Buddhist monks
roamed in villages begging. However, they did not beg because they had
the material need, but because it was their 'learning of modesty'.
Also they used to collect brilliant boys and girls for temple service.
The common people were asked to maintain honesty, live simple lives
and to help the cause of Buddhism. The brilliant boys and girls were
withdrawn from the society to join religious services and they were
not allowed to marry. As a consequence, the common men's society was
getting weaker day by day. During this time the people in and around
the kingdoms became so tolerant and mild natured that the kings did
not feel the necessity for maintaining strong armed forces.
As for the common people, both the Hindus and Buddhists were equally
bowed to Buddha and Buddhism. They helped the monks with various
items. At the same time both were equally afraid of the monks because,
they took away their children. In such a situation, the Hindus did not
even think of interfering with the Buddhists, not to say anything
about forcing them to accept Hinduism or Islam. Since Hinduism and
Buddhism were similar in nature of worship (many Hindus in fact
worshipped Buddha as one of the gods) many Buddhists silently joined
Hinduism. Others got frightened to know that their 'most benevolent'
Buddhist king was not there. They thought it better to take shelter of
a stronger god than to live like orphans.
BUDDHIST DOMINATED AREAS BECAME MUSLIM-DOMINATED :
The section of Hindus who discovered 'interest' in the ruler's
religion accepted Islam. Few Hindus who felt they were considered
'lower' by other Hindus also accepted this religion. But in spite of
disparity, un-touchability and other problems, most of the Hindus
maintained their previous religions. The fragmented development of
Muslim population in various regions of the Indian subcontinent are
mentioned hereunder along with the prime cause of change :
(01) REGIONS WITH MUSLIM MAJORITY : Khulna, Bagerhat, Satkhira
districts.
PROBABLE REASONS : The Buddhist Bihars at Bagerhat, Bharat Bhaina
etc. at Khulna indicate the existence of seat of Buddhist
administration. This also indicates concentration of Buddhist
population who were later converted to Islam.
(02) REGIONS WITH MUSLIM MAJORITY : Pabna, Rajshahi, Dinajpur
districts.
PROBABLE REASONS : The Buddhist Bihars at Mahasthangarh, Badalgachhi,
Sitakot etc. indicate the existence of seat of Buddhist administration
and of concentration of Buddhist population, who later became Muslims.
(03) REGIONS WITH MUSLIM MAJORITY : Comilla, Chandpur.
PROBABLE REASONS : The Buddhist Bihars at Mainamati, Lalmai etc.
indicate the existence of seat of Buddhist administration and reason
for concentration of Buddhist population. Later they wee converted to
Islam. However, many Muslims later migrated to Assam, India to avail
better job and business opportunities.
(04) REGIONS WITH MUSLIM MAJORITY : Bihar of India :
PROBABLE REASONS :The existence of numerous Buddhist Bihars in fact
led to the very name of this region. Most of these people were later
converted to Muslims. They were utilized by the Pakistan Muslim League
in their program of 'religious riot' under the name "direct action".
Being unwelcome by the Indians for this reason, they later migrated to
East Pakistan. Highly welcome by the Pakistanis they betrayed their
homeland Bangladesh, cooperated with the west Pakistani rulers and
killed numerous people. Now they live wretched lives in Geneva camp.
(The history of betrayal of the Biharis has been pictured in the novel
"THE DRUM-LIME MIGRATION. www.tafford.com/robots/02-0079.html and
www.amazon.com ).
(05) REGIONS WITH MUSLIM MAJORITY : Chittagong and Mumbai.
PROBABLE REASONS : It happened so due to influence of the Arab Muslim
traders.
(06). REGIONS WITH MUSLIM MAJORITY : Sylhet district.
PROBABLE REASON : It happened so due to the influence of some
Muslim preachers.
Other cases of Muslim majority in regions like Dhaka, Delhi, Lucknow,
Hyderabad etc. happened mostly due to the reign of the Muslim rulers,
preachers or affluent persons.
CONVERSION OF HINDU AND BUDDHISTS TO MUSLIM RELIGION:
At present Muslim population (inclusive of Shia, Sunni and other
sects) constitutes about 25% in the ex-Indian subcontinent (i.e.
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan etc.). This number seems
too meager in considerations to (i) the continuous rule of the Muslim
rulers through (1760-1200=) 560 years, (ii) huge number of Buddhist
population and (iii) disparity of the Hindus to some castes. The
people considered as 'lower caste' accounted to about 50% of their
population. If all the Buddhists have been converted it would have
been about 35% of the total population of India. But it did not happen
so and only a fraction of the Hindus and Buddhists changed religion.
WHY ?
SILENT CONVERSION OF THE BUDDHISTS : In their hard days numerous
Buddhists silently turned to Hindus. Even after the fall of the Hindu
kingdoms the Hindus had their own societies. The Buddhists did not
have such society, because the Buddhist rulers continuously sucked
away the brilliant boys and girls from the community.
OPEN CONVERSION BY SREE CHAITANYADEV : The Buddhist men and women
living in the temple were not allowed to marry or to have sex. In
about 500 AD one section of Buddhists started having sex with the
female partner and raise children. When they were ousted from the
Bihar, they formed their own Bihars and started wearing Blue ('Nil' in
Bengali) robes. The earlier monks used to wear yellow (in Bengali
'Pith') robes and were known as 'Pitambar'. Naturally the rebel group
came to be known as Nilambar. These men had children, but the society
did not recognize their marriage. They lived on begging, this time in
the real sense of the term. After the coming of Islam, Pitambar
Buddhists in huge numbers were converted to Muslim. Later, Sree
Chaitanyadev introduced two quick and less costly marriage systems.
These were : (01) Marriage by a Rupee and (02) Kanthi Badal. In the
first system Sree Chaitanyadev or his nominated person solemnized the
marriage of a Pitambar couple by placing the hand of the wife on
husband's and placing a Rupee on it. In the second system the
'Kanthi' (kanthi is a valuable gold item manufactured in the shape and
size of a 'myrobalan' and fitted with thread for wearing as necklace)
of the prospective husband and wife were exchanged. Sree Chaitanyadev
also brought many people considered as lower by some Hindus back to
Hinduism.
CONVERSION WAS NOT A CASE OF ATTRACTION, BUT THE OUTCOME OF
REPULSION : Some historians love to say, "the people of India accepted
Islam to see the greatness of this religion". This is totally
erroneous. The way the invading Muslims behaved with the common people
of this land, the way their rulers passed lives, the way the deputies
collected wealth and women for their rulers etc. could in no way
express any greatness. Still some Hindus and Buddhists accepted this
religion in order to avail the 'advantage of the king's religion', and
some did the same under compulsion.
It may be a logical question what prevented this huge population to
accept the new religion, the acceptance of which could on one hand
save them from the anger of the king and his deputies and on the other
assure wealth and honor. There are numerous reasons behind. However,
we shall mention only a few here.
(a) JUDGING THE RELIGION FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FOLLOWERS : The
Hindu and Buddhists did not have the scope to know detail of the new
religion, Islam. In such a situation they judged the religion from the
activities and behavior of its followers. And they did not feel
encouraged.
(b) NO ROOM FOR MUSIC, ART, SCULPTURE, SPORTS, AMUSEMENTS ETC. : The
little they came to know about this religion were, activities like
song, music, drama, art, sculpture, sports etc. were not allowed here.
By this time the people of India had grown great likings for these
activities for obvious reasons. The thought of living in this world
without these activities made them discouraged.
(c) SHRINKING WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES : In India the women
lived with due rights and privileges. One wife (polygamy was rare in
the society of the common men) reigned over the estate of the husband
with cent percent right and privilege for the entire life. They did
not like to share it with other co-wives and to enter in a contract
that could be seceded at any moment. The women used to indulge in all
sorts indoor and outdoor activities. They did not like to be divorced
from such public and religious activities. In their society the women
were given high position in decision making, including the decision of
whether or not to change religion. Naturally, endorsement did not come
from the women.
(d) THE CONCEPT OF AFTER-LIFE : The Aryans preached the concept of
after-life in as early as 1500 BC. By 500 BC the people of India
became intelligent enough to suspect in such a concept. Any school
student reading science now knows how fictitious the concept of after-
life is. Even though the Indians did not have the knowledge for
scientific reasoning, with their intelligence they could discover the
foolishness in it. As a consequence Gautama Buddha had to speak of a
more believable "after-world", which was this world. About 1700 years
after that incident, they were again being fed with the old concept.
The people grown more intelligent through centuries could not accept
it. However, those who accepted this religion long ago for one reason
or the other, however, cannot now find out the difference between the
'fictitious after-life' and 'rebirth in this world' due to their long-
time practice.
It is interesting to note that the concept of such after life preached
by the Hindus (Aryans) long ago was challenged by their intelligent
section in about 500 BC, due to which Gautama Buddha had to come up
with the 'rebirth in this world' concept. For valid reasons this on
was accepted both by the Hindus and the Buddhists. Two later
religions, one after about five hundred years and another about one
thousand years later came up in Asia and Europe with the old concept.
And strangely both were well accepted by the people around.
(TO BE CONTINUED TO PART TWO)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Bijon Behari Sarma. Head Architecture Discipline, Khulna
University, Bangladesh.
.
- Prev by Date: "DWELLERS-PARTICIPATION BASED
- Next by Date: Paper on Buddhism -02
- Previous by thread: "DWELLERS-PARTICIPATION BASED
- Next by thread: Paper on Buddhism -02
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
