ഞങ്ങളുടെ നാടിൻ്റെ ബൗദ്ധ പാരമ്പര്യത്തെ കുറിച്ച് വ്യക്തമായ തെളിവ് ആകാവുന്ന ഈ പാത്തിക്കലപ്പൻ ക്ഷേത്രവിഗ്രഹത്തെ കുറിച്ച് വളരെ ആധികാരികമായ വിവരങ്ങൾ നൽകുക മാത്രമല്ല അത് ജനങ്ങളിലേക്ക് എത്തിക്കാൻ വേണ്ടി ഇത്രയും അകലെ നിന്ന് ഇവിടെ എത്തി ഇത്തരം ഒരു ഡോക്യുമെൻ്ററി തയ്യാറാക്കിയ ഡോക്റ്റർ അജയ് ശേഖർ സാറിനും അദ്ദേഹത്തിൻ്റെ സഹപ്രവർത്തകരായ സംഘാങ്ങൾക്കും ഹൃദയപൂർവ്വമായ നന്ദി രേഖപ്പെടുത്തുന്നു .. കരുണാകരൻ കലാമംഗലത്ത് .
ഓരോ കാലഘട്ടത്തിലും ഉണ്ടായ കൈയേറ്റം,മാറ്റി മറിക്കൽ എന്നിവയുടെ ഉദാഹരണം ആണ് ഇതുപോലുള്ളവ.കേരളത്തിലെ പഴക്കമുള്ള "ആൽ മരങ്ങൾ " ഏറ്റവും വലിയ തെളിവ്.ബുദ്ധൻെറ ബോധി വൃക്ഷം അതിൻെറ അനുയായികൾ പോയ മുഴുവൻ സ്ഥലത്തും വെച്ചു പിടിപ്പിക്കുകയും സംരക്ഷിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്.കേരളത്തിലെ സ്വഭാവിക വനവൃക്ഷത്തിൽ പെട്ടതല്ല ആൽമരം.ഇതിൽകൂടുതൽ തെളിവ് ഈ സംസ്കാരവൃാപന ആഴങ്ങളേക്കുറിച്ച് വേണ്ട.
എന്റെ സ്ഥലം കൊല്ലം ജില്ലയിലെ കരുനാഗപ്പള്ളിയാണ് ' ഈ പേര് തന്നെ ബുദ്ധവിഗ്രഹവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടതാണ്ട്.... അവിടെ ഒരു ബുദ്ധവിഗ്രഹം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അസാമാന്യ വലിപ്പമുള്ള ആ വിഗ്രഹം ബുദ്ധക്ഷേത്രത്തിൽ നിന്നും മാറ്റി അടുത്തുള്ള കുളത്തിലിട്ടു.. വളരെക്കാലം.... ഇവിടുത്തെ ജനങ്ങൾ അത് അലക്കു കല്ലായി ഉയോഗിച്ചിരുന്നു. പിന്നിടത് പുരാവസ്തു ഗവേഷകർ കണ്ടെടുത്ത് അവിടെ നിന്നും മാറ്റി... ആ ബുദ്ധ ക്ഷേത്രം ഇന്ന് കരുനാഗപ്പള്ളിയിലെ ഹൃദയഭാഗത്ത് ഒരു ഹിന്ദു ക്ഷേത്രമായി നിലകൊള്ളുന്നു ' പുതുതലമുറക്ക് ഈ ചരിത്രത്തെപ്പറ്റി അറിയാൻ വഴിയില്ല... എല്ലാം കാലത്തിനുള്ളിൽ മറഞ്ഞു.
NigeshAv. നിങ്ങൾ പറയൂന്നത് തെറ്റു അന്ന് ബുദ്ധമതം ഉണക്കുന്നതിനു മുൻപ് എവിടെ ഹിന്ദുമതംഉണ്ടായിരിന്നു ഹിന്ദുമതത്തിൽ നിന്നും അന്ന് ബുദ്ധമതം ഉണ്ടായതു 2050ആക്കുപോഴേക്ക് ബുദ്ധമതം ഇല്ലാതാക്കും
I am happy to see Buddha's statue "Three things cannot be long hidden sun, moon and the truth" Buddha's quotes . Gautam Buddha is one of the most all time influenced person who was once born,just can't deny it.just read it's principles it's so much simple applicable to commen man,there is no fantasies, imaginary stories ,there is no logic .If I tell my 4 year old son that someone would lift a mountain and fly in the sky,he would laugh at me and told me stop fooling me, just cannot make up stories and fool around ,a 4 year old in 21'th century has brain's to think,new generation needs logic answers,proof ,myths will no longer work.Buddha's principles are universal, applicable to humanity,not restricted to one clan of people.god cannot create some people superior to other.its silly to think some people are of superior race,it's the geographical condition and genetical factors make a person tall,fair ,dark short.varna system itself is a rubbish .
കേരളത്തിലെ മുഴുവൻ ക്ഷേത്രക്കുളങ്ങളിലും ബുദ്ധന്റെ പ്രതിമകൾ കണ്ടെടുക്കാൻ കഴിയും ഇതെല്ലാം വലിച്ചെറിഞ്ഞതാകാം സത്യം തെളിഞ്ഞു തന്നെ വരും നമുക്ക് കാത്തിരിക്കാം
SureshkumarNM. നിങ്ങൾ പറയൂന്നത് കേട്ടാൽ ബുദ്ധ മതം ഹിന്ദുമതം ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്നതിനു മുൻവേ ഹിന്ദുഉണ്ടായിരിന്നു പിന്നെ എങ്ങനെ ബുദ്ധ ക്ഷേത്രങൾ ഹിന്ദുക്ഷേത്രങൾ ആക്കും
@@aswinsnair5871നൂറുശതമാനം കറക്റ്റ് ആണ് താങ്കൾ പറയുന്നത് ചില ചരിത്രകാരന്മാരുടെ വാക്കുകൾ കേട്ട് കഴിഞ്ഞാൽ ഹിന്ദുമതം ബുദ്ധമതത്തിൽ നിന്നുണ്ടായത് പോലെയാണ് അവർ പറയുന്നത് ഹിന്ദുക്കളുടെ എല്ലാ ആചാരവും ബുദ്ധമതത്തിന് ഭാഗമായിരുന്ന എന്നതാണ് ഹിന്ദുമതം ഉണ്ടായിക്കഴിഞ്ഞു ആയിരക്കണക്കിന് വർഷങ്ങൾക്കു ശേഷമാണ് ലോകത്തുള്ള ഈ പറയുന്ന മുഴുവൻ മതവും നിന്നുള്ള മുഴുവൻ മതങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടായത്
പാത്തിക്കല് കുടുംബക്കാരെ കുറിച്ച് അന്യേഷിക്കുക. അവര് എന്ത് കൊണ്ട് ചോളരാജാവ് ഭരിച്ച പത്താം നൂറ്റാണ്ടില് കോഴിക്കോട് ജില്ല തന്നെ വിട്ട് പോയി എന്നും അന്യേഷിക്കുക.
പാലിയിൽ ബോധി സാത്താ എന്നാണ് പ്രാദേശികമായി വിളിച്ചിരുന്നത്. മലയാളത്തിന്റെ ആദിമ രൂപമായ പ്രത്യേക തരത്തിലെ തമിഴിൽ ബോധി ചാത്താ എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. സംസ്കൃത വൽക്കരിച്ചപ്പാേൾ ബോധി ശാസ്താ ആയി പിന്നീടത് ബോധി ശാസ്താവായി. അവസാനം ബോധി എന്ന വാക്ക് മാഞ്ഞു പോയി
പ്രേത്യേക തരത്തിലെ തമിഴൊ? അത് മലയാളം തന്നെയാണ്. മലയാളം ഒരു ശ്രേഷ്ഠ വാമൊഴിയാണ്. തമിഴും മലയാളവും ഒരേ തറവാട്ടിലെ കൂടപ്പിറപ്പും.മലയാളത്തിൽ സംസ്‌കൃതം അടിച്ചേൽപ്പിക്കുവാൻ തുടങ്ങിയിട്ട് 300 കൊല്ലം പോലും തികയുന്നില്ല. മലയാളത്തിന്റെ തനത് എഴുത്തുമുറയായ കോലെഴുത്തിൽ ആകെ 26 അച്ചുകളും ഒച്ചകളുമെ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നുള്ളു. എന്തായാലും ഇന്ന് നമ്മൾ ആര്യൻ എഴുത്ത് കടം കൊണ്ടു. അതിന്റെ പൊരുൾ നമ്മക് നിലനിൽപ്പില്ലെന്നല്ല. എന്തായാലും ഇന്ന് ചാത്തൻ നെ തിന്മയുടെ ഉറവിടമായിട്ടാണ് കാണുന്നത്.
Wow, you don't have any issues towards the "brahminism terrorists" who put Buddha statue in the pond but will do a kick at taliban which is somewhere else. Stop using Gurudevan's name as your title, if you intend to be a bigot which Gurudevan hated the most.
ശബരിമലയിലെ പത്മാസനസ്ഥനായ ശാസ്താവിഗ്രഹം നശിപ്പിച്ച് പട്ടബന്ധ സ്ഥനായ പുതിയ ശാസ്താവിഗ്രഹമായിരിക്കണം സ്ഥാപിച്ചത് മണി മണ്ഡപത്തിനടിയിലെവിടെയോ പഴയ വിഗ്രഹം ഇന്നും ഒളിഞ്ഞു കിടക്കുന്നുണ്ടാകാം
വിഗ്രഹത്തിൽ പൂണൂൽ ഉണ്ട്. ഇതൊരു ബ്രാഹ്മണിക വിഗ്രഹമായിരിക്കാനാണ് സാധ്യത. ശിവന്റെ ഏതെങ്കിലും ഒരു വകഭേദമായിരുന്നിരിക്കണം. ശിവ സങ്കൽപ്പവും അവലോകിതേശ്വരൻ എന്ന ബൗദ്ധ സങ്കൽപ്പവും തമ്മിൽ വലിയ അടുപ്പമുണ്ട്.
MGS സർ ഇപ്പൊൾ എന്ത് പറയുന്നു? ഇതും പഴയകാല വ്യാപാരികൾ ചുമന്ന് കൊണ്ടിട്ടത് തന്നെയോ? റോഡുകളും വണ്ടികളും ഇല്ലാതിരുന്ന ആ കാലത്ത് വ്യാപാരികൾ വിൽപ്പന ചരക്കുകൾക്കൊപ്പം ഇത് പോലുള്ള കരിങ്കൽ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങൾ കൊണ്ട് നടന്നിരുന്നു എന്നൊക്കെ പറയുന്നത് ആരോടാണ് ആർക്ക് വേണ്ടിയാണ് എന്നൊന്ന് ഓർക്കുന്നത് നല്ലതാണ്.
എല്ലാം മനപ്പൂർവ്വം നശിപ്പിച്ചു കളഞ്ഞതാണ്, അതിന്റെയൊക്കെ ഫലം കിട്ടിയവർ ഇന്നും ദുരിതത്തിൽ തന്നെയാണ്, നരസിംഹത്തിൽ മമ്മൂട്ടി പറയുന്ന ഡയലോഗ് ഇപ്പൊ ഇവിടെ പ്രെസക്തമാണ് 👍
ഇങ്ങനെയാണ് കേരളത്തില്‍ ഹിന്ദു മതം വന്നത്. ഹിന്ദു ഒരു മതമല്ല . അതൊരു നദി യുടെ പേരാണ് . 16 )൦ നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലാണ് ഹിന്ദു എന്നൊരു മതം ഉണ്ടായത് . അതായത് ഭാരതത്തില്‍ ഇസ്ലാം , ക്രിസ്ത്യാനിക്കള്‍ വന്നു തുടങ്ങിയപ്പോള്‍ , ഇവടത്തെ മത വിശ്വാസങ്ങലെ identify ചെയ്യാന്‍ വേണ്ടി ഹിന്ദു എന്നോരു പേരു വന്നു തുടങ്ങി . നമ്മുടെ രാജ്യത്തില്‍ പല local മത വിശ്വാസങ്ങളുണ്ട് . അത് ഹൈന്ദവ മതമല്ല . നമ്മക്ക് നമ്മുടെ ദേവി -ദേവന്മ്മ)രുണ്ടായിരിന്നു . ഇപ്പോഴുമുണ്ട് . തുടക്കത്തില്‍ ഒരു organized മതമെന്ന് പറയുന്നത് ബുദ്ധ മതമായിരിന്നു . പക്സെഹ് 8 ) ൦ നൂറ്റാണ്ടില് വടുക്കുനിന്നു ബ്രാഹ്മണ - നമ്പൂതിരിമാര്‍ കേരളത്തില്‍ വന്നു ബുദ്ധ മത വാളാല്‍ നസിപിച്ചു , ഇവടത്തെ local വിസ്വാസംഗളെ sanskritize ചെയ്തു ( അതായതു സനാതന ധര്മതിന്റ്റെ അനുയയിഗള്‍) അത് ഹൈന്ദവ മതത്തില്‍ മാറ്റി . അതായതു നമ്മുടെ local ദേവന്‍ മാരുടെ വിഗ്രഹം മാറ്റി , ഹൈന്ദവ മതത്തിന്റ്റെ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങള്‍ സ്ഥാപിച്ചു . അങ്ങനെയാണ് ഈ ബുധന്റ്റെ വിഗ്രഹം മാറ്റി സിവന്റ്റെ വിഗ്രഹം സ്ഥാപിച്ചു . എന്നിട്ട് പൂണൂലിട്ട ബ്രാഹ്മണ പൂജരിക്കളെ നിയമിച്ചു .
''There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Kerala was a Buddhist majority (or that Buddhism was even followed by masses) land. Buddhism and Jainism were popular among a few wandering śramaṇa monks, some traders and because of the proselytization, some elites and kings. Neither of these was the religion of the masses. Which is also why the heritage of Buddhism and Jainism has left a negligible impact in mainland Kerala, or even in the Malayalam language (the so-called Prakrit words in Malayalam are actually Brahmanic). Nambudiris for example, are clearly Brahmins. Even among the Chera emperors, only some are said to be Buddhist (much of those can be false too, as we do not find any solid evidence for Buddhism being patronized as fiercely as Brahmanism in Kerala). Ezhavas are said to have been all Buddhists by some people based on folk etymologies - but sadly it doesn’t have a bit of real evidence. In short, there is nothing that suggests the widespread nature of Buddhism. Whereas, if you see, the local Dravidian Hinduism is well intact. Even the śrauta culture of Nambudiris is well intact. The culture of Nazranis is intact. The Puranic and Tantric Hinduism is also intact. What do you have among the masses that suggest any single decade of Buddhist “majority” in ancient Kerala? Do we have evidence for the pervasiveness of Brahmanic culture then? Oh yes. Sangham literature, despite having knowledge of Buddhist and Jain culture, is full of Brahmanic-Dravidian Hindu themes and discourses. The study on pūrvaśikhā Brahmins by academicians (Nambudiris of Kerala and Cozhiyars/Dīkṣitars of Tamil Nadu) has shown that they migrated much earlier to South India, and they are the groups mentioned as Brahmins extensively in Sangham literature. Brahmins received patronage all the time from the kings. It should also be noted that though Chera emperors could have patronized Buddhists too, the rulers were themselves mostly Hindus and the patronization was mostly because Buddhist traders dominated the economic landscape of Kerala. Why the Buddhist story is manufactured The Buddhist story in Kerala is a part of the grand political discourse that wants to present “Buddhism” as a politically correct “alternative” to the “casteism” which is dubbed “Brahmanism” or “Brahminism”. In Kerala, the Communists decided to woo the most populous group (Ezhavas) with the narrative that Ezhavas were Buddhists in the past and Nairs (the political rivals of Ezhavas) with Nambudiris destroyed Buddhism in Kerala (thus culturally killed the Ezhava community). This dangerously supported left discourse, because it is politically correct, has been parroted by every (worse than an amateur) “historian” in Kerala (historians in Kerala are mostly mythologists who work on the academic myths written by 19th century Europeans, there are few true historians) since then, without a single evidence. The Buddhist story is also used by certain vested interest groups, who also go on to say stuff that Nambudiris (and thus Brahmins) migrated to Kerala only in eighth century (then who coronated the Chera emperors and were called Brahmins in Sangham literature until then?) and violently attacked Buddhists. (But why didn’t they attack Nazranis?) This is often used by some propaganda-peddling groups to claim Nazranis are older than 'Hindus' (I mean, you got to be kidding me) in Kerala. How do they “fabricate evidence”? They don’t really work. They don’t really even work even for fabricating evidence. Despite there being only very few grants to Buddhists as compared to temples and Brahmins in the early centuries CE, how did the Communists and vested-interest groups manage to peddle the myth that Buddhists were the “majority” in Kerala? There is a wily strategy. • Simply tell that all Kerala temples were once Buddhist temples. I mean, you are not going to desecrate them to see if they were really so, right? • Use communal undertones to keep the theory safe from being discussed and proved legitimately. • Say that all of Kerala’s culture is somehow related to Buddhism in some goddamn way (people realized that Jains actually exist in Kerala and Tamil Nadu and align themselves with Hindus, so that is not politically correct - so just use Buddhist name). • Every Tantric ritual becomes Buddhist ritual (Come on, show us the origin of the rituals in Pali Canon please!) • Popular deities like Kodungalloor Bhagavatī (you mean, the Kottavai was a Buddhist goddess??) or Śabarimala Ayyappa was a Buddhist god, or at least their shrines were Buddhist. Usually, Buddhists have appropriated elsewhere the local gods and goddesses as Bodhisattvas or Yakṣiṇis or likewise. Use this appropriated deities from Hinduism in Buddhism to explain Hindu gods themselves in Kerala. Wow. What a circular reasoning! You might also try and say that Indra was borrowed by Brahmins from Vajrasattva. (Commies please, I meant it as sarcasm, don’t try it please) In short, there is zero evidence for their tall claims except for ad nauseum assertions to safely bring it out as gospel truth. Regarding Buddhist artifacts, there are two statues of Buddha (yes, simply TWO) (oh, wait, or is it of Mahavira? Jains cannot be used politically so say it is Buddha for now) unearthed all these years in Karumadi and Mavelikkara. There are more Roman coins unearthed from Kerala than you have Buddhist artifacts. Seriously. Possible forbearers of Buddhism The only possible forbearers of Buddhism, at least by reliable etymological working, are the Cākyār temple-community (if you choose to work out the Śākya as referring to followers of śākya muni - the Buddha). However, they have been part of the Brahmanic traditions and are much Brahmanic in nature (they form the group of “semi Brahmins” in Kerala, ranked next to Brahmins and following most of the Brahmanic customs), and the sole community who still perform the old and traditional Sanskrit theatre (called Kūṭiyāṭṭam in Kerala) in India. They are long dissociated (if ever they were in the past not Brahmanic) from their “Buddhist” (if ever it was so) heritage, except that they used to feature plays about Buddhist communities too. (in the plays like Bhagavadajjuka or Mattavilāsa Prahasana) How did Buddhism decline in Kerala? It was an elite phenomenon in Kerala - it could never participate masses without converting them. Even after possible trials to adopt Dravidian practices and deities, Buddhists in Kerala failed to give a true meaning to Bhakti of the masses (as Bhakti is against Buddhism and doesn’t go well with it). The rulers patronized the monks and traders only when Jains and Buddhists were influential enough as groups to influence the economy. The very fact that merely two rulers of the early times (that too, not in mainland Kerala, but in places like Kanyākumārī Citarāḷ complex) are documented to have patronized Buddhists (actually, Jains - not Buddhists - but Communists cannot support Jains) against some 130 instances of grants to Hindu temples itself is a clear proof. The funniest fact is that all the “presumed” Buddhist “centres” in Kerala actually belong to 9th and 10th century. Not a single evidence for a Buddhist centre before that! If Buddhism was so pervasive, there should have been at least one documented and patronized site. The philosophical side of Buddhism was severely destroyed beyond repair by the time of Śaṅkara. The economical upper hand, which kept Buddhism in Kerala surviving among business class, was demolished by the emperors who chose to support Nazranis and Arabs from the eighth century onwards as traders and businessmen rather than Buddhists. By the eleventh century, Buddhism practically disappeared from Kerala. It might be that the existent (and possibly immigrant) few Buddhist businessmen went back to their homeland Sri Lanka. It is worthy to note that even by 1995, some historical theses in Kerala had already started to rule out the political myth of early dominance of Buddhism and Jainism in Kerala as all the evidence we had was contrary to it. Though they thought that Brahmin settlements might have developed in eighth century before Buddhists and Jains became prominent in ninth and tenth century. Anyway, as you might read, the theses assert that Buddhists managed to flourish in trade centers near harbors by imitating the Brahmanic culture already present and patronized in Kerala much like what Nazranis did. (this is all from the presumption that Kāntaḷḷūr Cālai of the ninth and tenth century was a Buddhist learning centre, which is again unwarranted) You should remember, this much of intellectual transparency is coming from Kerala, notorious for its openly leftist “historians” who are least cared about in mainstream Indian or international scholarship. The wide references to Brahmins in Sangham literature seal the discussion by ruling out myths that Brahmins were later migrants'
'Buddha would speak more openly of Kshatriyas to be superior to Brahmins , Buddhas protest against rituals and its superiority provided to brahmins It is not a secret that Buddhism was mouthpiece of Kshatriyan supremacy which wanted to enter not just its stronghold of ruling, but also economy and religion. In the Ambattha sutta, a young kid doesn’t apparently “venerate Buddha” to the extent what Buddha wanted. On asking, Ambattha is shown to reply that Brahmins usually show such kind of respects only to another Brahmin, but not to lowly people, “dark fellows” (that is a Buddhan fantasy) and so on. To which Buddha replies Ambattha is ill bred. A triggered kid, says that Shakyas are the menial ones who don’t even honour any Brahmin or pay respect to them. Buddha becomes more triggered, as Shakya is his own clan. A triggered Buddha says : And what family do you then, Ambattha, belong to?' 'I am a Kanhâyana.' 'Yes, but if one were to follow up your ancient name and lineage, Ambattha, on the father's and the mother's side, it would appear that the Sâkyas were once your masters, and that you are the offspring of one of their slave girls. But the Sâkyas trace their line back to Okkâka the king …. … Now Okkâka had a slave girl called Disâ. She gave birth to a black baby. And no sooner was it born than the little black thing said, "Wash me, mother. Bathe me, mother. Set me free, mother, of this dirt. So shall I be of use to you." 'Now just as now, Ambattha, people call devils "devils," so then they (Śākyas) called devils "black fellows" (kanhe). And they said: "This fellow spoke as soon as he was born. 'Tis a black thing (kanha) that is born, a devil has been born!" And that is the origin, Ambattha, of the Kanhayanas. He was the ancestor of the Kanhâyanas. And thus is it, Ambattha, that if one were to follow up your ancient name and lineage, on the father's and on the mother's side, it would appear that the Sâkyas were once your masters, and that you are the offspring of one of their slave girls.' That was a bold attack by Buddha on this young person. And he was asked to counter this legend. Which he couldn’t. A tactical Buddha asked three times Ambattha the same question, wanting the latter to accept his legend. But a shocked and embarrassed Ambattha couldn’t speak anything. As a last moment, Buddha terrorizes the kid, by saying that his head will break into three pieces if he can’t answer Buddha’s question when asked three times. This makes Ambattha accept Buddha’s premise. The Brahmins in the stage were shocked to see this. They said that samaṇa gotama is not a man to be trusted anymore. (probably because he uses this tactics to make legends and make his opponents accept it) While Brahmins are thinking “what the hell is Gotama speaking”, Buddha becomes aware of losing of his own status among Brahmins, and a possible failure for his conversion works. He soon thinks “Brahmins might be disparaging Ambattha for his bad descent” and goes on to say that Kanha became a seer, versed in mantras. And finally makes the conclusion : Then the Blessed One said to Ambattha: 'What think you, Ambattha? Suppose a young Kshatriya should have connection with a Brahman maiden, and from their intercourse a son should be born. Now would the son thus come to the Brahman maiden through the Kshatriya youth receive a seat and water (as tokens of respect) from the Brahmans?' 'Yes, he would, Gotama.' 'But would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the feast offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk{2}, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?' 'Yes, they would, Gotama.' 'But would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?' 'They would, Gotama.' 'But would he be shut off, or not, from their women?' 'He would not be shut off.' 'But would the Kshatriyas allow him to receive the consecration ceremony of a Kshatriya?' 'Certainly not, Gotama.' 'Why not that?' 'Because he is not of pure descent on the mother's side.' 25. 'Then what think you, Ambattha? Suppose a Brahman youth should have connection with a Kshatriya maiden, and from their intercourse a son should be born. Now would the son thus come to the Kshatriya maiden through the Brahman youth receive a seat and water (as tokens of respect) from the Brahmans?' 'Yes, he would, Gotama.' 'But would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the feast offered to the dead, or of food boiled in milk, or of an offering to the gods, or of food sent as a present?' 'Yes, they would, Gotama.' 'But would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?' 'They would, Gotama.' But would he be shut off, or not, from their women?' 'He would not, Gotama.' 'But would the Kshatriyas allow him to receive the consecration ceremony of a Kshatriya?' 'Certainly not, Gotama.' 'Why not that?' 'Because he is not of pure descent on the father's side.' Then, Ambattha, whether one compares women with women, or men with men, the Kshatriyas are higher and the Brahmans inferior. 'And what think you, Ambattha? Suppose the Brahmans, for some offence{1} or other, were to outlaw a Brahman by shaving him and pouring ashes over his head{2}, were to banish him from the land or from the township. Would he be offered a seat or water among the Brahmans?' 'Certainly not, Gotama.' 'Or would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the food offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?' 'Certainly not, Gotama.' 'Or would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?' 'Certainly not, Gotama.' 'And would he be shut off, or not, from their women?' 'He would be shut off.' 'But what think you, Ambattha? If the Kshatriyas had in the same way outlawed a Kshatriya, and banished him from the land or the township, would he, among the Brahmans, be offered water and a seat?' 'Yes, he would, Gotama.' 'And would he be allowed to partake of the food offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?' 'He would, Gotama.' 'And would the Brahmans teach him their verses?' 'They would, Gotama?' 'And would he be shut off, or not, from their women?' 'He would not, Gotama.' 'But thereby, Ambattha, the Kshatriya would have fallen into the deepest degradation, shaven as to his head, cut dead with the ash-basket, banished from land and township. So that, even when a Kshatriya has fallen into the deepest degradation. still it holds good that the Kshatriyas are higher, and the Brahmans inferior.'
'This is the summary of what Buddha really thought. But could he go on with this to preach among Brahmins who were “lenient in terms of lineage” Suddenly Buddha switches to a diplomatic verse, brainwashing Ambattha, saying yes to a quote from Sanaṃ kumāra (Skt sanatkumāra) that : "The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk who put their trust in lineage. But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness, he is the best among gods and men."' And then adds that righteousness is what matters, not birth. (departing from even this verse, but again, only against Brahmins whom he claims) And then he shows Ambattha the thirty two “signs” of good man, not through wisdom or anything, but in his body. Even his private parts. And Gotama also showers his own arguments that modern Brahmins are all bad, to which the kid is not even able to speak anything but “no not that”. In the end, Ambattha narrates his experience to his teacher, to which the Brahmin teacher actually “blames Ambattha” for being ignorant of Vedas and conduct so as to argue with the venerable Gotama. And he rushes to Gotama, notices the signs on his body of great man, and praises him, and concludes with the lines (probably employed so as to make conversion of Brahmins easier) : And then the Brahman Pokkharasâdi, as one who had seen the Truth, had mastered it, understood it, dived deep down into it, who had passed beyond doubt and put away perplexity and gained full confidence, who had become dependent on no other man for his knowledge of the teaching of the Master, addressed the Blessed One, and said: 'Most excellent, oh Gotama (are the words of thy mouth), most excellent! Just as if a man were to set up that which has been thrown down, or were to reveal that which has been hidden away, or were to point out the right road to him who has gone astray, or were to bring a light into the darkness so that those who had eyes could see external forms,--just even so, Lord, has the truth been made known to me, in many a figure, by the venerable Gotama. And I, oh Gotama, with my sons, and my wife, and my people, and my companions, betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the truth, and to the Order. May the venerable Gotama accept me as a disciple, as one who from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken him as his guide. And just as the venerable Gotama visits the families of others, his disciples, at Ukkattha, so let him visit mine. Whosoever there may be there, of Brahmans or their wives, who shall pay reverence to the venerable Gotama, or stand up in his presence, or offer him a seat or water, or take delight in him, to him that will be, for long, a cause of weal and bliss.' Again, in Vaseṭṭha sutta, Buddha would paradoxically echo what Manu would repeat later : not by birth is Brahmin born, he is born by karma. (na jāccā brāhmaṇo hotṭ..) This time, Buddha says that whoever does the right profession, becomes a Brahmin, not by birth but by action. This is actually supporting the varṇa system. (Though never ever does Buddha tell that Brahmin can be anyone who possesses these karmas, but implicitly hints those who do this karma apparently after being one by their birth) Which is also what the Manu would tell, in Brahmanic language : “Śūdras are born by birth, but dvijas are from culture (saṃskāra)” In short, Buddha didn’t ever question the actual varṇa system or even the jāti system of masses. (rather, might have fueled a more racial interpretation of the same in many regions) Rather, he was quite supportive of racial purity, apprehensive of inter caste marriages, and also varṇa system. But he didn’t want to upset the masses about their caste status after conversion to monks, so he wanted his monkhood to be less dependent on castes. The impact of this attitude of creating alpha male Aryan monks, all united beyond castes, to see themselves as superior to others, only caused worse caste classifications in the places where Buddhists ended - whether in South India (just check how many classes are already mentioned in Sangham works) or Sri Lanka, or Tibet, Burma, or even the untouchables of Japan It is funny to see that Brahmanic laws ask people to bath if they touch a Brahmin! But Buddhist monks who saw themselves to be noble Aryans, classified whole society into various groups, and enforced endogamy as a virtue. People usually attribute endogamy to Gupta age (c. 400 CE) but we should see that this is actually a Buddhist creation rather than Brahmanical. (even contemporary Mahābhārata has several cases of exogamy) For the worse, untouchability among all communities might also have been a product of Buddhism impacting the moral standards of Aryans in an early age.'
തികച്ചും ഭൗതമെന്ന് പറയുന്നത് തന്നെ തെറ്റ് ബുദ്ധാശയങ്ങൾക്ക് വിപരീതമായ കാര്യങ്ങൾ എങ്ങനെ ഭൗതമാകും ബുദ്ധന്റെ ആശയങ്ങളാണ് ബുദ്ധമതം അതിനു വിപരീതമായി ബുദ്ധൻ എതിർത്ത എന്തോ അതിനെ സ്വീകരിച്ചാൽ അതെങ്ങനെ ബുദ്ധമതം ആകും
ഞങ്ങളുടെ നാടിൻ്റെ ബൗദ്ധ പാരമ്പര്യത്തെ കുറിച്ച് വ്യക്തമായ തെളിവ് ആകാവുന്ന ഈ പാത്തിക്കലപ്പൻ ക്ഷേത്രവിഗ്രഹത്തെ കുറിച്ച് വളരെ ആധികാരികമായ വിവരങ്ങൾ നൽകുക മാത്രമല്ല അത് ജനങ്ങളിലേക്ക് എത്തിക്കാൻ വേണ്ടി ഇത്രയും അകലെ നിന്ന് ഇവിടെ എത്തി ഇത്തരം ഒരു ഡോക്യുമെൻ്ററി തയ്യാറാക്കിയ ഡോക്റ്റർ അജയ് ശേഖർ സാറിനും അദ്ദേഹത്തിൻ്റെ സഹപ്രവർത്തകരായ സംഘാങ്ങൾക്കും ഹൃദയപൂർവ്വമായ നന്ദി രേഖപ്പെടുത്തുന്നു .. കരുണാകരൻ കലാമംഗലത്ത് .
ഓരോ കാലഘട്ടത്തിലും ഉണ്ടായ കൈയേറ്റം,മാറ്റി മറിക്കൽ എന്നിവയുടെ ഉദാഹരണം ആണ് ഇതുപോലുള്ളവ.കേരളത്തിലെ പഴക്കമുള്ള "ആൽ മരങ്ങൾ " ഏറ്റവും വലിയ തെളിവ്.ബുദ്ധൻെറ ബോധി വൃക്ഷം അതിൻെറ അനുയായികൾ പോയ മുഴുവൻ സ്ഥലത്തും വെച്ചു പിടിപ്പിക്കുകയും സംരക്ഷിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്.കേരളത്തിലെ സ്വഭാവിക വനവൃക്ഷത്തിൽ പെട്ടതല്ല ആൽമരം.ഇതിൽകൂടുതൽ തെളിവ് ഈ സംസ്കാരവൃാപന ആഴങ്ങളേക്കുറിച്ച് വേണ്ട.
ഇനിയും ഇതുപോലെയുള്ള ബുദ്ധിസ്റ്റ് ബിംബങ്ങൾ പല സ്ഥലങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നു കിട്ടും എന്നതിൻ്റെ സൂചനയാണ്.
ഇതുപോലെ ഉള്ള നല്ല അറിവുകൾ പറഞ്ഞു തന്നതിന് നന്ദി ഇനിയും പ്രതീക്ഷിച്ചു കൊള്ളുന്നു
കേരളത്തിലെ ബൗദ്ധ പാരമ്പര്യം തിരിച്ചു കൊണ്ടുവരണം
എന്റെ സ്ഥലം കൊല്ലം ജില്ലയിലെ കരുനാഗപ്പള്ളിയാണ് '
ഈ പേര് തന്നെ ബുദ്ധവിഗ്രഹവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടതാണ്ട്.... അവിടെ ഒരു ബുദ്ധവിഗ്രഹം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു.
അസാമാന്യ വലിപ്പമുള്ള ആ വിഗ്രഹം
ബുദ്ധക്ഷേത്രത്തിൽ നിന്നും മാറ്റി അടുത്തുള്ള കുളത്തിലിട്ടു.. വളരെക്കാലം.... ഇവിടുത്തെ ജനങ്ങൾ അത് അലക്കു കല്ലായി ഉയോഗിച്ചിരുന്നു.
പിന്നിടത് പുരാവസ്തു ഗവേഷകർ കണ്ടെടുത്ത് അവിടെ നിന്നും മാറ്റി...
ആ ബുദ്ധ ക്ഷേത്രം ഇന്ന് കരുനാഗപ്പള്ളിയിലെ ഹൃദയഭാഗത്ത് ഒരു ഹിന്ദു ക്ഷേത്രമായി നിലകൊള്ളുന്നു '
പുതുതലമുറക്ക് ഈ ചരിത്രത്തെപ്പറ്റി അറിയാൻ വഴിയില്ല...
എല്ലാം കാലത്തിനുള്ളിൽ മറഞ്ഞു.
ക്ഷേത്രത്തിൻ്റെ പേരുകൂടി പറയണേ ഒന്നറിഞ്ഞിരിക്കാലോ എൻ്റെ വീട് തഴവ ആണ്
ഇത് പോലെ പല അമ്പലക്കുളങ്ങളിലും അമ്പലങ്ങളിലും രൂപമാറ്റം സംഭവിച്ച ബുദ്ധവിഗ്രഹങ്ങൾ കണ്ടെടുക്കാൻ സാധിച്ചേക്കും..
NigeshAv. നിങ്ങൾ പറയൂന്നത് തെറ്റു അന്ന് ബുദ്ധമതം ഉണക്കുന്നതിനു മുൻപ് എവിടെ ഹിന്ദുമതംഉണ്ടായിരിന്നു ഹിന്ദുമതത്തിൽ നിന്നും അന്ന് ബുദ്ധമതം ഉണ്ടായതു 2050ആക്കുപോഴേക്ക് ബുദ്ധമതം ഇല്ലാതാക്കും
@@ലങ്കധിപധിരാവണൻ ഇവിടെത്തെ അമ്പലങ്ങൾ പലതും ബുദ്ധ ക്ഷേത്രങ്ങൾ ആയിരുന്നു .എന്തിന് ഏറെ പറയുന്നു ശബരിമല പോലും തെളിവുകൾ ഉണ്ട്
@@aswinsnair5871 koodalmankyam jain Temple ayirunnu
എൻ്റെ നാട്ടിൽ ഒരു ബൗദ്ധക്ഷേത്രം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. ഇന്ന് അത് തൃപ്രയാർ ശ്രീരാമ ക്ഷേത്രം ആണ്. കേരളത്തിൽ ഒരു വിധം പഴയ ക്ഷേത്രങ്ങൾ എല്ലാം ബ്രാഹ്മണ്യം കയ്യേറി.
I am happy to see Buddha's statue "Three things cannot be long hidden sun, moon and the truth" Buddha's quotes . Gautam Buddha is one of the most all time influenced person who was once born,just can't deny it.just read it's principles it's so much simple applicable to commen man,there is no fantasies, imaginary stories ,there is no logic .If I tell my 4 year old son that someone would lift a mountain and fly in the sky,he would laugh at me and told me stop fooling me, just cannot make up stories and fool around ,a 4 year old in 21'th century has brain's to think,new generation needs logic answers,proof ,myths will no longer work.Buddha's principles are universal, applicable to humanity,not restricted to one clan of people.god cannot create some people superior to other.its silly to think some people are of superior race,it's the geographical condition and genetical factors make a person tall,fair ,dark short.varna system itself is a rubbish .
കൊയിലാണ്ടിയിൽ ബുദ്ധ പാരമ്പര്യവുമായ് ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട സ്ഥലപ്പെരുകൾ ഉണ്ട് .ഉദാ:- പള്ളിക്കണ്ടി, മൂസ്സാന്റെ പറമ്പ് etc
മൂസാന്റെ പറമ്പ് എന്നാൽ എന്താണ് അർത്ഥം.. മൂസാ എന്നാൽ നുണ എന്നാണ് പഞ്ച ശീലങ്ങളിൽ നാലാമത്തെതായി വരും.. (മൂസാ വാത വീരമണി സിഖപതം സമാദിയാമി.)
കേരളത്തിലെ മുഴുവൻ ക്ഷേത്രക്കുളങ്ങളിലും ബുദ്ധന്റെ പ്രതിമകൾ കണ്ടെടുക്കാൻ കഴിയും ഇതെല്ലാം വലിച്ചെറിഞ്ഞതാകാം സത്യം തെളിഞ്ഞു തന്നെ വരും നമുക്ക് കാത്തിരിക്കാം
ഞങ്ങളുടെ ശശിധരൻ മാഷ് വലിയ ആവേശത്തിലായപോലെ തോന്നുന്ന ❤️,
Namo Buddhaya.
കേരളത്തിലെ മുഴുവൻ കുളങ്ങളും ക്ഷേത്ര പരിസരങ്ങളും ഇത്തരം ബൌദ്ധ പാരമ്പര്യങ്ങൾ കൊണ്ട് സമ്പന്നമാകാം. നമുക്ക് കാത്തിരിക്കാം.
SureshkumarNM. നിങ്ങൾ പറയൂന്നത് കേട്ടാൽ ബുദ്ധ മതം ഹിന്ദുമതം ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്നതിനു മുൻവേ ഹിന്ദുഉണ്ടായിരിന്നു പിന്നെ എങ്ങനെ ബുദ്ധ ക്ഷേത്രങൾ ഹിന്ദുക്ഷേത്രങൾ ആക്കും
@@ലങ്കധിപധിരാവണൻ ഈ ഹിന്ദുക്കൾ എന്നു പറയുന്ന ബ്രാഹ്മണ ആര്യൻമാർ ഹിന്ദുകുഷ് ഇറങ്ങി വരുന്നതിനു മുന്നേ ഇവിടെ ഒരു സംസ്‌കാരം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു
@@aswinsnair5871നൂറുശതമാനം കറക്റ്റ് ആണ് താങ്കൾ പറയുന്നത് ചില ചരിത്രകാരന്മാരുടെ വാക്കുകൾ കേട്ട് കഴിഞ്ഞാൽ ഹിന്ദുമതം ബുദ്ധമതത്തിൽ നിന്നുണ്ടായത് പോലെയാണ് അവർ പറയുന്നത് ഹിന്ദുക്കളുടെ എല്ലാ ആചാരവും ബുദ്ധമതത്തിന് ഭാഗമായിരുന്ന എന്നതാണ് ഹിന്ദുമതം ഉണ്ടായിക്കഴിഞ്ഞു ആയിരക്കണക്കിന് വർഷങ്ങൾക്കു ശേഷമാണ് ലോകത്തുള്ള ഈ പറയുന്ന മുഴുവൻ മതവും നിന്നുള്ള മുഴുവൻ മതങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടായത്
Thank u for bringing this to us.. Im from vadakara 🥰
Sreerag sr. ബുദ്ധമതം ലോകത്തു ആരു സീകരിക്കുന്നില്ല ബുദ്ധിസം ഇല്ലാതായി കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുക ആണ് അവരുട്ടെ രാജ്യങ്ങളിൽ പോലും അവർക്കു നില്ല നിലനിൽ പ്പു ഇല്ല
സത്യത്തെയും സുര്യനെ യും ചന്ദ്രനെ യും ഒരിക്കലും മറയ്ക്കാൻ സാധിക്കില്ല.
Actual history is going to come
പാത്തിക്കല് കുടുംബക്കാരെ കുറിച്ച് അന്യേഷിക്കുക. അവര് എന്ത് കൊണ്ട് ചോളരാജാവ് ഭരിച്ച പത്താം നൂറ്റാണ്ടില് കോഴിക്കോട് ജില്ല തന്നെ വിട്ട് പോയി എന്നും അന്യേഷിക്കുക.
Beautiful info !
അതിനെ സംരക്ഷിക്കാൻ പോലും ആരും തയ്യാറല്ല
Good
പാലിയിൽ ബോധി സാത്താ എന്നാണ് പ്രാദേശികമായി വിളിച്ചിരുന്നത്. മലയാളത്തിന്റെ ആദിമ രൂപമായ പ്രത്യേക തരത്തിലെ തമിഴിൽ ബോധി ചാത്താ എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. സംസ്കൃത വൽക്കരിച്ചപ്പാേൾ ബോധി ശാസ്താ ആയി പിന്നീടത് ബോധി ശാസ്താവായി. അവസാനം ബോധി എന്ന വാക്ക് മാഞ്ഞു പോയി
പ്രേത്യേക തരത്തിലെ തമിഴൊ? അത് മലയാളം തന്നെയാണ്. മലയാളം ഒരു ശ്രേഷ്ഠ വാമൊഴിയാണ്. തമിഴും മലയാളവും ഒരേ തറവാട്ടിലെ കൂടപ്പിറപ്പും.മലയാളത്തിൽ സംസ്‌കൃതം അടിച്ചേൽപ്പിക്കുവാൻ തുടങ്ങിയിട്ട് 300 കൊല്ലം പോലും തികയുന്നില്ല. മലയാളത്തിന്റെ തനത് എഴുത്തുമുറയായ കോലെഴുത്തിൽ ആകെ 26 അച്ചുകളും ഒച്ചകളുമെ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നുള്ളു. എന്തായാലും ഇന്ന് നമ്മൾ ആര്യൻ എഴുത്ത് കടം കൊണ്ടു. അതിന്റെ പൊരുൾ നമ്മക് നിലനിൽപ്പില്ലെന്നല്ല. എന്തായാലും ഇന്ന് ചാത്തൻ നെ തിന്മയുടെ ഉറവിടമായിട്ടാണ് കാണുന്നത്.
thanks for this video❤️
🙏🙏🙏
ശാസ്താവ് ന്ടെ വിഗ്രഹം ആണ്
👍
👌
സംഗതിയൊക്കെ കൊള്ളാം പക്ഷെ താലിബാൻ കാണാതെ സൂക്ഷിച്ചോണം. അല്ലെങ്കിൽ പീരംഗി കൊണ്ട് ഒറ്റ വെടിക്ക് തീർക്കും.
Wow, you don't have any issues towards the "brahminism terrorists" who put Buddha statue in the pond but will do a kick at taliban which is somewhere else. Stop using Gurudevan's name as your title, if you intend to be a bigot which Gurudevan hated the most.
ബോധപൂർവം കുളത്തിലോ ആറടി മണ്ണിലോ താഴ്ത്തിയതവാം
ശബരിമലയിലെ പത്മാസനസ്ഥനായ ശാസ്താവിഗ്രഹം നശിപ്പിച്ച് പട്ടബന്ധ സ്ഥനായ പുതിയ ശാസ്താവിഗ്രഹമായിരിക്കണം സ്ഥാപിച്ചത് മണി മണ്ഡപത്തിനടിയിലെവിടെയോ പഴയ വിഗ്രഹം ഇന്നും ഒളിഞ്ഞു കിടക്കുന്നുണ്ടാകാം
വിഗ്രഹത്തിൽ പൂണൂൽ ഉണ്ട്. ഇതൊരു ബ്രാഹ്മണിക വിഗ്രഹമായിരിക്കാനാണ് സാധ്യത. ശിവന്റെ ഏതെങ്കിലും ഒരു വകഭേദമായിരുന്നിരിക്കണം. ശിവ സങ്കൽപ്പവും അവലോകിതേശ്വരൻ എന്ന ബൗദ്ധ സങ്കൽപ്പവും തമ്മിൽ വലിയ അടുപ്പമുണ്ട്.
ഇതിനുള്ള മറുപടി അദ്ധേഹം തന്നെ പറയുന്നുണ്ട്, വീഡിയോ മുഴുവനും കാണുക.
Watch from 4:00
Keralathile bhuda kshetragal pilkalath vishnu, sasthav, devi kshetragal ayi
കാലാന്തരത്തിൽ ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ ഹിന്ദു ദൈവങ്ങളെയും🤓🤓🤓🤓 ഇതുപോലെ കുളങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നും പുഴകളിൽ നിന്നും കണ്ടെടുക്കപ്പെടാം🌹🌺🍧💯
@@oneworld4175 wait and see ഒന്നിനെയും അധികം വളരാൻ ചരിത്രം അനുവദിക്കില്ല ..... അന്ന് ഉണ്ടായിരുന്ന ഭാരതം ഇന്ന് എത്ര രാജ്യങ്ങൾ ആയി 🤣🤣 അതു ഓർക്കാനില്ലേ
MGS സർ ഇപ്പൊൾ എന്ത് പറയുന്നു?
ഇതും പഴയകാല വ്യാപാരികൾ ചുമന്ന് കൊണ്ടിട്ടത് തന്നെയോ?
റോഡുകളും വണ്ടികളും ഇല്ലാതിരുന്ന ആ കാലത്ത് വ്യാപാരികൾ വിൽപ്പന ചരക്കുകൾക്കൊപ്പം ഇത് പോലുള്ള കരിങ്കൽ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങൾ കൊണ്ട് നടന്നിരുന്നു എന്നൊക്കെ പറയുന്നത് ആരോടാണ് ആർക്ക് വേണ്ടിയാണ് എന്നൊന്ന് ഓർക്കുന്നത് നല്ലതാണ്.
എല്ലാം മനപ്പൂർവ്വം നശിപ്പിച്ചു കളഞ്ഞതാണ്, അതിന്റെയൊക്കെ ഫലം കിട്ടിയവർ ഇന്നും ദുരിതത്തിൽ തന്നെയാണ്, നരസിംഹത്തിൽ മമ്മൂട്ടി പറയുന്ന ഡയലോഗ് ഇപ്പൊ ഇവിടെ പ്രെസക്തമാണ് 👍
ബുദ്ധന്മാരെ വേട്ടയാടൽ ആയിരുന്നു ഈ പള്ളിവേട്ട
@Ambika Nair nayarute rodhanam
@Ambika Nair neee sarpakavu ulla tharavattile kindi kambika alle😋
Truly ? Please give about it's more information.
അല്ല സർ, ഇതൊക്കെ ഫോൾക് ലോറിസ്റ്റുകളുടെ തട്ടിക്കൂട്ട് സിദ്ധന്തങ്ങൾ ആണ്
@@nandagopalwarrier865ഡ മണ്ട ബുദ്ധ മത ഉണ്ടായട്ട് 2500കൊല്ലം ഹിന്ദു 5000കൊല്ലം ഹിന്ദു വിൽ നിന്നു ആണ് ബുദ്ധ മതം ഉണ്ടയത്
പള്ളി വേട്ട
ഇങ്ങനെയാണ് കേരളത്തില്‍ ഹിന്ദു മതം വന്നത്. ഹിന്ദു ഒരു മതമല്ല . അതൊരു നദി യുടെ പേരാണ് . 16 )൦ നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലാണ് ഹിന്ദു എന്നൊരു മതം ഉണ്ടായത് . അതായത് ഭാരതത്തില്‍ ഇസ്ലാം , ക്രിസ്ത്യാനിക്കള്‍ വന്നു തുടങ്ങിയപ്പോള്‍ , ഇവടത്തെ മത വിശ്വാസങ്ങലെ identify ചെയ്യാന്‍ വേണ്ടി ഹിന്ദു എന്നോരു പേരു വന്നു തുടങ്ങി . നമ്മുടെ രാജ്യത്തില്‍ പല local മത വിശ്വാസങ്ങളുണ്ട് . അത് ഹൈന്ദവ മതമല്ല . നമ്മക്ക് നമ്മുടെ ദേവി -ദേവന്മ്മ)രുണ്ടായിരിന്നു . ഇപ്പോഴുമുണ്ട് . തുടക്കത്തില്‍ ഒരു organized മതമെന്ന് പറയുന്നത് ബുദ്ധ മതമായിരിന്നു . പക്സെഹ് 8 ) ൦ നൂറ്റാണ്ടില് വടുക്കുനിന്നു ബ്രാഹ്മണ - നമ്പൂതിരിമാര്‍ കേരളത്തില്‍ വന്നു ബുദ്ധ മത വാളാല്‍ നസിപിച്ചു , ഇവടത്തെ local വിസ്വാസംഗളെ sanskritize ചെയ്തു ( അതായതു സനാതന ധര്മതിന്റ്റെ അനുയയിഗള്‍) അത് ഹൈന്ദവ മതത്തില്‍ മാറ്റി . അതായതു നമ്മുടെ local ദേവന്‍ മാരുടെ വിഗ്രഹം മാറ്റി , ഹൈന്ദവ മതത്തിന്റ്റെ വിഗ്രഹങ്ങള്‍ സ്ഥാപിച്ചു . അങ്ങനെയാണ് ഈ ബുധന്റ്റെ വിഗ്രഹം മാറ്റി സിവന്റ്റെ വിഗ്രഹം സ്ഥാപിച്ചു . എന്നിട്ട് പൂണൂലിട്ട ബ്രാഹ്മണ പൂജരിക്കളെ നിയമിച്ചു .
ബുദ്ധന് പൂണൂൽ ഉണ്ടോ 🙄🙄🙄
ബുദ്ധന് പൂണൂൽ ഇല്ല.എന്നാൽ ബോധിസത്വൻമാർക്ക് ഉത്തരീയമുണ്ട്. വീഡിയോയിൽ അത് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ടല്ലോ? അത് ഉത്തരീയമാണ്
Watch from 3:55
ഹിന്തു മതത്തിലെ യേശു ബുദ്ധൻ
ജൂത മതത്തിലെ യേശുവിനെ പോലെ
അശോക പാരമ്പര്യത്തിന് ബൗദ്ധം ചാർത്തി കൊടുത്ത തട്ടിപ്പ് നിർത്താശാനേ അതിൻറെ സത്യാവസ്ഥ അറിയാനുള്ളവർക്ക് അറിയാം
''There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Kerala was a Buddhist majority (or that Buddhism was even followed by masses) land. Buddhism and Jainism were popular among a few wandering śramaṇa monks, some traders and because of the proselytization, some elites and kings. Neither of these was the religion of the masses.
Which is also why the heritage of Buddhism and Jainism has left a negligible impact in mainland Kerala, or even in the Malayalam language (the so-called Prakrit words in Malayalam are actually Brahmanic).
Nambudiris for example, are clearly Brahmins. Even among the Chera emperors, only some are said to be Buddhist (much of those can be false too, as we do not find any solid evidence for Buddhism being patronized as fiercely as Brahmanism in Kerala). Ezhavas are said to have been all Buddhists by some people based on folk etymologies - but sadly it doesn’t have a bit of real evidence.
In short, there is nothing that suggests the widespread nature of Buddhism.
Whereas, if you see, the local Dravidian Hinduism is well intact. Even the śrauta culture of Nambudiris is well intact. The culture of Nazranis is intact. The Puranic and Tantric Hinduism is also intact. What do you have among the masses that suggest any single decade of Buddhist “majority” in ancient Kerala?
Do we have evidence for the pervasiveness of Brahmanic culture then?
Oh yes. Sangham literature, despite having knowledge of Buddhist and Jain culture, is full of Brahmanic-Dravidian Hindu themes and discourses. The study on pūrvaśikhā Brahmins by academicians (Nambudiris of Kerala and Cozhiyars/Dīkṣitars of Tamil Nadu) has shown that they migrated much earlier to South India, and they are the groups mentioned as Brahmins extensively in Sangham literature. Brahmins received patronage all the time from the kings. It should also be noted that though Chera emperors could have patronized Buddhists too, the rulers were themselves mostly Hindus and the patronization was mostly because Buddhist traders dominated the economic landscape of Kerala.
Why the Buddhist story is manufactured
The Buddhist story in Kerala is a part of the grand political discourse that wants to present “Buddhism” as a politically correct “alternative” to the “casteism” which is dubbed “Brahmanism” or “Brahminism”. In Kerala, the Communists decided to woo the most populous group (Ezhavas) with the narrative that Ezhavas were Buddhists in the past and Nairs (the political rivals of Ezhavas) with Nambudiris destroyed Buddhism in Kerala (thus culturally killed the Ezhava community).
This dangerously supported left discourse, because it is politically correct, has been parroted by every (worse than an amateur) “historian” in Kerala (historians in Kerala are mostly mythologists who work on the academic myths written by 19th century Europeans, there are few true historians) since then, without a single evidence.
The Buddhist story is also used by certain vested interest groups, who also go on to say stuff that Nambudiris (and thus Brahmins) migrated to Kerala only in eighth century (then who coronated the Chera emperors and were called Brahmins in Sangham literature until then?) and violently attacked Buddhists. (But why didn’t they attack Nazranis?) This is often used by some propaganda-peddling groups to claim Nazranis are older than 'Hindus' (I mean, you got to be kidding me) in Kerala.
How do they “fabricate evidence”?
They don’t really work. They don’t really even work even for fabricating evidence. Despite there being only very few grants to Buddhists as compared to temples and Brahmins in the early centuries CE, how did the Communists and vested-interest groups manage to peddle the myth that Buddhists were the “majority” in Kerala?
There is a wily strategy.
• Simply tell that all Kerala temples were once Buddhist temples. I mean, you are not going to desecrate them to see if they were really so, right?
• Use communal undertones to keep the theory safe from being discussed and proved legitimately.
• Say that all of Kerala’s culture is somehow related to Buddhism in some goddamn way (people realized that Jains actually exist in Kerala and Tamil Nadu and align themselves with Hindus, so that is not politically correct - so just use Buddhist name).
• Every Tantric ritual becomes Buddhist ritual (Come on, show us the origin of the rituals in Pali Canon please!)
• Popular deities like Kodungalloor Bhagavatī (you mean, the Kottavai was a Buddhist goddess??) or Śabarimala Ayyappa was a Buddhist god, or at least their shrines were Buddhist. Usually, Buddhists have appropriated elsewhere the local gods and goddesses as Bodhisattvas or Yakṣiṇis or likewise. Use this appropriated deities from Hinduism in Buddhism to explain Hindu gods themselves in Kerala. Wow. What a circular reasoning!
You might also try and say that Indra was borrowed by Brahmins from Vajrasattva. (Commies please, I meant it as sarcasm, don’t try it please)
In short, there is zero evidence for their tall claims except for ad nauseum assertions to safely bring it out as gospel truth.
Regarding Buddhist artifacts, there are two statues of Buddha (yes, simply TWO) (oh, wait, or is it of Mahavira? Jains cannot be used politically so say it is Buddha for now) unearthed all these years in Karumadi and Mavelikkara.
There are more Roman coins unearthed from Kerala than you have Buddhist artifacts. Seriously.
Possible forbearers of Buddhism
The only possible forbearers of Buddhism, at least by reliable etymological working, are the Cākyār temple-community (if you choose to work out the Śākya as referring to followers of śākya muni - the Buddha). However, they have been part of the Brahmanic traditions and are much Brahmanic in nature (they form the group of “semi Brahmins” in Kerala, ranked next to Brahmins and following most of the Brahmanic customs), and the sole community who still perform the old and traditional Sanskrit theatre (called Kūṭiyāṭṭam in Kerala) in India. They are long dissociated (if ever they were in the past not Brahmanic) from their “Buddhist” (if ever it was so) heritage, except that they used to feature plays about Buddhist communities too. (in the plays like Bhagavadajjuka or Mattavilāsa Prahasana)
How did Buddhism decline in Kerala?
It was an elite phenomenon in Kerala - it could never participate masses without converting them. Even after possible trials to adopt Dravidian practices and deities, Buddhists in Kerala failed to give a true meaning to Bhakti of the masses (as Bhakti is against Buddhism and doesn’t go well with it). The rulers patronized the monks and traders only when Jains and Buddhists were influential enough as groups to influence the economy. The very fact that merely two rulers of the early times (that too, not in mainland Kerala, but in places like Kanyākumārī Citarāḷ complex) are documented to have patronized Buddhists (actually, Jains - not Buddhists - but Communists cannot support Jains) against some 130 instances of grants to Hindu temples itself is a clear proof.
The funniest fact is that all the “presumed” Buddhist “centres” in Kerala actually belong to 9th and 10th century. Not a single evidence for a Buddhist centre before that! If Buddhism was so pervasive, there should have been at least one documented and patronized site.
The philosophical side of Buddhism was severely destroyed beyond repair by the time of Śaṅkara.
The economical upper hand, which kept Buddhism in Kerala surviving among business class, was demolished by the emperors who chose to support Nazranis and Arabs from the eighth century onwards as traders and businessmen rather than Buddhists. By the eleventh century, Buddhism practically disappeared from Kerala. It might be that the existent (and possibly immigrant) few Buddhist businessmen went back to their homeland Sri Lanka.
It is worthy to note that even by 1995, some historical theses in Kerala had already started to rule out the political myth of early dominance of Buddhism and Jainism in Kerala as all the evidence we had was contrary to it. Though they thought that Brahmin settlements might have developed in eighth century before Buddhists and Jains became prominent in ninth and tenth century. Anyway, as you might read, the theses assert that Buddhists managed to flourish in trade centers near harbors by imitating the Brahmanic culture already present and patronized in Kerala much like what Nazranis did. (this is all from the presumption that Kāntaḷḷūr Cālai of the ninth and tenth century was a Buddhist learning centre, which is again unwarranted) You should remember, this much of intellectual transparency is coming from Kerala, notorious for its openly leftist “historians” who are least cared about in mainstream Indian or international scholarship.
The wide references to Brahmins in Sangham literature seal the discussion by ruling out myths that Brahmins were later migrants'
'Buddha would speak more openly of Kshatriyas to be superior to Brahmins , Buddhas protest against rituals and its superiority provided to brahmins
It is not a secret that Buddhism was mouthpiece of Kshatriyan supremacy which wanted to enter not just its stronghold of ruling, but also economy and religion.
In the Ambattha sutta, a young kid doesn’t apparently “venerate Buddha” to the extent what Buddha wanted. On asking, Ambattha is shown to reply that Brahmins usually show such kind of respects only to another Brahmin, but not to lowly people, “dark fellows” (that is a Buddhan fantasy) and so on. To which Buddha replies Ambattha is ill bred. A triggered kid, says that Shakyas are the menial ones who don’t even honour any Brahmin or pay respect to them. Buddha becomes more triggered, as Shakya is his own clan.
A triggered Buddha says :
And what family do you then, Ambattha, belong to?'
'I am a Kanhâyana.'
'Yes, but if one were to follow up your ancient name and lineage, Ambattha, on the father's and the mother's side, it would appear that the Sâkyas were once your masters, and that you are the offspring of one of their slave girls. But the Sâkyas trace their line back to Okkâka the king ….
…
Now Okkâka had a slave girl called Disâ. She gave birth to a black baby. And no sooner was it born than the little black thing said, "Wash me, mother. Bathe me, mother. Set me free, mother, of this dirt. So shall I be of use to you."
'Now just as now, Ambattha, people call devils "devils," so then they (Śākyas) called devils "black fellows" (kanhe). And they said: "This fellow spoke as soon as he was born. 'Tis a black thing (kanha) that is born, a devil has been born!" And that is the origin, Ambattha, of the Kanhayanas. He was the ancestor of the Kanhâyanas. And thus is it, Ambattha, that if one were to follow up your ancient name and lineage, on the father's and on the mother's side, it would appear that the Sâkyas were once your masters, and that you are the offspring of one of their slave girls.'
That was a bold attack by Buddha on this young person. And he was asked to counter this legend. Which he couldn’t. A tactical Buddha asked three times Ambattha the same question, wanting the latter to accept his legend. But a shocked and embarrassed Ambattha couldn’t speak anything. As a last moment, Buddha terrorizes the kid, by saying that his head will break into three pieces if he can’t answer Buddha’s question when asked three times. This makes Ambattha accept Buddha’s premise. The Brahmins in the stage were shocked to see this. They said that samaṇa gotama is not a man to be trusted anymore. (probably because he uses this tactics to make legends and make his opponents accept it) While Brahmins are thinking “what the hell is Gotama speaking”, Buddha becomes aware of losing of his own status among Brahmins, and a possible failure for his conversion works. He soon thinks “Brahmins might be disparaging Ambattha for his bad descent” and goes on to say that Kanha became a seer, versed in mantras.
And finally makes the conclusion :
Then the Blessed One said to Ambattha: 'What think you, Ambattha? Suppose a young Kshatriya should have connection with a Brahman maiden, and from their intercourse a son should be born. Now would the son thus come to the Brahman maiden through the Kshatriya youth receive a seat and water (as tokens of respect) from the Brahmans?'
'Yes, he would, Gotama.'
'But would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the feast offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk{2}, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'
'Yes, they would, Gotama.'
'But would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?'
'They would, Gotama.'
'But would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'
'He would not be shut off.'
'But would the Kshatriyas allow him to receive the consecration ceremony of a Kshatriya?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'Why not that?'
'Because he is not of pure descent on the mother's side.'
25. 'Then what think you, Ambattha? Suppose a Brahman youth should have connection with a Kshatriya maiden, and from their intercourse a son should be born. Now would the son thus come to the Kshatriya maiden through the Brahman youth receive a seat and water (as tokens of respect) from the Brahmans?'
'Yes, he would, Gotama.'
'But would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the feast offered to the dead, or of food boiled in milk, or of an offering to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'
'Yes, they would, Gotama.'
'But would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?'
'They would, Gotama.'
But would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'
'He would not, Gotama.'
'But would the Kshatriyas allow him to receive the consecration ceremony of a Kshatriya?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'Why not that?'
'Because he is not of pure descent on the father's side.'
Then, Ambattha, whether one compares women with women, or men with men, the Kshatriyas are higher and the Brahmans inferior.
'And what think you, Ambattha? Suppose the Brahmans, for some offence{1} or other, were to outlaw a Brahman by shaving him and pouring ashes over his head{2}, were to banish him from the land or from the township. Would he be offered a seat or water among the Brahmans?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'Or would the Brahmans allow him to partake of the food offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'Or would the Brahmans teach him their verses or not?'
'Certainly not, Gotama.'
'And would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'
'He would be shut off.'
'But what think you, Ambattha? If the Kshatriyas had in the same way outlawed a Kshatriya, and banished him from the land or the township, would he, among the Brahmans, be offered water and a seat?'
'Yes, he would, Gotama.'
'And would he be allowed to partake of the food offered to the dead, or of the food boiled in milk, or of the offerings to the gods, or of food sent as a present?'
'He would, Gotama.'
'And would the Brahmans teach him their verses?'
'They would, Gotama?'
'And would he be shut off, or not, from their women?'
'He would not, Gotama.'
'But thereby, Ambattha, the Kshatriya would have fallen into the deepest degradation, shaven as to his head, cut dead with the ash-basket, banished from land and township. So that, even when a Kshatriya has fallen into the deepest degradation. still it holds good that the Kshatriyas are higher, and the Brahmans inferior.'
'This is the summary of what Buddha really thought. But could he go on with this to preach among Brahmins who were “lenient in terms of lineage”
Suddenly Buddha switches to a diplomatic verse, brainwashing Ambattha, saying yes to a quote from Sanaṃ kumāra (Skt sanatkumāra) that :
"The Kshatriya is the best of those among this folk
who put their trust in lineage.
But he who is perfect in wisdom and righteousness,
he is the best among gods and men."'
And then adds that righteousness is what matters, not birth. (departing from even this verse, but again, only against Brahmins whom he claims) And then he shows Ambattha the thirty two “signs” of good man, not through wisdom or anything, but in his body. Even his private parts. And Gotama also showers his own arguments that modern Brahmins are all bad, to which the kid is not even able to speak anything but “no not that”.
In the end, Ambattha narrates his experience to his teacher, to which the Brahmin teacher actually “blames Ambattha” for being ignorant of Vedas and conduct so as to argue with the venerable Gotama. And he rushes to Gotama, notices the signs on his body of great man, and praises him, and concludes with the lines (probably employed so as to make conversion of Brahmins easier) :
And then the Brahman Pokkharasâdi, as one who had seen the Truth, had mastered it, understood it, dived deep down into it, who had passed beyond doubt and put away perplexity and gained full confidence, who had become dependent on no other man for his knowledge of the teaching of the Master, addressed the Blessed One, and said:
'Most excellent, oh Gotama (are the words of thy mouth), most excellent! Just as if a man were to set up that which has been thrown down, or were to reveal that which has been hidden away, or were to point out the right road to him who has gone astray, or were to bring a light into the darkness so that those who had eyes could see external forms,--just even so, Lord, has the truth been made known to me, in many a figure, by the venerable Gotama. And I, oh Gotama, with my sons, and my wife, and my people, and my companions, betake myself to the venerable Gotama as my guide, to the truth, and to the Order. May the venerable Gotama accept me as a disciple, as one who from this day forth, as long as life endures, has taken him as his guide. And just as the venerable Gotama visits the families of others, his disciples, at Ukkattha, so let him visit mine. Whosoever there may be there, of Brahmans or their wives, who shall pay reverence to the venerable Gotama, or stand up in his presence, or offer him a seat or water, or take delight in him, to him that will be, for long, a cause of weal and bliss.'
Again, in Vaseṭṭha sutta, Buddha would paradoxically echo what Manu would repeat later : not by birth is Brahmin born, he is born by karma. (na jāccā brāhmaṇo hotṭ..) This time, Buddha says that whoever does the right profession, becomes a Brahmin, not by birth but by action. This is actually supporting the varṇa system. (Though never ever does Buddha tell that Brahmin can be anyone who possesses these karmas, but implicitly hints those who do this karma apparently after being one by their birth) Which is also what the Manu would tell, in Brahmanic language :
“Śūdras are born by birth, but dvijas are from culture (saṃskāra)”
In short, Buddha didn’t ever question the actual varṇa system or even the jāti system of masses. (rather, might have fueled a more racial interpretation of the same in many regions) Rather, he was quite supportive of racial purity, apprehensive of inter caste marriages, and also varṇa system. But he didn’t want to upset the masses about their caste status after conversion to monks, so he wanted his monkhood to be less dependent on castes.
The impact of this attitude of creating alpha male Aryan monks, all united beyond castes, to see themselves as superior to others, only caused worse caste classifications in the places where Buddhists ended - whether in South India (just check how many classes are already mentioned in Sangham works) or Sri Lanka, or Tibet, Burma, or even the untouchables of Japan It is funny to see that Brahmanic laws ask people to bath if they touch a Brahmin! But Buddhist monks who saw themselves to be noble Aryans, classified whole society into various groups, and enforced endogamy as a virtue. People usually attribute endogamy to Gupta age (c. 400 CE) but we should see that this is actually a Buddhist creation rather than Brahmanical. (even contemporary Mahābhārata has several cases of exogamy) For the worse, untouchability among all communities might also have been a product of Buddhism impacting the moral standards of Aryans in an early age.'
മലയാളം പറ എല്ലാർക്കും മനസ്സിലാക്കട്ട
@@ther1867 brahmin propaganda
തികച്ചും ഭൗതമെന്ന് പറയുന്നത് തന്നെ തെറ്റ് ബുദ്ധാശയങ്ങൾക്ക് വിപരീതമായ കാര്യങ്ങൾ എങ്ങനെ ഭൗതമാകും ബുദ്ധന്റെ ആശയങ്ങളാണ് ബുദ്ധമതം അതിനു വിപരീതമായി ബുദ്ധൻ എതിർത്ത എന്തോ അതിനെ സ്വീകരിച്ചാൽ അതെങ്ങനെ ബുദ്ധമതം ആകും
വജ്രയാന ബുദ്ധൻ
🙏🙏🙏