Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:26, 22 September 2006

NPOV

Hkelkar please come forward to discuss your points. Please be specific to the points. Don't keep NPOV without mentioning your points in discussion. Don't give warnings to each and everybody because you are not the owner of wikipedia. So lets have a discussion on all points. I also wants Buddhist world to participate in thid discussions so proper and true picture of present Indian Buddhist Movement will come to know. In all articles please have a healthy attitude for discussions. Dhammafriend 10:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Claims that I am anti-Buddhist and source for Navayāna

The only textual edits I've made to this page are, redirects from Navayana and Navayāna, inclusions of a reference section, and the definition of navayāna.

Contrary to what Dhammafriend says, I am an American of Indian descent and a Theravāda Buddhist of former Brahmin caste.

Buddhist do not have caste neither they believe any former caste like Brahmin,Bhangi ,Scheduled Caste, OBC caste etc. So don't claim false things. I have Buddhist friends in America who can certainly verify your identity. So if want to discuss you can also meet our Buddhist friends in America so don't try to fool wikipedia community. Who gave you ordination as Buddhist? Do you know the process to become a Buddhist? Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited Navayāna into the article because in Buddhism in India : Challenging Brahmanism and Caste by Gail Omvedt (This book is incredibly anti-Caste and is pro-Buddhist) I have read Neo-Buddhism being referred to as Navayana, which is is obviously a non-IAST transliteration of navayāna.

Legal system in India have Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christens as Religion. So you can not say is 'referred' ? Its strange. When our cencus is done people are referred as their religion Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim etc. So Navayana is baseless term in every legal sense Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ambedkar's Buddhism seemingly differs from that of those who accepted by faith, who 'go for refuge' and accept the canon. This This much is clear from its basis: it does not accept in totality the scriptures of the Theravada, the the Mahayana, or the Vajrayana. The question that is then clearly put forth: is a fourth yana, a Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma really possible within the framework of Buddhism?" (8)

The book blatantly says that Ambedkar DESIGNED what has become known as navayāna. He did not found the Navayana publishing house. I edited in that there is a Navayana publishing house into the article so people would not confuse, navayāna, yāna, and Navayana, the publishing house.

It is true that there is a publishing house known as Navyana so what? It is not a Buddhist publishing house. It is a book publisher not a religion publisher. So you can't put their name in the Indian Buddhist Movement article because its a religious movement. Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend is wrong in his claims that Buddhism died in India, Buddhism was slayed, not killed. Buddhism still exists in Ladakh, Darjeeling, (and Chittagong in Bangladesh). Dr. Ambedkar recreated a Buddhist population that disappeared from most of India. His religious beliefs differ in certain ways from the ancient school of Theravāda and younger schools of Vajrayāna, Tantrayāna, and Mahāyāna, so hence what he revived was neo-Buddhism, somewhat like how organizations like Hellenion have revived the Greek religion as a form of neo-paganism. Neo-Buddhism translate into Pāli would be navayāna, new vehicle.

Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India so you can not brand is Old OR Neo! Its Buddhism. People from Europe /USA are converting to their own found Buddhist practices. All are Buddhist so newly converted people are not branded as neo ! Please also visit www.e-b-u.org. In Indian Context Buddhist from Ladakh, Assam, Maharshtra, Karnataka etc. are a fighting unitedly for Buddhist Revival. Do you know All Indian Buddhist Monk Association ? Especially for Mahabodhi Temple Liberation Movement world Buddhist are united. Buddhist monk from Japan Bhante Surai Sasai is doing best in Central Region of India Nagpur to mobiliese masses Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also mentioned in Reconstructing the World: B. R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India by by Surendra Jondhale & Johannes Beltz. If you search through its index on Amazon you can specifically see that the word Navayāna is repeated multiple times

The Article is about Buddhist Movement in India current status and present developments. So it is not about Dr. Ambedkar for that we have separate article so you can post your views there. Not in this article. About Dr. Gail Omvedt you might have read her books only but our friends have arranged her Lecture in IIT Bombay www.iitb.ac.in and all know her personnaly. Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly Thursday, 2006-09-21 T 00:25 UTC

NPOV Buddhist Movement Crossing Hindu Caste Barriers

The article is about present Buddhist religious activities in India. There is no violation of POV. Many people who are branded as Hindus from different castes are converting to Buddhism on their own to escape from Hindu Caste System and Hindu Untouchability. Buddhists accepts everybody irrespective of his Hindu Castes. Anybody wants to check he can visit India especially on October 2006 in Nagpur where thousands of people convert each year. Many news are available to check its truth. Brithish Buddhist, Japanese Buddhists and ShriLankan Buddhists are helping Indian Buddhist to carry out mass conversions. Dhammafriend 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Page title

Recently, User:Dhammafriend moved this page from Neo-Buddhism to Indian Buddhist Movement with the explanation, "Movement started by Dr. Ambedkar is known as Modern Buddhist Movement. Dr. Ambedkar rejected many theories of even traditional Buddhists especially the reason of renunciations i.e. myth propagated by Buddhists of 4 sites seen by Prince.". I will agree that, when I wrote the initial version of this page, I wasn't sure if Neo-Buddhism was really the best title, but it has the advantage of being used occasionally outside of Misplaced Pages. Where does the expression "Indian Buddhist Movement" come from? It's all capitalised, as if it were a proper name; "Indian Buddhist movement" sounds like it could apply to any form of Buddhism in India.—Nat Krause 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also interested to see a source for the name Navayana, which is now listed as the Pali name for this movement.—Nat Krause 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no source for the name. It is used a default name used by some so as to distinguish from the ancient schools of buddhism.(mahayana, hinayana). the word has no scriptural support and is certainly not a Pali word. Hence i am deleting the part "or Navayāna Buddhism (Pāli नवयान navayāna, literally "new vehicle")" Indian Buddhist practice is general. It does not confirm to any particular school of thought. Though it can be argued that it bears more resemblance to the theravada school but this is my POV. there is not need to mention it. Dr B R Ambedkars 'Buddha and His Dhamma' is considered final authority on all doctrinal matters by Indian Buddhists --Yeditor 11:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The name Navayana can not be applicable to present Indian Buddhist Movement because it is a non secterian movement. If you see the All Indian Buddhist Monk Organization it represents all Buddhists in India. Especially from Aasam, Maharashtra and Karnataka. Some scholar's like Gail Omvedtt Or Christopher Queen has used the term 'Navyan i.e. new Vehical' just as a new term than Mahayan and Hinyan. Now all Buddhists are united for liberation of Mahabodhi Vihar, Bodhagaya from Brahmin and Shudras (so-called Hindu) control. All Hindus irrespective of their caste and Varna are anti-Buddhist. So they try to absorb Buddhism in their caste ridden Hindu fold. But '22 vows' given by Bodhisattva Dr. Ambedkar is the heart of present Buddhist movement. Dhammafriend 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

please add official view

i think that in this article, there shall be a place for the official view of india. i think it to be a indispensible point, in case a NPOV is to be maintained. u can put all views there, but if it lacks the official view, then it surely lacks something.

nids 11:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Nidhi in your Hindu Religion what is the status of women? Please see Women in India and Women In Hinduism. For hundreds of year education for women was banned, they are treated a Ati-Shudra i.e. lower caste than Shudra which is equivalent to Untouchables. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar through constitutional methods gave you protection. So better you worry about Caste Based Hinduism. The Indian Buddhist from Assam to Maharashtra and from Punjab to Tamil Nadu do understand the anti-Buddhist attitude of Hindus. Now-a-day thousands of people are converting to Buddhism. Visit Nagput this October 2nd 2006. You will find millions of people converting to Buddhism. Dhammafriend 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let's say something, but let's not give it undue weight. How much nuance is there in the official position on Buddhism? If I recall correctly, the Indian Constitution defines Hinduism as including Buddhism and Jainism. However, it also seems that Buddhists are measured separately from Hindus in the census.—Nat Krause 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

no. u can check 2001 census. buddhists were include in hindus in 2001 census, along with Jains. nids 13:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

All non-Brahmin Hindus are Shudra because this is Kali Yuga as per Hindu religion. The Shudra Hindus are hypocrite. Same case here with Nidhi and other anti-Buddhist HINDUS i.e. Shudra people. Please read the cencus report very well. There are religious cencus. 1. Hindus, 2. Muslims, 3. Christens, 4. Sikhs, 5. Buddhists and 6. Jains. National minority commission has BUDDHIST representative aslo. Bhante Surai Sasai a Japanese Born Indian Buddhist is the leader of Indian Buddhist movemernt. Especially he is fighting for Total Buddhist Control on Mahabodhi Vihar. This sacred site of Buddhists in under control of Shudra Hindus like Mr. Yadav Or Shudra Hindu Mr. Modi. Please check it before commenting. Dhammafriend 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article currently says, "According to the 2001 census, there are currently 7.95 million Buddhists in India i.e.0.8 % of total population of India, at least 5.83 million of whom are Buddhists in Maharashtra."—Nat Krause 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

yes they are counted differently as a sect. so are jains and many other sectarians. but the total hindu population of 900 millions, as told by CIA world facts, include all these sects. Hinduism is not a well defined religioin. it encourages different schools of thoughts and one of them was infact athiestic.

and as a matter of fact buddists who have, so called, converted from hinduism, get all the benefits of scheduled castes, reserved exclusively for lower caste hindus. while those converting to christianity or Islam dont get those benefits, thus emphasising the fact of different religious identities.

nids 08:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindus who are converted to Buddhism could not get any benifits till 1990. But Prime Minister V.P. Singh and gave reservation for Buddhists also for political gains and to get vots of Buddhists. There is nothing wrong. If Hindus are taking reservation then what is wrong if Buddhists take it? First stop the reservation of Hindus then we will stop reservation of Buddhists. The Indian Buddhists don't need it. You can go in court against it. India is a democricy and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar has given equal right to everybody while framing the Constitution. Even Hindu Ati-Shudra women like Nidhi has equal rights because Buddhism preaches Eqality.Dhammafriend 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Low-caste people who convert to Buddhism receive the benefits reserved for low-caste people. That seems normal. If a black man in the U.S. converts to Islam, he is still eligible for affirmative action (to the extent that it is in effect in the first place). What seems unusual to me is that a low-caste Indian who converts to Christianity or Islam loses benefits. I have no idea why these benefits should have anything to do with religion.—Nat Krause 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

see this is just to emphasise that there have been atrocities in the past to lower caste hindus. in case of america, they were based on racial discrimination and not on religious. so they must apply to black man, as he is not losing his race, just changing his religion. in case of india, they were based on the caste system of religion. moreover, christianity and islam do not allow caste differences among its pupils. so is buddhism. but in india, since buddhism, (including neo-budhhism) is officially included in Hinduism, (also see Hinduism), so the caste based benefits applies to them. I would love to have ur argument on this topic. but since wikipedia is based on NPOV and basically on facts, i would like u to add the official view on this article, and then we can continue our arguments. waitin for ur action nids 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

i shall wait for few more days. either u add about the official view, or i will be adding. if u have any arguments please put them forward. else i shall take it as a green signal from u. nids 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, I'm aware of evidence that the Indian constitution, at least in some places, defines Hinduism as including Buddhism. I have yet to see any evidence indicating that this the official position in any other sense, and so I object to including that in the article. As for the constitution, we might as well mention it, but it doesn't seem like a very important fact, especially since Neo-Buddhism didn't even exist when the constitution was written.—Nat Krause 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

as for the fact, neo- buddhism was envisioned by ambedkar in 1935 only when he denounced hinduism. as for the matter of officialism, everybody knows that reservations to scheduled castes extend to budhhists and it is also well known that they use it. if there is any record, that u find, wherein neo-buddhist refuse to utilize the benefits reserved to lower caste hinduls only, saying that neo-buddhism is a different religion and it does not allows division on the basis of castes, it is not important.

but since neither u wont find such records nor do they exist, it is important to mention this fact. nids 17:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

i would also request u to read hinduism article once. so that u first understand hinduism. it is not a monomorphic monotheistic religion. it is a evolving process. u can claim that u are an athiest and still an Hindu. it does not denounce worship or followin of great men (like Islam calls worship of sufi saints to be apostasy and so the punishment for them in Islam is just death). if i extend ur view that neo-buddhism is a different religion, than what will u say for Arya Samaj.nids 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that reservation is applied to Buddhists and is used by Buddhists. What I want is a source for your interpretation that this shows that Buddhists are officially Hindu.

I read the article on Hinduism per your suggestion. I am aware that the categorisation which makes "Hinduism" one thing and Buddhism something else is arbitrary. However, that doesn't change the fact that this is the way these words are normally used, so to "Buddhism is part of Hinduism" is wrong unless it's qualified. This is especially relevant to this article, because Ambedkar and his followers and successors were so explicit that their goal in embracing Buddhism was to reject Hinduism.—Nat Krause 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

i m not asking to write that buddhism is a part of hinduism. even i can say that i worship shiva and i m not a hindu. its a different matter altogether.

what i want in this article is that reservations for Scheduled castes apply to Buddhists who have converted from lower class hindus. and they do not apply when they convert to an abrahmic religion. so just mention this in the article that officially u dont loose hinduism tag from u even if u convert to buddhism. u are basically denouncing some of the practices of hinduism.(say idol worship, or even vishnu and shiva worship). as u must have read that u can be a athiest and still be a hindu. u have the option of not using reservations for u when they apply to u. if this is the case with neo buddhists, it should not be mentioned that they are officially hindu. since it applies and it is used(reservations), it must be mentioned here. nids 09:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If 'Nidhishsinghal' are so much worried about reservation then change your Hindu caste become a Hindu Chamar OR Hindu-Bhangi and take the benifits of reservation. The Buddhists are not asking to convert you. Instead of changing religion change you caste be a Hindu and take tell the world that you become a Hindu Bhangi. Neither the Christen world nor the Buddhists world cares about your chnage of caste. Buddhists don't need any reservation. Only Hindus fight for it because they are divided into caste and subcastes. Dhammafriend 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We can certainly mention that low-caste people who convert to Buddhism retain their reservations, while they would lose them if they converted to Christianity of Islam. I still don't think this makes them officially Hindu, though.—Nat Krause 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

first mention this (ur first part) in the article. and for the second part, i m not saying that they officially become hindu. what i m sayin is that legally they can claim that they are Hindu. i m not saying that they have to call themselves hindu. of course u can have ur own identity, but if some of them want to say that they are buddhist and hindu too, then legally and officially they are right. while this priviledge does not extend to other monomorphic monotheistic religions. u cant claim that u are a muslim and a hindu at the same time, nor u can claim that u r christian and a muslim at the same time. u can only be one of them. got my point

also how can u say that they arent officially hindu, when the reservations apply to them, which are exclusively reserved for lower caste hindus. they ofcourse have the option of not using them, in which case they arent hindus, (officially). but as everyone knows that, almost all of them use the reservations.

moreover, government of india census, (can check 2001 census details), includes them in Hindus, as a subsect. there are many subsects wherein some separatists claim themselves to be different from hindus.(u would like to check Jainism), but majority identify themselves as hindus. as a matter of fact, on some restaurants in europe etc. u can find on menu Hindu Jain food. while some Jain can claim themselves to be separate from Hindus. nids 18:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

and as for Ambedkar part. read his article too(once). he denounced hinduism well into 1935 and even espoused the idea of separate Pakistan. he, infact, merged his political party, (independent labour party) with Muslim league and wrote editorials and all in favour of Pakistan in several papers and magazines. it was, when, he was disparaged by them, he decided not to go to pakistan and embrace islam. his aim was just to disparage hinduism, and nothing else. nids 18:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids what you wrote above is false propoganda and personal attacks on Babasaheb. The hindu sangh/parivar desperately tries to include both sikhs and buddhists and call them as hindus. This has political reasons. What is important is not any the official view but what the Buddhists and Sikhs consider themselves. The fact is that both these communities would prefer death than being called as parts of hinduism. Thus I ( a buddhist myself) will not allow any such wrong view.

The reason why, formerly scheduled caste, converts to Buddhism or Sikhism get reservation is because they relentlessly struggled for this right. There is no mention of 'Hindu' on their caste certificates. There is no such struggle inside the muslim community.The Andhra Pradesh goverment proposed reservations for muslims. But it was struck down by the courts and still there was no reaction by the Muslims. Lately Some voices are being raised in the christian community (John Dayal) for reservations but these have been viewed as a conversion tactic and hence dismissed. You cannot get anything free in India. You need to struggle for it. Your views are the same as those expressed on a POV fork (Neo Buddhism)It has been recommended for deletion and redirect to this page.--Yeditor 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

for the ambedkar part, please refer to his article on wikipedia. if u r saying that this article is a POV, plz clarify. it is in this article that it is written that he merged his political party with Muslim league. he espoused the idea of separate pakistan, and he even asked his followers to join the british army during 1942, when Quit India movement was at prime and Congress asked all its supporters to withdraw from the anglican services. he was to go to settle in pakistan, but when he was insulted by them, he decided to settle in india only. i accept that he suffered atrocities as a child and his growing up years, but if u are goin to justify all his acts on that basis than u r justifying palestinian terrorists too, for whatever they do.

and as for the official part, what will u say for Jains. and Arya Samaj. And Aghori Sadhus. all of these inculding neo-Buddhist have been included in the Hindus in the official Census of India 2001. i just want to mention these parts and also that they are eligible for reservations. moreover, even i know many buddhist who are happy to call themselves Hindus, who are u to take that right away from them. there may be some separatists, but nobody is forcing them to be called hindu. its just about their will and their right. while this right does not extend to say a muslim, or a christian that he can claim himself to be hindu at the same time.

i m a hindu, and i like many of buddhs ideas. those ideas have, infact, influenced our Vedanta philosophy.

please tell ur objections. nids 15:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. The misinformation on Dr. Ambedkar was an obvious attempt to villfy Dr Ambedkar by associating him with seperatists. It had no truth. Dr. Ambedkars thoughts ( Highly critical of Jihnna and Muslim league) can be found in his book Pakistan or the Partition of India. I have deleted that part. It was the Hindu Mahasabha Ideologue V. D Savarkar who exhorted indians to join the army and help the british. MK Gandhi also lent support to this move. not Babasaheb. I know all buddhists and sikhs are more than happy to dissassociate themselves from Hindus. The jains also dislike being called hindus. I am not taking away anyones right. On the contrary you seem extremely keen to deny distinct identity to Buddhist and Sikhs for your political reasons. Census matters are for the sake of mere convinience of counting. Census does not and cannot make any statement that Buddhism or Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. Thus there is no official view. --Yeditor 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids .. Please follow the link to read today’s Headline in India’s, national daily “The Hindu”. The Demand for Reservations for Christians and Muslims is becoming stronger and some state Governments ( Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu) are proposing them though the central government has not yet accepted the demand countrywide. Your argument of including Buddhists as Hindus on the basis of reservations thus falls flat--Yeditor 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids .. You are not being truthful when you say that Buddhists like to be called as Hindus. I would like to draw your attention to the 22 vows that more than 500,000 Buddhists took when the converted to Buddhism in 1956 in a grand ceremony at Nagpur. They are in this article. You should have at least read the full article before hitting the discussion page with your agenda. They show how vehemently the Buddhists have rejected Hinduism. For your information please read some of them below

1) I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them. 2) I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I worship them. 3) I shall have no faith in ‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them. 4) I do not believe in the incarnation of God. 5) I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda. 6) I shall not perform ‘Shraddha’ nor shall I give ‘pind-dan’. 8) I shall not allow any ceremonies to be performed by Brahmins. 19) I renounce Hinduism, which is harmful for humanity and impedes the advancement and development of humanity because it is based on inequality, and adopt Buddhism as my religion.--Yeditor 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

first of all, i hate hindu mahasabha and i know that even they lent support to british army for the second world war. i even dont like mahatma gandhi for many of his views, but it is wrong to accuse him that he supported the partition of indians in the war. whatever few literary texts i could read, i do not find any clear evidence of him supporting the war. he infact intesified the quit india movement in 1942. i dont see any reason why you cannot accept that ambedkar asked his followers to support the british army.

it is fact that he merged his independent labour party with the muslim league and espoused the idea of separate pakistan. the book that you are talking about, was written after he decided to settle in India. I think it would not be hard for you to accept that he had to write such book wherein he would ridicule pakistan, since he decided not to settle in pakistan. it wont be easy for him if he continued his same views.

as for the muslim and christian reservations, are you saying that they are demanding reservations on the basis of caste, or are they asking for reservations on the basis of religion. please tell me if they are asking reservations on the basis of caste. in that case it would make my reservation point useless and even ridiculous, (although i always thought that muslims and christians do not allow for caste differences, and support equality).

moreover, are you saying that these buddhists are different sect from traditional ones and anyone who accepts hinduism too, cannot be a part of neo-buddhist identity. i will then not try to harm there distinct identity, and accept that they are totally different from hinduism. but please point out that if you are saying these neo-buddhists are totally different from other buddhists.

also, can i ask you a personal question. since hinduism is not a well defined religion,(even an athiest can be a hindu), those buddhists who identify themselves as hindus too, can they be called hindu buddhas and included officially in hinduism. waiting for your reply. nids 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Now Buddhists and Hindus are totally separate religions. Please read 22 vows properly this proves the anti-Hindu stand of present Buddhist generations. Non-Brahmin Hindus especially Shudra Hindus don't accept any theory becasue Hipocricy is their heart. Dhammafriend 14:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It continues to amaze me how these "self-styled Buddhists" tout ideals of Dhamma, Ahimsa and Shanti (faith, nonviolence and peace) and then go right around and express the most bilious (and, quite frankly, mentally diseased) hate and bile against millions of Hindus who are perfectly happy with their faith and who make no attacks on Buddhism, and, point of fact, REVERE the Buddha as a saint. In Bihar, there are millions of HINDUS who visit the tree of enlightenement to pray to it, and these "Buddhists" attack them. These people pervert the teachings of Buddha and exploit the political situation in India to fester bigotry and hate against Hindus in order to further their ambition.

I'm sorry if this sounds polemical,but these people frighten me more than the Islamic terrorists who bombed trains and murder women and children. It's like those so-called "Buddhists" who applauded Zia-ul-Haq when he ordered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus in Bangladesh and then went right around "Ahimsa" and publicly declared that Hindus do not deserve the same rights as others because they are "animals who deserve to get slaughtered". I appeal to these chauvinists to keep their views to themselves and not SOIL wikipedia with hate-speech and nonsense. This article has the most WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations that I have seen on wikipedia so far and statements that, if made in countries in Europe (with stringent hate-speech laws) would land them in prison like David Irving.I am NOT a Hindu and have no partisan bias when I say this, but there is no ideological difference between the touters of anti-Hindu hate and Joseph Goebbels, who demanded that millions of my people be shoved into ovens and murdered.Hkelkar 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nids and I

One By one: regarding Gandhi. Most people Indians as well as westerners know Gandhi as the hero of the movie “Gandhi”. If I ask your to refer Dr. Ambedkar’s “Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of Untouchables” or “Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah” , U will reject it as baised, so I am referring you this book“The Gandhi no body knows” by Richard Grenier. Originally written as a critique of the movie “Gandhi”, now this is regarded as Gandhi’s biography. You will be surprised what a loyal soldier of ‘Her Majesty’ Gandhi was.. If you read through the book you will find ample evidence of Gandhi’s unflinching support of every war effort of the British stating from his career in South Africa, Below is an extract

“To present the Gandhi of 1893, a conventional caste Hindu, fresh from caste-ridden India where a Paraiyan could pollute at 64 feet, as the champion of interracial equalitarianism is one of the most brazen hypocrisies I have ever encountered in a serious movie.

The film, moreover, does not give the slightest hint as to Gandhi's attitude toward blacks, and the viewers of 'Gandhi' would naturally suppose that, since the future Great Soul opposed South African discrimination against Indians, he would also oppose South African discrimination against black people. But this is not so. While Gandhi, in South Africa, fought furiously to have Indians recognized as loyal subjects of the British empire, and to have them enjoy the full rights of Englishmen, he had no concern for blacks whatever. In fact, during one of the "Kaffir Wars" he volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down a Zulu rising, and was decorated himself for valor under fire.

For, yes, Gandhi (Sergeant Major Gandhi) was awarded Victoria's coveted War Medal. Throughout most of his life Gandhi had the most inordinate admiration for British soldiers, their sense of duty, their discipline and stoicism in defeat (a trait he emulated himself). He marveled that they retreated with heads high, like victors. There was even a time in his life when Gandhi, hardly to be distinguished >from Kipling's Gunga Din, wanted nothing much as to be a Soldier of the Queen. Since this is not in keeping with the "spirit" of Gandhi, as decided by Pandit Nehru and Indira Gandhi, it is naturally omitted from he movie."--Yeditor 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Gandhi nobody knows" is an extremely racist rant cooked up by Grenier. It is full of factual errors ("Khilafat" is a mispronounciation of "Caliphate"?? Come on) and tantamounted to a hate-filled attack against all Indians (Westerners simply put all Indians as "Hindus", whether they are Hindu,Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Jewish). I seriously doubt that Grenier would even perceive a difference between Hindus and Buddhists. He'd just lump them all into "subhuman brown people", for all his hate and bile. He even went as far as saying that Islam was a "Western Religion" (odd, since today Neoconservatives argue the exact opposite and advocate bombing Muslim countries back to the stone age). The article has been thoroughly refuted by the publication below:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451bdbfbefb61?

Titled :

"Why Gandhi drives the Neoconservatives Crazy".

Read it and be enlightened. In fact, the rebuttal is from the same neoconservative magazine from where Grenier published. Grenier was a neoconservative fanatic and would hate Buddhists EVEN more than he hated Hindus (since classical Buddhism preached nonviolence, and neoconservatives are extremely violent people and wish for war everywhere). Hkelkar 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

first of all, many of my questions have remained unanswered. please read my above post and answer them.

i know that Gandhi was a chamcha of britishers,(just like Nehru) and i can cite further examples which even you do not know. i know he was awarded the victorian cross for being loyal to british. and as i already told you that i hate gandhi for many of his views. what i did not know was that he supported the discrimination to the black majority of south africa. i will read this part for myself. and from authentic sources.

but are you denying that he intensified the quit india movement of 1942. are you also denying that he, at least in last years of his life, worked for the upliftment of untouchables and even given them the name harijans.

and why are you not accepting the truth about ambedkar merging his independent labour party with muslim league. there are editorials that refer to his support for separate pakistan and even separate dalitistan. this is even referred now a days, when the lower caste political leaders support caste based reservations on the basis of his comments of receding the demand of separate dalitistan in return for 15% quota. nids 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the relevance of Ambedkar merging his party with the Muslim League? What do we learn from this?—Nat Krause 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Ambedkar never merged his party with Muslim Leaue. To understand his views about Muslims please read . In this book Dr. Ambedkar clearly mentions that Muslim State is danger and Hindu State is very dangerous. Because both the religions are based on blind beliefs. The Buddhist movement in India is becoming stronger to anti-Buddhist Shudra Hindus are writing false things. The Non-Brahmin Hindus are Shudra Hindus. These Shudra Hindus are the enemies of Buddhism. Dhammafriend 14:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

actually there is no relevance of this in the particular article. it was brought up for it was said that the views i want to represent here are similar to gandhi and hindu mahasabha, so i explained the truth about ambedkar too.nids 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reservations for christians and muslims

I can tell you for a fact that the demand for reservations by these communities has been under that argument that even after they have changed their religion, their caste tag refuses to go and they still suffer discrimination at the hand of Hindus in public services (education, Jobs etc) because of their historical hindu caste . ( as all christians and muslims of were lower castes). I will search adequate references of John Dayal (head of Catholic association) who is championing the cause of reservations for christians and post it here for you. --Yeditor 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

you are wrong if you say, that only the lower castes converted to islam and christianity. i know many rajputs and other upper classes (including brahmins) who converted to islam and christianity. if they are denied reservations and only the lower caste converts to islam and christianity get the reservations, only in that case does it make my above point on reservation ridiculous and useless.

are you also saying that upper class hindus discriminated with lower class muslims and christians and supported the upper class converts.

as of now, no upper class buddhist convert gets reservation benefits. u only get reservation benefits if you were a scheduled caste before conversion.

nids 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nidhi, I think you are pretty much worried about reservation so I request you that don't change your religion. Change your caste. Become a proud Hindu Chamar Or proud Hindu Bhangi and take the benifits of reservation also tell the same thing to all your Hindu i.e. Shudra friends the simplest way to be a Hindu and also to get benifits of reservation. Dhammafriend 14:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am talking in percentages.. When i say all, I mean most. lets not split hair. I dont have so much time to engage in a debate on everything under the sun. So please limit your discussion to the part you want to edit. Regarding buddhists, Before the mass conversion Buddhism was as good as dead in India. It was practiced in a very very insignificant number of people that to in very remote and inaccessible parts of the country like Ladhakh or few north eastern states. Thus it can be safely said that all the buddhists are so called Neo-Buddhists. there are hardly any "upper class" buddhists. a few arun shouries here and there do not count. Moreover the above demand for reservation is as made by John Dayal. I am only quoting him. --Yeditor 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i also want to stick to the point. it does not matter what arun shourie says, but are u dissallowing a upper class hindu to convert to buddhism. moreover you said that there are going to be reservations for muslims and christians. i just wanted to know that will they be based on caste discriminations or religious ones. if and only if they are based on caste differences, does than it make my point useless. nids 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can convert to Buddhism. But for Hindus 22 vows given by Bodhisattva Dr. Ambedkar are compulsory because they come from a caste ridden, degraded religious and very degraded spiritual background. Hindu Brahmin, Hindu Bhangi, Hindu Bania Or Hindu Chamar all are welcome in Buddhist fold. The Indian Buddhist are broad minded and always accept everybody. Today Buddhism in India is the fastest growing religion. Please read Riddles in Hinduism written by Bodhisattva Ambedkar to know the real truth of Hindu religion. Dhammafriend 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly and all anti-Buddhist people

User Thegreyanomaly the article "Indian Buddhist Movement" is about Religious movement which is growing in India slowly since last 50 years. If you are anti-Buddhist we certainly don't have any objection about your religion. You can be a Brahmin-Hindu if you are a priest by profession in any temple otherwise you are a Shudra-Hindu because all non-priest i.e. non-Brahmins are SHUDRA in Hindu Religion. In Kali Yuga Hindus have only two Varna as per the religious philosophy of Hindus. If you are from India then you might be knowing that Buddhism in India was totally killed. Some blame Brahmins Or some blame Muslims for that, it is a vast topic of study. I don't want to blame anybody. Hindu Castiesm, Hindu Untouchability and Caste based Graded Inequality became very strong after fall of Buddhism in Indian sub-continent and before British came to India. Education to all non-Brahmins was banned and the rigid Hindu Religious laws made by Brahmins like Manusmriti, VishnuSmriti and other DharmaShastras became the laws to govern the non-Muslim society.

British gave education for all and broke the anti-Human Hindu Laws. After Independence Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India. He also established "Buddhist Society of India" certainly NOT Navayana Society! So there is no meaning branding the movement as Navayana. Because the founder of India's Buddhist Revival Movement which is certainly against Hindu Casteism and injustice that Hindus are doing since hundreds of years called his movement as Buddhist Movement. Also Dr. Ambedkar said that 'He will convert whole India back to Buddhism' but he was killed just within 6 weeks after his conversion to Buddhism. Some people blamed Brahmins for his death. It is not sure how he died. I dont want to blame anybody. So you can discuss current Buddhist Developments in the article "Indian Buddhist Movement". About Hindu Caste and related things you better write to Hindu Articles Or Caste Related to Articles. If Navayana is a anto-caste publication then you should put that link in Caste Related article.

In India legal system we have Hindus, Muslims, Christens and BUDDHIST as different religion. Expecially our 2001 cencus gives more details about different religions population. We dont have any 'Navayana Buddhist' in whole India neither it is recognized legally anywhere. Officially we have around 1% Buddhists in India. This population unofficially can be 4% also because thousands of people are converting to Buddhism. But lets take official figures.

Caste is a problem of Hindus certainly not the problem of Buddhists. Be a contributor to wikipedia but don't just try to vandalise different articles. Dhammafriend 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

This article is, as it stands, complete hatemongering nonsense. It is full of unsourced rubbish and weasel words. I am warning all parties that if they persist in using wikipedia as a soapbox to express false views and tout hate-speech I will bring admins into this matter and file a full request for arbitration. Please cooperate to build an objective and useful article that presents the facts without POV.Hkelkar 07:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Above is false propoganda, This warning applies to you. Stop pushing Bhramin Pov. Yeditor 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This warning applies to you. Stop being incivil and making racial slurs against people or you will be reported.Hkelkar

Buddhist Movement is strongest religious movement in India so the anti-Buddhist people especially caste Hindu Brahmins and their fellow Shudra Varna Hindu brothers always oppose any unbiased truth telling articles. It is my open challenge to the world community to come to India and see how different people from various castes e.g. Dalits, Nomadic Tribes, Bhangi and even Brahmin are converting to Buddhism to end caste system. The charges by all non-priest by profession i.e. Shudra Hindus are absolute false. It is my request to Arbitation Committee to look in the all the articles by Caste Brahmin and Shudra Hindus. Those wants to check the present status please come to India I'll arrange meetings and will give you live proofs also. I am a Buddhist and working among India's poorest masses like Untouchables. Our religious friends from Japan,ShriLanka, Taiwan and England are actively involved in Buddhist Movement in India. Dhammafriend 17:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar please be specific to the points you want to change. Buddhism is the stongest religious movement in India. This year is the 2550th anniversary of Buddha and 50th anniversary of religious conversion day of Dr. Ambedkar. So please visit October 2006 toNagpur in India and see how thousands of people from several castes are converting to Buddhism with 22 vows. This shown the Dr. Ambedkar's castelesss movement is successful and Indians is once again converting to Buddhism also 22 vows make the anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindu stance very much clear. So don't feel bad about success of Buddhism in India. Don't be anti-Buddhist because world Buddhist are coming together. Buddhist from Japan, England, Taiwan, ShriLanka are propagating Buddhism in India. These people are helping to strengthened the Buddhist movement started by Dr. Ambedkar on 14th October 2006. This article discusses the present Buddhist religious activities in Indian Buddhism and its revival. So be a positive contributor if not then at least don’t show your anti-Buddhist sentiments. It is difficult for a Shudra Varna Hindu like you to understand the current Buddhist movement and how the Buddhist world is helping Indian Buddhist. Better understand your own Hindu Religion; especially Veda,Geeta, Varna and Hindu Caste system. preached by Hindu religious scripture. Also know that all those so-called Hindus who are not priests by current profession are Shudra by Varna i.e. VarnaShram Dhamra. So please understand all religions comparatively with all positive and negative aspects to create a religious harmony Dhammafriend 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar i believe is Jewish. It hardly matters to him. Instead of unsourced, illogical, and imaginative rants about "Brahminism", why not find some actual sources from real writers/ historians to back this up. Buddhism declined because they couldn't argue with Adi Shankara, he crushed them in his debates, and because peace is not the best way to fight the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to divert the attenstion by making false claims. Why are you branding Hkelkar as Jew? It is Hkelkar who will tell his identity. If he is Jew then why is branding Buddhist movement in India as anti-Hindu again and again? Dhammafriend 10:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)