Buddhism thrived outside Brahminical India

(Natasha Yehenara) Why Buddhism survived in Southeast Asia

(Natasha Yehenara) How Old Vedic Religion created the terrible by birth caste system

• Kshatriyas: warrior rulers
• Brahmins: temple priest elites
• Śhramaṇa: wandering ascetic movement
• Vaishya: traders, merchants, farmers
• Shudras: servants, slaves, laborers
• Untouchables: outcastes, pariahs
• Varna (Hinduism): caste system

Dalit B. R. Ambedkar, an Indian social reformer and politician who came from a social group that was considered "untouchable," theorized that untouchability originated because of the deliberate policy of the elitist Brahmins (brahmanas).

According to him, the Brahmins despised the people who gave up Brahmanism (the Brahminical religion) in favor of Buddhism or Jainism (shramana, "wandering ascetic" shamanic traditions).

Later scholars such as Vivekanand Jha have refuted this theory [10]. Professor of History Nripendra Kumar Dutt theorized that the concept of untouchability originated from the "pariah"-like treatment accorded to the indigenous people of India by the early Dravidians, and that the concept was borrowed by the Indo-Aryans from the Dravidians.

Scholars such as R. S. Sharma have rejected this theory, arguing that there is no evidence that Dravidians practiced untouchability before coming into contact with the Indo-Aryans [10]. Austrian ethnologist Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf theorized that untouchability originated as class stratification in urban areas of the Indus Valley Civilization. According to this theory, the poorer workers involved in "unclean" occupations such as sweeping or leather work were historically segregated and banished outside the city limits. Over time, personal cleanliness came to be identified with "purity," and the concept of untouchability eventually spread to rural areas as well. After the decline of the Indus Valley towns, these "untouchables" probably spread to other parts of India [11].

Scholars such as Suvira Jaiswal reject this theory, arguing that it lacks evidence and does not explain why the concept of untouchability is more pronounced in rural areas [12].

American scholar George L. Hart, based on his interpretation of Old Tamil texts such as Purananuru, traced the origin of untouchability to ancient Tamil society. According to him, in this society, certain occupational groups were thought to be involved in controlling the malevolent supernatural forces; as an example, Hart mentions the Paraiyars, who played the drums during battles and solemn events such as births and deaths. People from these occupational groups came to be avoided by others, who believed that they were "dangerous and had the power to pollute the others" [13].

Jaiswal dismisses the evidence produced by Hart as "extremely weak" and contradictory. Jaiswal points out that the authors of the ancient Tamil texts included several Brahmanas (a fact accepted by Hart); thus, the society described in these texts was already under Brahmanical influence and could have borrowed the concept of untouchability from Brahmins [14]. More

Who "Created" the Universe?

(Buddha's Wisdom) Who created the Universe? | Buddhism's answer according to Matt

Baka Brahma, luminous,

entertained these [wrong] views:

“I AM that God, the One who makes,

Father of the whole World.

I flourish from My own purity.”

But He had wrongly conceived of

views that wrapped around Him

as tight as serpents’ coils:

The supreme wandering ascetics

conquered Him by knowledge.

He was cured. Source

Why don't [some] Buddhists believe in God? | Buddha's Wisdom

I am that I am?

A god (brahmā) known as Baka once reflected privately that he and his heavenly plane of existence were everlasting. He thought that it was not possible that there could be a higher plane of rebirth and was therefore convinced he had overcome all rebirth and suffering.

The Buddha discerned his deep-seated wrong view and decided out of sympathy to pay Baka a visit in his heaven. When the Buddha appeared in that brahmā world, Baka Brahmā welcomed him formally but immediately announced:

“Now, good sir, this [place] is permanent, this is everlasting, this is eternal, this is total, this is not subject to pass away; for this neither is born nor ages nor dies nor passes away nor reappears, and beyond this there is no escape” (MN 49).

The Buddha, however, contradicted him, pointing out that every one of his claims was wrong. Just then Māra the Tempter [a kind of Lucifer figure] joined their conversation. Māra’s task is to prevent beings from being won over to the Dhamma, to keep them trapped in the cycle of rebirth and death, what Mara views as his personal domain [11].

Taking possession of one of the brahmā’s attendants, Māra urged the Buddha, with a display of sympathy, to accept this brahmā as God, the creator of all other beings.

He told the Buddha that wandering ascetics of the past who delighted in things of this life and “who lauded Brahmā” won happy rebirths afterwards, while those who disbelieved and rejected Brahmā had to endure terrible punishment [in hells].

The Awakened One (the Buddha) let Mara have his say and then called his bluff: “I know you, Evil One. Do not think, ’He does not know me.’ You are Māra, Evil One, and the Brahmā and his assembly and the members of the assembly have all fallen into your hands, they have all fallen under your power. You, Evil One, think, ’This one, too, has fallen into my hands. He, too, has fallen under my power.’ But I have not fallen into your hands, Evil One. I have not fallen under your power.”

“All beings subject to craving—humans, subhumans, devas (celestial deities), or brahmās (grand divinities)—are said to be under Māra’s power because they can all be moved by their mental defilements and must drift along in the current of rebirth and death.

But the Buddha and the other arahants (fully enlightened ones) have permanently and completely escaped Māra’s circle of influence, for they have eliminated all defilements. They have exhausted the fuel that leads to rebirth and thus have vanquished the Lord of Death (Mara).

Baka Brahmā begins to speak on his own behalf. He reminds the Buddha of his opening statement on permanence. He warns him that it is futile to seek “an escape beyond” his own brahma realm. Then he cajoles and threatens the Buddha in the same breath:

“If you will hold to earth… beings… gods… you will be close to me, within my domain, for me to work my will upon and punish.”

The Buddha agrees that if he clung to earth (or any other aspect of existence) he would remain under the control of Mahā Brahmā ("Great Supremo") and Māra, too, but he adds:

“I understand that your reach and sway extend thus: Baka the Brahmā has this much power, this much might, this much influence.”

The Buddha points out that beyond the thousandfold world system over which Baka reigns there are planes of existence of which Baka is totally unaware, and beyond all conditioned phenomena there is a reality that transcends even “the allness of the all”—a consciousness without manifestation, boundless, luminous on all sides—to which Baka has no access whatsoever.

The Buddha, demonstrating his superiority in knowledge and power, then uses his superior psychic powers to humble Baka in front of his entire assembly. By the end of the discourse, these once haughty divine beings marvel at the might of the wandering ascetic Gotama:

“Though living in a generation that delights in being…he has extirpated being [becoming, bhava] and its root” [12].

A brahmā with wrong view

Once an unnamed brahmā gave rise to this deluded thought: “No ascetic is powerful enough to reach my [divine] realm.”

The Buddha read his mind and proved him wrong by simply appearing before him and sitting at ease in the air above his head, while radiating flames from his body in a dramatic display of supernormal powers.

Four great arahant (fully enlightened) disciples—Mahā Moggallāna (the monk the Buddha declared "foremost in psychic powers" among his disciples), Kassapa, Kappina, and Anuruddha—independently realized what had happened and decided to join their Teacher on this divine brahmā plane.

Each disciple sat cross-legged in the air respectfully below the Buddha—but above that brahmā—in one of the cardinal directions, emitting fire around himself. A short dialogue in verse took place between Mahā Moggallāna, the Buddha’s second chief male disciple, and that brahmā:

“Today, friend, do you still hold that view,

The same view that you formerly held?

Do you see a radiance

Surpassing that in the brahma-world?”

“I no longer hold that view, dear sir,

[I reject] the view I formerly held.

Indeed, I see a radiance

Surpassing that in the brahma-world?”

Today how could I assert the view

That I am permanent and eternal?”

According to the Commentary (tika) to this story, the brahmā gave up his wrong view, his wrong belief in his own superiority when he observed the magnificence of the Buddha and a few of his arahants.

When the Buddha preached the Dhamma to him, that brahma was established in the fruit of stream-entry and stopped thinking of himself as permanent.

When this brahmā saw his own [radical] impermanence clearly and distinctly for himself, his former tenacious wrong view, wrong opinion that his world and life were immortal was uprooted.

Many aeons of preparation, the brahmā’s quick intellect, the Buddha’s perfect timing, and the support of the four arahants bore fruit in this divinity becoming a stream enterer (one who has reached the first stage of awakening).

After the Buddha and those arahants left and returned to Jetavana, the great brahmā wanted to learn more about the powers of Buddhist monastics. He sent a member of his retinue to ask Mahā Moggallāna whether there are even more monastics of this teacher who can perform such feats as he can. Maha Moggallāna replied:

“Many are the disciples of the Buddha

Who are arahants with taints destroyed,

Triple knowledge bearers with spiritual powers,

Skilled in the course of others’ minds”

(KS I, 182–84; SN 6:5).

Not only do large numbers of monastics have such special powers and the ability to know other people’s minds, but there are numerous fully purified arahant disciples of the Buddha as well. The emissary was glad to hear this answer, as was that brahmā when he received the report. Source

• Matt (Buddha's Wisdom); Susan Elbaum Jootla (Buddhist Publication Society, Wheel 414/415/416, Teacher of the Devas); Dhr. Seven and Amber Larson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Alan Watts: The Buddhist Secret (audio)

Alan Watts (alanwatts.org) via What do you desire?; A. Larson, Dhr. Seven, Wisdom Quarterly

.

The Buddhist Secret

Zen's circle or ensō (faena.com)

Over time as fewer people realized enlightenment, Mahayana (Maya-yana?) came up with newer and more creative ways to trick oneself into realization, with the paradoxes of Zen, and stories of not trying, skillful means (upayas) and methods (yanas). Alan Watts explains them in the context of what this latter day form of Buddhism, which takes itself back by patriarchs to 200 years after the passing of the now little regarded historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, the "Sage of the Shakyas [Saka/Scythians]" Shakyamuni.

.

What Mahayana set up in place of what the historical Buddha taught was falling back on Brahminical teaching based on the Vedas that today are generally referred to as Hinduism when in fact Buddhism, like Jainism, began as a revolutionary, anti-establishment wandering ascetic (shramana vs. brahmana) movement school. Buddhism in Japan, famous for Zen which it imported from China, came upon the conception of jah-riki vs. tah-riki: If self cannot become enlightened, then it must be done by other (likened to the Protestant Christian concept of "grace" over "works").

"We don't think our way into right action, but we can act our way into right thinking" is a good recovery-based summary of two of the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path. Support the WDYD channel to promote the great work of Alan Watts at patreon.com/whatdoyoudesire.

• Part 1: How Can You be Enlightened?
• Part 2: You are the Whole Cosmos
• Part 3: Why the World Depends on You
• Part 4: Be Comfortable Under Any Circumstances
• Part 5: The Buddhist Secret (this video)
• Part 6: Waking Up from the Illusion

The Buddha saves animals (video)

Abhinav Kumar; Pat Macpherson, Crystal Quintero, Dhr. Seven (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly


The Buddha saves animals from sacrifice

In this animated video the historical Buddha saves animals from being sacrificed by the Brahmin priests of his day.

Save our planet, environment, and animals.

The Buddha opposed animal killing and sacrifice. He staunchly opposed all killing as harmful to three parties, the killed, the killer, and everyone else.

Killing of animals, insects, and human beings without exception. He expressed the view that ALL beings (including and in some sense especially ourselves) deserve our compassion. During the time of the Buddha, many kinds of brutal Vedic "sacrifices" were practiced by Brahmins. These temple priests were elitist, educated, upper-caste (high class) landowners in contemporary Indian (Bharat) society.

The Buddha saw great harm and no value in murderous sacrifices, primarily because they are entirely external rites and rituals. If one could speak of some kind of "right sacrifice," it would have to be something that internal, spiritual, spirit-related.

India used to revere many, not all, animals.

"Brahmin, I lay no wood for fire on altars. Only within burneth the fire I kindle," says the Buddha, mindful of the Brahmin's practice of tending a regular "sacred fire" and pouring oblations (offerings to the "gods," devas and brahmas) into it for the various supernatural beings of the Vedic pantheon, later taught as Hinduism.

  

This, however, was only a relatively harmless, albeit in the eyes of the Buddha useless, activity. The Vedic temple priests also advocated and performed several types of cruel animal torturing and slaughter to "sacrifice" to the gods.

The Buddha rejected all of these sacrifices and did so in no uncertain terms. For example, when he was told of a "great sacrifice" that the king of Kosala was about to perform, where 2,500 cattle, goats and rams were to be immolated (burned alive), he declared:

"Never to such a rite as that repair the noble seers who walk the perfect way." And in one of the "Rebirth Tales" (Bhuridatta Jataka), the future Buddha is reported to have said:

"If one who kills is counted innocent,

Let Brahmins Brahmins kill.

We see no cattle asking to be slain

That they a new and better life may gain;

Rather they go unwilling to their death

And in vain struggles yield their final breath.

To veil the post, the victim and the blow,

The Brahmins let their choicest rhetoric flow."

News of the Day

The rivers keep rising, but some in flood zones won't leave

Kavanaugh denies allegation anew, arrives at White House

WHAT'S HAPPENING: Rain, floods still in Florence's forecast

Florence flooding spreads as storm heads northeast

US border agent in Texas confesses to 4 killings, police say

Watchdog slams safeguards for foster kids on psych drugs

Barack Obama's return: good or bad for Democrats?

Jury sees video of white Chicago officer shooting black teen

What is "The Heart Sutra" actually about?

Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Ananda M. (D.M.I.), Ashley Wells (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly

Often people say the Heart Sutra (Hṛdaya Sutra of the Prajnaparamita literature) is an experience of enlightenment. But it can't really be that.

Instead, it is about the ultimate teaching that leads to enlightenment, the key direct-realization that would free us.

What frees one? The Truth, the Truth sets one free. Which truth? The whole truth and nothing but the truth? No, it's not that. The Enlightened One focused on Four Ennobling Truths (truths that lead to the noble state of enlightenment or awakening).

The Buddha said, pursue these for the welfare of everyone. We all know the four:

1. Things are unfulfilling (they suck).
2. There's a reason they are.
3. There's an end to all suffering.
4. There's a way to that ultimate bliss.

So what keeps us from realizing the Truth and touching liberation right here and now?

How did we get a "heart" sutra?

The "Perfection of Wisdom" or Prajna-paramita is a body of literature explaining all of the relevant truths. At the heart of this, as the perfection of wisdom, is this teaching of emptiness or egolessness.

• Why did the historical Buddha and one school talk about not-self (anatta) while the other school talks so much about emptiness (suññatā)? Of course the whole world and universe are without self. In that sense they are empty. But the Buddha, rather than talking about all other things that are of this nature, focused on the most important thing: self. What is true of the universe is true of ourselves. Form (materiality) is empty, that is, devoid of "self." The very emptiness is form. Mind (mentality or the other four heaps/aggregates the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara mentions (feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness) are also empty. What does it matter if anything is without essence or identity. I am not clinging to those things. It matters that this is without essence and identity because I am clinging to these "things" (form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations like volitions, and consciousness). Better to focus on that and find release, freedom from all rebirth and suffering, moksha (liberation), enlightenment in this very life.

For until there is the direct, personal, unmediated realization of this one thing, there will be no deliverance, no freedom, no salvation from the Wheel of Life and Death, endless rebirth in the spiraling round of continued wandering through samsara.

The Heart Sutra is about that, that one thing, that doorway, that gateless gate to freedom. What is it? What is it! First, consider what the Buddha taught. There are Three Marks or Characteristics of all states of existence. Wherever we are reborn, those worlds (including this human and deva one) are marred by these three verifiable facts:

1. All states are radically impermanent (not lasting unchanged for two consecutive moments).
2. All states are disappointing/unsatisfactory, incapable of finally satisfying our endless thirst).
3. All states are impersonal, not-self, egoless, not me, not mine (the impossible possibility).

The deva Avalokitesvara

It is this third characteristic that we are quite incapable of fathoming by means ordinary consciousness.

"Of course things are mine!" we say. "I am I. And like God, I am that I am. I'm me, and this body and mind are mine, and all of this mess is myself."

The Buddha would smile. Who could ever guess that this assumption (listen up, Descartes) is verifiably, certifiably wrong? It's a dangerous assumption made, wrought with pain and misery unutterable. This, then, is what the Heart Sutra is really about.

At the HEART (center, core, essence) of the Perfection of Wisdom literature is this one impossible fact: It's all impersonal. I am not this, not that, not other. This is arisen (through dependent origination) as an illusion. Illusion begets misery. Truth begets freedom.

Avalokita, Shakyamuni, Maitreya

Don't believe it? Of course you don't believe it! We see everything through the prism of SELF. We cling to self, soul, ego, personality, I, me, and mine. When we agree with religion, we say, "Well, yeah, this is not myself, but that invisible part, the Casper the Ghost part, that's me," and then we cling to that.

It's good that we understand that there's a Higher Self, in a sense, but that too is impersonal. We don't see that coming. All of Buddhism, then, is aimed at either taking one to heaven as a self clinging to (the five aggregates clung to as) self OR, if one is smart, as a means of liberation from all ignorance, aversion, and clinging.

The real meaning

Heart chakra = two interpenetrating arrows

For those who have read the Heart Sutra a million times and chanted it a million more, never thinking there was a decipherable meaning, there is. Look at it again, but this time not from the perspective of Mahayana-Hinduism. Look at it instead from the eyes of the historical Buddha as preserved in the old schools before the Brahmins co-opted Buddhism into a part of Brahmanism/Hinduism as a continuation of their august Vedic tradition:

Avalokitesvara (now become KWAN YIN, Goddess of Compassion) is saying something to the Buddha's chief male disciple, SHARIPUTRA, who has been declared "foremost in wisdom" among the male disciples (just as Khema is declared among the female disciples). She is explicating the Five Aggregates Clung to as Self:

1. form
2. feelings
3. perceptions
4. formations
5. consciousness.

There are three universal marks of existence

What is she saying about them? They are "empty" -- this is, devoid of "self." The "soul" (atman, atta) we cling to as our real self -- our higher self, our self above selfish ego and transitory personality -- is devoid of owner. It is mere transitory phenomena. But we knew that. We know we are not this body. We continue as it perishes even now, burning away.

We must not be FORM (earth, wind, fire, air which our picturesque ways of saying that materiality, composed of kalapas, has four characteristics). We must be the other four things in the list, which together are called "mind," "psyche," "soul," or "I."

I'm not that stinky body, for I am my MIND: my feelings (agreeable, disagreeable, and neutral), my perceptions, my mental formations (such as my volitions that color my karma). Or, better yet, I'm not any of those formations. I AM CONSCIOUSNESS itself. But the Buddha taught that consciousness (vinnana) is not a "thing." It is a process. These are not nouns but verbs. Moreover, it is an impersonal process. Behold!

Setting: top of Vultures Peak, Rajgir, India

Close your eyes and look (as happens when one emerges temporarily purified from dhyana/jhana and practices satipatthana for liberating insight).

See how the feelings, perceptions, formations (of which there are 50 but just consider the volitions to not get lost in the weeds) arise and pass away at a tremendous rate in awareness. I am not awareness itself, but I would have to be because everything here is empty (selfless). So I must be the one experiencing it? But that's just it! No one is! This construct, this fabrication, this impersonal formation, this collection of heaps is just EMPTY. By ignorance it is taken as a SELF. By wisdom is one released.

With the realization of selflessness, the first stage of enlightenment (stream winning) is reached or realized. One is assured of victory. There will be a lingering sense of self. All that we've said has been tainted by this wrong view. Now there will be residual "conceit."

One knows there is no self, but the very conventions of speech force us to speak of "us," "we," "me," "myself," and "I." Yet, now like the Buddha, we are not trapped or tripped up by these conventions. We can use them and not come under their spell.

For by the spell (mantra) of great wisdom are we released, and this is said in awe of that release: Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi swaha. ("Gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, oh what an awakening, so it is!")

And that, friends, is what the Heart Sutra is about. Read 'em and weep. Reread it. Look closely. None of it was an accident. It could have been shorter, less paradoxical, more to the point, but it's a gatha, a devotional song exalting Kwan Yin and denigrating Shariputra. It is building up Brahminical-Mahayana syncretism.

(Note that the protagonist is a Brahmanical deity or deva, Avalokiteshvara, while putting down a "Hinayana" figure, one of the historical Buddha's most prized disciples).

In one sutra the Buddha points out how everyone loves Ananda (the Buddha's attendant monk and very likely his son, from one of his harem wives from before his enlightenment when he was the Prince Siddhartha living in luxury, in accordance with the sacred scriptures of some Buddhist schools).

• Common tradition says that he was the first cousin of the historical Buddha by their fathers. The Mahavastu states that Ananda's mother's name was Mrigi ("Little Deer"), who is named in the Kanjur and Sanghabedavastu as one of Siddhartha Gautama's harem wives (prior to his great renunciation), pointing to the possibility that Ananda is in fact the Buddha's son by a mother different than Rahula's mother [Rahulamata, Yasodhara, Bimba Devi, Ven. Bhaddakaccana. Rāhula was known to his friends as Rāhula-bhadda (Rāhula, the Lucky)]. (Wendy Garling, Stars at Dawn: Forgotten Stories of Women in the Buddha's Life, 2016, Shambhala Publications, pp. 94-106).

The Buddha points out there how Shariputra is much wiser, much more worthy of their praise. But they like Ananda because he is kind and a regular fellow, humble and unassuming.

We'll be reading the Heart Sutra on April 26, 2018 at 6:30 PM at the Dharma Meditation Initiative meeting and answering any and all questions for the naysayers and doubters.

What is the Buddhist ideal? (Is it SUMMER yet?)

Bhikkhu Bodhi (BPS.lk/ATI); Amber Larson, Dhr. Seven, Crystal Quintero, Wisdom Quarterly

The best part about summer in California is the abundance of fruit (meetup.com/Fruitluck)

.

Summer won't officially begin for another month (June 21, 2017), when we celebrate the summer solstice. But Nature doesn't know that. It's balmy in Los Angeles with so much sunshine that it's hard to frown. Today at the Rose Bowl, home of big time corporate football games and concerts, it was a day of vegan food and drink. And I got to thinking about the competing ideals in the two Buddhisms (traditional Theravada and modern Mahayana).

Enlightened disciples, Wayfarers, and Supreme Teachers

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi "Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas" edited by Wisdom Quarterly

The Buddha reclining into parinirvana,  Ayutthaya (MistyTree Adventures/Haluzman/flickr)

 

I. Competing Buddhist Ideals

The arhat ideal [to gain enlightenment using a buddha's teaching] and the bodhisattva ideal [trying to become a buddha and suffer as a martyr/savior (Messiah/Maitreya) for aeons trying to rediscover the path the Buddha has now made known long after it is lost to the world] are often considered the respective guiding ideals of Theravāda Buddhism and Mahāyāna Buddhism.

But this assumption is not entirely correct, for the Theravāda tradition has absorbed the bodhisattva ideal into its framework and so recognizes the validity of both arhatship (the path of discipleship) and buddhahood (making vows and pretending for one lifetime to be on a quest for enlightenment with the ability to teach a path eventually discovered) as objects of aspiration.

It would therefore be more accurate to say that the arhat ideal and the bodhisattva ideal are the respective guiding ideals of Early Buddhism and later Mahāyāna Buddhism.

"Early Buddhism" does not mean the same thing as Theravāda Buddhism, which exists today in the countries of Southern Asia (Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and elsewhere in small pockets such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Vietnam).

The Buddha's final reclining into nirvana or Maha-parinirvana, Gandhara 2-3rd century.

.

"Early" means the type of Buddhism embodied in the archaic Nikāyas ("Volumes," ancient sacred Buddhist texts) of Theravāda Buddhism and in the corresponding texts of other schools of Indian Buddhism that did not survive the general destruction of Buddhism in India [by Islam from without and Brahmins from within].

It is important to recognize that these ideals, in the forms that they have come down to us, originate from different bodies of literature stemming from different periods in the historical development of Buddhism.

If we fail to take this fact into account and simply compare these two ideals as described in Buddhist canonical texts, we might assume that the two were originally expounded by the historical Buddha himself -- which they were not.

And we might then suppose that the Buddha -- living and teaching in Scythia and the Ganges Plain in the 5^th century BCE -- offered his followers a choice between them, as if to say: "This is the arhat ideal, which has such and such features, and that is the bodhisattva ideal, which has such and such features. Choose whichever one you like."

• [NOTE 1: There is also a third model of the Buddhist spiritual life, that of the nonteaching buddha or paccekabuddha. This is similar in many respects to the disciple arhat, except that the disciple arhat attains enlightenment under the guidance of a buddha, whereas the nonteaching buddha gains enlightenment without any outside guidance. Otherwise, the qualities that constitute this type is essentially the same as a teaching buddha. In the literature of the Buddhist systems, one often comes across three types of "enlightened ones" -- sāvakas, paccekabuddhas, and sammā-sambuddhas (Sanskrit śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and samyak-sambuddhas) -- and of the three vehicles (yānas) that lead to these attainments.]

American scholar-monk Bhikkhu Bodhi

The apocryphal Mahāyāna sūtras, such as the "Great Perfection of Wisdom Discourse" (Mahāprajñā-pāramitā Sūtra) and the  "Lotus Sutra" (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra), give the impression that the Buddha did teach both ideals.

Such "sūtras," however, certainly are modern writings, not ancient archaic records of the Buddha's words. To the contrary, they are relatively late attempts to schematize the different types of Buddhist practice that had evolved over a period of roughly 400 years after the Buddha's final passing into nirvana (parinirvāṇa).
 
The most ancient Buddhist texts -- the Pali language Nikāyas [keeping in mind that Sanskrit was strictly the exclusive language of the Brahmin priests and their Vedas or "Knowledge Books," which the Buddha rejected and therefore spoke in the language of the people: Magadhi, Prakrit, possibly Pali or certainly some variation of it] and their counterparts from other early schools (some of which have been preserved in the Chinese "scriptures" or Āgamas and the Tibetan "translation of the word" or Kanjur) -- depict the ideal for the Buddhist disciple as the arhat.

The Mahāyāna sūtras, composed a few centuries later in a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, depict the ideal for the Mahāyāna follower as the bodhisattva.

Now some people argue that because the arhat is the ideal of Early Buddhism, while the bodhisattva is the ideal of later Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Mahāyāna must be a more advanced or highly developed type of Buddhism, a more ultimate teaching compared to the simpler, more basic teaching of the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni) and the Nikāyas.

That is indeed an attitude common among Mahāyānists, which one might well call "Mahāyāna elitism."

An opposing attitude common among conservative advocates of the Nikāyas rejects all later developments in the history of Buddhist thought as deviation and distortion, a fall away from the "pristine purity" of the ancient teaching.

One might call this attitude "Nikāya purism." Taking the arhat ideal alone as valid, Nikāya purists reject the bodhisattva ideal, sometimes forcefully or even aggressively.
 
In seeking a point of view that can do justice to both perspectives, that of the Nikāyas and the early Mahāyāna sūtras, a point of view that can accommodate their respective strengths without falling into a soft and easy syncretism, without blotting out the conflicting conceptual differences between them.

How can this be done without abandoning faithfulness to the historical records in a way that also recognizes that these records are by no means crystal clear or likely to be free of bias.

This task is not easy. It is much simpler to adopt either a standpoint of "Nikāya purism" or one of "Mahāyāna elitism" and hold to it unflinchingly. The problem with these two standpoints, however, is that both are obliged to neglect facts that are discomforting to their respective points of view.
 
Ordained as an American Theravāda Buddhist monk, this paper by Bhikkhu Bodhi is not to defend the opinions of any particular school of Buddhism or trying uphold a sectarian point of view.

For six years, having lived in Chinese Mahāyāna monasteries, with an understanding of Buddhism particularly enriched by contact with the teachings of the Chinese scholar-monk Master Yinshun (1906-2005) and his most senior living pupil, Master Renjun, the founder of Bodhi Monastery in New Jersey [where Bhikkhu Bodhi resided when he returned from Asia] -- Bhikkhu Bodhi's first purpose is to draw out from the texts what they say explicitly, and also what they imply, about these two competing ideals of the Buddhist life.

Compassionate vegan coupons (peta.com)

In the end, when conclusions are drawn, they will be clearly stated as such, and they will be entirely his own. More

• Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte declares martial law in Mindanao amidst armed clashes with the Islamist Maute group in Marawi City
• Masked gunmen attack a bus convoy of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and Egyptian warplanes strike alleged militant camps in Libya in response
• A suicide bombing after an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena in the UK kills 22 people and injures more than 100 others

100% proof! Was the Buddha a Hindu?

Dhr. Seven, Ven. Karunananda, Amber Larson, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly

There was, in fact, no such thing as "Hinduism" at the time of the Buddha. The Buddha Gautama (the former Prince Siddhartha of Shakya Land, the foothold/territory or janapada of the Sakas) was not a Hindu. "Hinduism" only came to be systematized under Sri Shankara many centuries later.

But there was Brahmanism and the religion of the Vedas, the sacred texts of the Brahmin caste priests. The Buddha rejected them. He was not a Brahmin, and he did not accept the Vedas as ultimate truth.

Why did Hinduism's founder reject Buddhism?

Shankara with Disciples (Raja Ravi Varma, 1904)

Shankara's works in Sanskrit discuss the unity of the ātman and nirguna brahman ("brahman without attributes").

He wrote copious commentaries on the Vedic canon (Brahma Sutras, Principal Upanishads, and Bhagavad Gita) in support of his thesis. His works elaborate on ideas found in the Upanishads. Shankara's publications criticized the ritually-oriented Mīmāṃsā school of Hinduism ("How Adi Shankara Acharya united a fragmented land with philosophy, poetry, and pilgrimage"). Shankara also explained the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism by stating that Hinduism asserts that "atman (soul, self) exists," whereas Buddhism asserts that "there is no soul, no self" (anatta). More

• Sri Adi Shankara (8th century CE) consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta and is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism.

What the difference?

The key to the Vedas and to the Brahmin's religion is that Brahman (GOD, Godhead, the permanent reality behind the transitory illusion/Maya) is ultimately real -- and as part of the All the atman (self, soul, individual being) is ultimately real.

The Buddha uniquely taught not-self (an-atman). Central to the Buddha-Dharma (the Buddhist path to enlightenment and liberation) is this teaching. There is, in the ultimate sense, no self.

In conventional terms we speak of a self -- an I or me with things that are mine -- but that is an illusion. Not only is there not a personal self, there is -- for the same reasons as explained in the teaching of the Five Aggregates -- not a Brahma ("Supreme").

Brahman, ultimate truth, is impersonal (not-self) in Buddhism. (Mahayana Buddhism is so saturated with Brahminical and Hindu teachings, which the historical Buddha clearly and unambiguously rejected, that it muddles the argument and by syncretism makes it sound like they're really teaching the same thing: an "essential self," a "higher self," a "true self" or Ātman in Buddhism.

The One Who Knows and Sees

Anyone who says "Lord Buddha" (as if he were just another god in the Hindu pantheon or an avatar some divine incarnation of Lord Vishnu) ignore this essential fact: "self or soul" -- Ātman in Hinduism -- is a philosophical concept common to ALL schools of Hindu philosophy.

The Buddha not only rejected this philosophical concept, he taught the exact opposite (anatta, anatman).

It is inconceivable to our ordinary and customary way of thinking that there is no self. Of course, there is! Look, I'm touching it. It's speaking, it's writing, it's thinking. "I think therefore I am," as Descartes reasoned. It's not ultimately true; that is us clinging to one or more of the Five Aggregates (form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness) as self.

Why isn't it or why aren't they self? All aggregates (heaps, groups) are marked by three characteristics: they (all conditioned things) are all impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal.

One thing is unconditioned, but it is the only thing that is, so to call it a "thing" (which should be reserved for conditioned elements) is misleading. It is completely different from ordinary things, and it is nirvana.

Sadly, by speaking of it in ordinary terms, ordinary people tend to come under a pernicious delusion and that is the idea (wrong view) that nirvana, not being a "thing," must therefore be nothing (void, nothingness, emptiness).

That is completely wrong; for thorough evidence that this view is a mistaken conclusion, see Bhikkhu Bodhi's lecture "Nibbana" from The Buddha's Teaching: As It Is.

• NOTE: In spite of it being ultimately that there is no self, there is still personal karma and continual rebirth even without there being some one, ultimately, who is being reborn again and again. Learn more about Buddhism to see how this apparent paradox is not a paradox at all. The Buddha was very wise and interested in people gaining enlightenment and final liberation as soon as possible. He would not have spent so much time teaching this subtle doctrine were it now key to wisdom, compassion, and freedom.

The Buddha and RACISM in old India (sutra)

Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Pat Macpherson, Sheldon S., Crystal Quintero, Wisdom Quarterly translation  of the Assalāyana Sutra (MN 93) based on Ven. Thanissaro (Geoffrey DeGraff)

The Buddha, a magnificent statue in Theravada Thailand (Baddoguy/flickr.com).

  

Pythia inspired by pneuma (Collier)

For the following sutra (discourse) to make sense to us in our Western context even though it is set in an ancient Eastern context, imagine that an elitist group -- say, for example, white supremacists, were to say that they alone were the favored creation of the Judeo-Christian God. And say these Nazis were to send a well trained Hitler Youth student wearing a brown shirt to dispute with a sage -- say Moses of Egypt or Mo of Mecca or Jesus of Nazareth or Pythia of the Oracle at Delphi or Kwan Yin of China or Todd of Poughkeepsie -- who was teaching that all people are equal in rights, equal in humanity, equal in potential but differentiated by actions (karma) rather than birth. We are what we can be when given equal opportunity that results in our merit -- what we DO (mentally, verbally, physically), not what we are labelled at birth.

• 

  Moses sees bush burning on hill.
  

  Moses, that Bible guy played by Charleton Heston, was from Egypt? Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, known by the acronym the “Rambam,” 1135-1204, was a codifier, philosopher, communal leader, and court physician to Sultan Saladin of Egypt and the author of a commentary on the Mishnah, the Book of Mitzvot, Mishneh Torah, the Guide to the Perplexed, and many other works) calls Moses "the most perfect human being," and the sages of the Talmud said that "the Divine Presence spoke from his throat.

It hardly needs saying, but Nazis are disgusting mass murderers who run sexist/racist police states, many of whom became Americans; just ask researcher Annie Jacobsen (video). Also note that the Brahmins created Hinduism (particularly Adi Shankara) based on Brahmanism and Brahminical interpretations of the old Vedic religion of the Indus Valley Civilization. If, as many people like to say nowadays, "the Buddha was born a Hindu," would he have refuted so many Brahmins and rejected the ancient Vedas like he did? No, spiritually speaking Prince Siddhartha was born a Scythian, became a wandering ascetic (shraman), and founded the most successful wandering ascetic movement ever, which his Brahmin convert students turned into a "religion" at the First Council in Rajgir, Magadha. While Brahmins are the bad guys in this story, it must be remembered that being born a Brahmin itself makes one neither good nor bad. Three of the Buddhas most important disciples -- Sariputra, Maha Moggallana, and Maha Kassapa -- were Brahmins.

.

The Sutra

What did the Buddha look like?

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One (the Buddha) was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, in the generous multimillionaire's monastery. On that occasion 500 Brahmins from various provinces were visiting Savatthi on business. And the thought occurred to them, "This wandering ascetic Gautama [the Buddha] prescribes purification for all four castes. Now who is able to dispute with him on this matter?"
 
On that occasion the Brahmin student Assalayana was staying in Savatthi. Young, with head shaved, 16 years old, Assalayana was a master of the Three Vedas with their vocabularies, liturgy, phonology, etymology, and histories. Skilled in philology and grammar, he was fully versed in cosmology and in the marks of a great man.

The thought occurred to the Brahmins, "This Brahmin-student Assalayana is staying in Savatthi... He is able to dispute with the wandering ascetic Gautama on this matter."
 
So the Brahmins went to the Brahmin-student Assalayana and said to him, "Master Assalayana, this wandering ascetic Gautama prescribes purification for all four castes. Come and dispute with him on this matter."
 
The Brahmin-student Assalayana said to the Brahmins: "Sirs, the wandering ascetic Gautama  is one who speaks Dharma. And those who speak Dharma are hard to dispute with. I cannot dispute with him on this matter."
 
A second and a third time the Brahmins asked him adding, "You have lived the life of a wanderer. Do not be defeated without being defeated in battle."
 
When this was said, the Brahmin-student Assalayana said to the Brahmins: "Sirs, apparently, I do not get leave from you (to avoid the matter), so at your bidding I will go."
 
A Question of Race

So many women and men came to the Buddha for guidance and became monastics, such a movement as India has never seen. But the Buddha was not from India, and the Brahmins resented it, later replacing Buddhism with a new incarnation of the old Vedic religion.

 
The Brahmin-student Assalayana then went with a large group of Brahmins to the Blessed One, exchanged courteous greetings with him, and sat respectfully to one side. Sitting there he said:
 
"Master Gautama, the Brahmins say, 'Brahmins are the superior caste; every other caste is inferior. Only Brahmins are the fair caste; every other caste is dark. Only Brahmins are pure, not non-Brahmins. Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma [the supreme creator God of the Brahmins]: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.' What does Master Gautama have to say with regard to that?"
 
"But, Assalayana, the Brahmins' Brahmin-women are plainly seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and nursing. Yet the Brahmins, being born through the birth canal, say: 'Brahmins are the superior caste; every other caste is inferior. Only Brahmins are the fair caste; every other caste is dark. Only Brahmins are pure, not non-Brahmins. Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'"
 
"Although Master Gautama says so, still the Brahmins think, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'"

Upward mobility

The Buddha was in "India" talking about the area in blue where he came from (wiki).

.

The Buddha, Sukhothai (Hatahway_m/flickr)

"What do you think, Assalayana? Have you heard that in Yona* (Bactria) and Kamboja (Kambojaka) and other outlying territories [in Central Asia/Scythia west of their location in Savatthi near the Kingdom of Magadha] there are only two 'castes' -- masters and slaves -- and that having been a master one (can) become a slave, and that having been a slave one (can) become a master?"
 
"Yes, Master Gautama..."
 
"So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmins say, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma'?"
 
"Although Master Gautama says sp, still the Brahmins think, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'"

Virtue

Buddha smiling (nippon_newfie)

"What do you think, Assalayana? Is it only a noble warrior [kshatriya caste member] who -- taking life, taking what is not given (stealing), taking advantage (engaging in sexual misconduct), taking liberties with the truth (perjury/telling lies), speaking divisively, speaking harshly, engaging in chatter, being greedy, bearing thoughts of ill will, and holding wrong views [these are collectively known as the Ten Courses of Unwholesome Conduct] -- on the breakup of the body, after death, reappears in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, even in hell, and not a Brahmin?

"Is it only a merchant [caste member]...? Is it only a worker [caste member] who -- taking life, taking what is not given, taking sexual advantage, taking liberties with the truth, speaking harshly, engaging in idle chatter, being greedy, bearing thoughts of ill will, and holding wrong views -- on the breakup of the body, after death, reappears in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, even in hell, and not a Brahmin?"
 
"No, Master Gautama. Even a noble warrior... Even a Brahmin... Even a merchant... Even a worker... (Members of) all four castes -- if they take life, steal, engage in sexual misconduct, tell lies, speak divisively, speak harshly, engage in idle chatter, are greedy, bear thoughts of ill will, or hold wrong views -- on the breakup of the body, after death, reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, even in hell."
 
"So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmins say, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma'?"
 
"Although Master Gautama says so, still the Brahmins think, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'"
 
"What do you think, Assalayana? Is it only a Brahmin who -- refraining from taking life, stealing, sexual misconduct, perjury, speaking divisively, harshly, idly, from being greedy, bearing thoughts of ill-will, or from holding wrong views -- on the breakup of the body, after death, reappears in a good destination, a heavenly world, and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?"
 
"No, Master Gautama. Even a noble warrior... Even a Brahmin... Even a merchant... Even a worker... (Members of) all four castes -- if they refrain from taking life...wrong views -- on the breakup of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world."
 
"So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmins say, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma'?"
 
"Although Master Gautama says so, still the Brahmins think, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'"
 
"What do you think, Assalayana? Is it only a Brahmin who is capable of developing in any direction a heart of good will -- free from animosity, free from ill will -- and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?"
 
"No, Master Gautama. Even a noble warrior... Even a Brahmin... Even a merchant... Even a worker... (Members of) all four castes are capable of developing in any direction a heart of good will -- free from animosity, free from ill will."
 
"So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmins say, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma'?"
 
"Although Master Gautama says so, still the Brahmins think, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'"
 
"What do you think, Assalayana? Is it only a Brahmin who is capable of taking a loofah and bath powder, going to a river, and scrubbing off dust and grime, and not a noble warrior, not a merchant, not a worker?"
 
"No, Master Gautama. Even a noble warrior... Even a Brahmin... Even a merchant... Even a worker... (Members of) all four castes are capable of taking a loofah and bath powder, going to a river, and scrubbing off dust and grime."
 
"So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmins say, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... Only Brahmins are pure, not non-Brahmins. Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma'?"
 
"Although Master Gautama says so, still the Brahmins think, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... Only Brahmins are pure, not non-Brahmins. Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'"
 

Golden Buddha in a great decorative hall (tecnica/t3cnica/flickr.com)

.

"What do you think, Assalayana? Suppose an anointed noble warrior king were to call together 100 men of different births (and say to them), 'Come, masters. Those of you born in a noble warrior clan, in a Brahmin clan, or in a royal clan, take an upper fire-stick of sal wood, salala wood, sandalwood, or padumaka wood, produce fire, and make heat appear.

"And 'Come, masters. Those of you born in an outcast clan, a trapper clan, a wicker workers' clan, a cartwrights' clan, or a scavengers' clan, take an upper fire-stick from a dog's drinking trough, a pig's trough, from a rubbish heap, or of castor-oil wood, produce fire, and make heat appear.'
 
"What do you think, Assalayana, would the fire made by those born in a noble warrior clan, a Brahmin clan, or a royal clan -- who had produced fire and made heat appear by taking an upper fire-stick of sal wood, salala wood, sandalwood, or padumaka wood -- be the only one with flame, color, and radiance, able to do whatever a fire might be used for?
 
"And would the fire made by those born in an outcast clan, a trapper clan, a wicker workers' clan, a cartwrights' clan, or a scavengers' clan -- who had produced fire and made heat appear by taking an upper fire-stick from a dog's drinking trough, a pig's trough, from a rubbish heap, or of castor-oil wood -- be without flame, color, and radiance, unable to do what a fire might be used for?"
 
"No, Master Gautama. The fire made by those born in a noble warrior clan, a Brahmin clan, or a royal clan... would have flame, color, and radiance, able to do whatever a fire might be used for. And the fire made by those born in an outcast clan, a trapper clan, a wicker workers' clan, a cartwrights' clan, or a scavengers' clan... would have flame, color, and radiance, able to do whatever a fire might be used for. For ALL fire has flame, color, and radiance, and is able to do whatever a fire might be used for."
 
"So what strength is there, Assalayana, what assurance, when the Brahmins say, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... Only Brahmins are pure, not non-Brahmins. Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma'?"
 
"Although Master Gautama says so, still the Brahmins think, 'Brahmins are the superior caste... Only Brahmins are pure, not non-Brahmins. Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'"

"What do you think, Assalayana? Suppose a noble warrior youth were to cohabit with a Brahmin maiden, and from their cohabitation a son were born. Would the son born from the noble warrior youth and Brahmin maiden be like the father and like the mother? Should it be called a noble warrior and a Brahmin?"
 
"Yes, Master Gautama..."
 
"What do you think, Assalayana? Suppose there were a Brahmin youth who were to cohabit with a noble warrior maiden, and from their cohabitation a son were born. Would the son born from the Brahmin youth and noble warrior maiden be like the father and like the mother? Should it be called a noble warrior and a Brahmin?"
 
"Yes, Master Gautama..."
 
"What do you think, Assalayana? Suppose a mare were to mate with a donkey, and from their mating a foal were born. Would the foal born from the mare and the donkey be like the father and like the mother? Should it be called a horse and a donkey?"
 
"Master Gautama, from the mixed breeding it would be a 'mule.' Here I see that it [the mixed breeding] makes a difference, but there [in the previous two cases] I do not see that it makes a difference."
 
"What do you think, Assalayana? Suppose there were two Brahmin-student brothers, born of the same mother -- one learned and initiated, the other unlearned and uninitiated. Which of the two would the Brahmins serve first at a funeral feast, or a milk-rice offering, a sacrifice, or a feast for guests?"
 
"The Brahmin student who was learned and initiated, Master Gautama... For what great fruit would there be for what is given to one who is unlearned and uninitiated?"
 
"What do you think, Assalayana? Suppose there were two Brahmin-student brothers, born of the same mother -- one learned and initiated (but) unvirtuous and of unwholesome character, the other unlearned and uninitiated, (but) virtuous and of fine character. Which of the two would the Brahmins serve first at a funeral feast, or a milk-rice offering, a sacrifice, or a feast for guests?"
 
"The Brahmin student who was unlearned and uninitiated (but) virtuous and of fine character, Master Gautama... For what great fruit would there be for what is given to one who is unvirtuous and of unwholesome character?"
 
[Aha!] "First, Assalayana, you went by birth. Then, having gone by birth, you went by mantras. Then, having gone by mantras, setting both of them aside, you have come around to the purity of the four castes that I prescribe."
 
When this was said, the Brahmin student Assalayana sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.
 
Then the Blessed One -- seeing that the Brahmin student Assalayana was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words -- said to him:

The first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha from the region of his birth.

.

"Once, Assalayana, this wrong view (harmful opinion) arose in the seven Brahmin seers (rishis) as they were consulting together in leaf huts in the wilderness: 'Brahmins are the superior caste; every other caste is inferior. Only Brahmins are the fair caste; every other caste is dark. Only Brahmins are pure, not non-Brahmins. Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'

"Then the seer Devala the Dark heard, 'This wrong view has arisen in the seven Brahmin seers as they are consulting together in leaf huts in the wilderness: 'Brahmins are the superior caste; every other caste is inferior... Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma.'

"So arranging his hair and beard, putting on crimson garments, wearing multi-layered sandals, and carrying a staff made of gold, he appeared in the courtyard of the seven Brahmin seers. Then he walked back and forth in the courtyard of the seven Brahmin seers saying, "Well, now, where have these masters, the Brahmin seers, gone? Well, now, where have these masters, the Brahmin seers, gone?"
 
"Then the seven Brahmin seers said to the seer Devala the Dark, 'Now who is this walking back and forth in the courtyard of the seven Brahmin seers like a village lout saying, "Well, now, where have these masters, the Brahmin seers, gone? Well, now, where have these masters, the Brahmin seers, gone?" Let's curse him!'

"So the seven Brahmin seers cursed the seer Devala the Dark: "Be ashes, dribble-spit*! Be ashes, dribble-spit! Be ashes, dribble-spit!"'

• *NOTE: Reading capali with the Thai edition of the Pali canon. The Pali Text Society (British PTS) edition has vasali ("one having a vile person [as a mother?]"); the Sri Lankan edition has vasala, "vile person." [And the Burmese edition? Versions of what is thought of as a singular Pali language canon have minor variations.]

But the more they cursed him, the more beautiful, good-looking, and inspiring he became. Then the thought occurred to the seven Brahmin seers, 'Our asceticism is in vain! Our supreme-life [of celibacy and ascetic restraint] is fruitless! For before, whenever we cursed anyone, "Be ashes, dribble-spit!" that person would always become ashes. But the more we curse this one, the more beautiful, good-looking, and inspiring he becomes!'
 
"'Masters, your asceticism is not in vain, and your supreme-life [of ascetic restraint is] not fruitless. Please, masters, abandon your hatred toward me.'
 
"'We abandon our hatred toward you, master. Who are you?'
  
"'Have you heard of the seer Devala the Dark?'
 
"'Yes, master.'
 
"'I am he.'
 
"Then the seven Brahmin seers approached him to bow respectfully before him, and he said to them, 'I have heard that this wrong view has arisen in the seven Brahmin seers as they are consulting together in leaf huts in the wilderness: "Brahmins are the superior caste; every other caste is inferior... Only Brahmins are the offspring of Brahma: born of the mouth, born of Brahma, created by Brahma, heirs of Brahma."'
 
"That is so, master.'
 
"'But do you know, masters, if the mother who bore you went only with a Brahmin and not with a non-Brahmin?'
 
"'No, master.'
 
"'And do you know if the mothers of the mother who bore you -- back seven generations of mothers -- went only with Brahmins and not with non-Brahmins?'
 
"'No, master.'
 
"'And do you know if the father who sired you went only with a Brahmin woman and not with a non-Brahmin woman?'
 
"'No, master.'
 
"'And do you know if the fathers of the father who sired you -- back seven generations of fathers -- went only with Brahmin women and not with non-Brahmin women?'
 
"'No, master.'
 
"'Do you know how there is the descent of an embryo?'
 
"'Yes, master, we know how there is the descent of an embryo: The mother and father come together, the mother is fertile, and a gandhabba [gandharva, the spirit, ghost, the "being about to be reborn"] is standing present. The coming together of these three is the descent of the embryo.'
 
"'But do you know for sure whether the gandhabba is a noble warrior, a Brahmin, a merchant, or a worker?'
 
"'No, master.'
 
"'That being the case, do you know who you are?'
 
"'That being the case, master, we do not know who we are.'
 
"Now, Assalayana, if those seven Brahmin seers could not defend their own birth-statement when interrogated, pressed, and refuted by the seer Devala the Dark, how can you now defend your own birth-statement when interrogated, pressed, and refuted by me -- you, their lineage holder, but not (the equal of) Punna, their ladle holder?"
 
When this was said, the Brahmin student Assalayana said to the Blessed One:

"Magnificent, Master Gautama, magnificent! It is just as if one were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see what was there to see (forms). In just the same way has Master Gautama -- through many lines of reasoning -- made the Dharma (the truth) clear to me. I go to Master Gautama for guidance, to the Dharma, and to the Sangha [of noble disciples, i.e., those who have verified the truth the Buddha expounds, which is the Dharma]. May Master Gautama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for guidance from this day forward, for life."

NOTES
*Yonā, Yavanā, Yonakā:
a country and its people, probably the Pāli equivalent for Ionians, the Bactrian Greeks. The Yonas are mentioned along with the Kambojas in Rock Edicts v. and xii of Buddhist Emperor Asoka as a subject people, forming a frontier district of his empire. The country was converted by the Thera Mahārakkhita, who was sent there after the Third Council (Mhv.xii.5; Dpv.viii.9; Sp.i.67).

In the time of Milinda the capital of the Yona country was Sāgala (Mil.1). It is said (Mhv.xxix.39) that at the foundation ceremony of the "Great Reliquary Shrine (Mahā Stūpa), 30,000 monastics, under Yona Mahādhammarakkhita, came from Alasandā (Alexandria) in the Yona country. Alasandā was evidently the headquarters of the Buddhist monastics at that time. Alasandā is generally identified (see, e.g., Geiger, Mhv. Trs. 194, n.3) with the Alexandria founded by the Macedonian king (Alexander) in the country of the Paropanisadae near Kābul, Afghanistan.
 
In the Assalāyana Sutra (M.ii.149), Yona and Kamboja are mentioned as places in which there were only two castes/classes of people, masters and slaves, and the master could become a slave and vice versa. The Commentary (MA.ii.784) explains this by saying that supposing a Brahmin goes there and dies, his children might consort with slaves, in which case their children would be slaves. In later times, the name Yavanā or Yonā seems to have included all westerners living in India and especially those of Arabian origin (Cv.Trs.ii.87, n.1). Yonaka statues, holding lamps, were among the decorations used by the Sākiyans of Kapilavatthu, the Buddha's family clan in one of their capitals [likely Bamiyan, Afghanistan] (MA.ii.575). The language of the Yavanas is classed with the Milakkhabhāsā (e.g., DA.i.276; VibhA.388).

The Anguttara Commentary (AA.i.51) records that from the time of Kassapa Buddha the Yonakas went about clad in white robes because of the memory of the pre-Shakyamuni Buddhist religion which was once prevalent there. The followers of the historical Gautama Buddha also wore white.

Aryans?

People referred to as "Aryans," in ancient times and now, relate most people now called "Iranians." Why would this be so as, of course, the word originally had nothing to do with whites or Muslims or Germany or Madame Blavatsky and Theosophists or Nazis? The Buddha was from the west of India, from Central Asia, and his people were called ariyans, "nobles" because they were nomadic warriors reliant on horses. Of course they had settlements, but as a culture and a history, they were nomadic and mainly ruled over large stretches of pastoral land and wilderness rather than comfortable cities and farms.

They became rich not because of their agrarian ways but because of the Silk Route going through land they controlled. Bamiyan (Afghanistan), the original Kapilavastu where the Buddha grew up, a seasonal capital of the Shakyans (Sakyas, Sakas), was on a main road leading from "India" to the "stans." There was no "India" and nothing was called a "stan" at the time, for these are the modern names.

But history and archeology have been tampered with for political and religious reasons, and straightening out matters is now next to impossible. But when one does, everything starts to make sense! See "The Story of the Lineage" (translation of the Nidana Katha) in Buddhist Birth-Stories (Jataka Tales) by Rhys Davids and the breakthrough research of Dr. Ranajit Pal (ranajitpal.com). This area became Hellenized, an empire of the ancient Greeks called Bactria. What was Bactria like? It is most famous for producing the first anthropomorphic depictions of the Buddha in what is popularly called the Gandhara style.

• Scientific racism of some modern whites and the "Aryan race"

(Wiki) The Bactrians spoke Bactrian, a northeastern Iranian language, descended from Avestan, and most closely related to extinct Khwarezmian, modern Yaghnobi, and Ossetian. Bactrian went extinct, replaced by southeastern Iranian languages such as Pashto, Yidgha, Munji, and Ishkashmi. The Encyclopaedia Iranica states:

Bactrian thus occupies an intermediary position between Pashto and Yidgha-Munji on the one hand, Sogdian, Choresmian, and Parthian on the other: it is thus in its natural and rightful place in Bactria.^[16]

The principal religions of the area before Islam were Zoroastrianism and Buddhism.^[17] The Bactrian people are primarily the ancestors of modern-day Tajiks as well as Pashtuns.^[18][19] Regarding Tajiks, the Encyclopædia Britannica states:

The Tajiks are the direct descendants of the Iranian peoples whose continuous presence in Central Asia and northern Afghanistan is attested from the middle of the 1st millennium bc. The ancestors of the Tajiks constituted the core of the ancient population of Khwārezm (Khorezm) and Bactria, which formed part of Transoxania (Sogdiana). They were included in the empires of Persia and Alexander the Great, and they intermingled with such later invaders as the Kushāns and Hepthalites in the 1st–6th centuries ad. Over the course of time, the eastern Iranian dialect that was used by the ancient Tajiks eventually gave way to Farsi, a western dialect spoken in Iran and Afghanistan.^[20] More

ANCIENT WAR DIARIES (wiki)

The Second Arab Siege of Constantinople in 717–718 was a land and sea offensive by the Arabs of the Umayyad Caliphate against the capital city of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople. In 716, after 20 years of progressive occupation of the borderlands of Byzantium during its prolonged internal turmoil, Arabs led by Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik invaded Byzantine Asia Minor. They made common cause with the general Leo the Isaurian, who had risen up against Emperor Theodosios III, but Leo tricked them and secured the Byzantine throne for himself in 717. The Arab army then crossed into Thrace and built siege lines to blockade the city, which was protected by the massive Theodosian Walls. The Arab fleet's attempted blockade was neutralized by the Byzantine navy's Greek fire (pictured), and the Arab army was crippled by famine and disease during the unusually hard winter that followed. After the defeat of two Arab fleets and another Arab army, followed by an attack on their rear by Bulgarians, the siege was lifted in 718. Although regular attacks on Byzantine territories continued, the Caliphate's goal of conquest was abandoned. Historians credit the siege with halting the Muslim advance into Europe, and rank it among history's most consequential battles. (Full article)