• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For the JuBu's...

Tumah

Veteran Member
Accessability is important in many aspects of life. It is changing our ways of learning and relating to one another. Closed and privileged systems of the past will have to open or they will be bypassed.

I welcome Rav Berg's opening of Kabbalah. If aspects of it are being taught incorrectly, we look forward to improvements in dissemination.

I am not a big fan of secret knowledge. Real and useful knowledge is hard enough to communicate accurately, even when we are trying to. I prefer to teach and learn with openness and honesty.

Please, please read the article "The great Kabballah con exposed" on the Telegraph before making any positive assumption about Mr. Berg.

The Kabballah is not secret knowledge in the respect that it is only taught to the select few. It is is secret, in that it has requirements that must be fulfilled in order to be taught it. I doubt you can expect to walk into a Buddhist school and expect to be taught the deepest meditation techniques either. There is a process and you need to build yourself up to the point where you are ready to advance.
 

Avi1001

reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
There is still a need for "Mr Yuck!" stickers for those who can't discern medicine from poison, especially if it is the same thing.

Hehe, it's your birthday tonight, and Christmas Eve, so I'll say Happy Birthday and Merry Christmas, and discuss the Bergs Kabbalah with you later :).
 
Last edited:

Avi1001

reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Please, please read the article "The great Kabballah con exposed" on the Telegraph before making any positive assumption about Mr. Berg.

The Kabballah is not secret knowledge in the respect that it is only taught to the select few. It is is secret, in that it has requirements that must be fulfilled in order to be taught it. I doubt you can expect to walk into a Buddhist school and expect to be taught the deepest meditation techniques either. There is a process and you need to build yourself up to the point where you are ready to advance.

No worries, Tumah, you obviously do not realize yet, I am a hard core rationalist. But I appreciate your concern for me :). No mysticism for me, and only meditation as needed.

Whether Kabbalah is secret or not is somewhat irrelevant to me. I don't expect to be studying it in-depth. I prefer Torah and Talmud ethics and morality. And even that is well behind my studies of science and engineering.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
No worries, Tumah, you obviously do not realize yet, I am a hard core rationalist. But I appreciate your concern for me :). No mysticism for me, and only meditation as needed.

Whether Kabbalah is secret or not is somewhat irrelevant to me. I don't expect to be studying it in-depth. I prefer Torah and Talmud ethics and morality. And even that is well behind my studies of science and engineering.

I wasn't trying to convince you to learn Kabbalah. I was just clarifying the misconception that you had about it (ie. that it's a secret study reserved only for a sub-sect of elite members).
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
OK, one thing you might want to be aware of regarding Jews going to Buddhism: Buddha rejected the religious caste system due to the amount of dukkha and corruption surrounding it. From what I've seen on this thread, there might be a similar situation developing with Judaism which parallels what happened with the religious caste system in Hindu Vedic Brahminism. Jews seeking refuge from this sort of dukkha might be one reason for them coming to Buddhism. It is certainly worth investigating, imo, before an outright rejection of it develops within Judaism as it did within Vedic Brahminism.

Post from another thread:

One method one might possibly employ to avoid a wholesale cultural rejection as happened with Vedic Brahminism and Buddhism is to employ the techniques of rejecting doctrines that promote greed, hatred, and delusion, and accepting those that promote non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion, as per the Kalama Sutta and the Salha Sutta. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to employ these techniques. However, I've heard that learning Judaism to the point where you could effectively apply this technique is much more difficult than learning rocket science! :eek:

I have much more I can post regarding this, such as questions regarding other practice techniques within Judaism, but I'll leave it at this for now.
How many JuBu's do you reckon are going to Nepalese Tantrayana?
praNAm,

You know what, I'm totally wrong. Comparing dark-skinned people to pishAcha-s [demons] as the nAstika g[au/o]tama buddha did in the t[r]ipiTaka ["yathA kho pana ambaTTha etarahi manussA pisAche disvA'pisAchA'ti sa~njAnanti; evameva kho, ambaTTha, tena kho pana samayena manussA pisAche'kaNhA'ti sa~njAnanti"] is so much more "egalitarian" and "liberating" than the nasty discriminatory varNAshrama of those pagan Hindu-s and their brAhmaNism which promotes "greed" and "delusion" and causes severe "duHkha." :rolleyes: Lol, it's funny how most sarvashUnyatAvAdI-s I meet (in person and online) have this urge to make others view their religion as superior to others and completely ignore the fact that others can access their scriptures and point out the inconsistencies in their argument. If you don't realize how your comments are offensive, then perhaps you should consider the fact that reciting sAmavedic gAnam-s is one of my nitya karma-s, so attacking it is like attacking me indirectly. I follow aspects which can considered to be brAhmaN-"istic," but I am certainly not greedy or abusive. In the bhAgavatapurANam, shuka [vyAsa-s son] tells rAjA parik****a that asking the varNa of a devotee (if the individual is not the devotee's guru) is in itself a severe offense, what to speak of insulting an individual due to varNa? Furthermore, the majority of buddhists that I personally met are relatively more greedy than I am, I don't seek nirvANam or aShTasiddhayaH or anything; the simple charaNa sparSha of shrI viShNu and service to him and/or his vyUha-s/avatAra-s is vimukti enough for me. In addition, the majority of Buddhists I met when I was in Cambodia were meat eaters who were willing to kill an animal not for sacrificial purposes, but merely to fill their bellies (or for taste). There are certainly abuses of varNAshrama, I admit, some are even permitted by religious organizations themselves, like in the Kukke Subramanya temple in karNAtaka (where dalits roll over the leftover food of brAhmaNa-s), but this doesn't mean that such practices are promoted by the shAstra-s themselves. Your argument that buddha gave dIkSha to females, hence making buddhism less sexist, is also fallacious. Many of the sUktam-s of the R^igveda were composed by R^iShikA-s, making it probably one of the earliest scriptures to be in part composed by women. Women are forbidden from dIkSha in the kaliyuga because they do not need to be pujArI-s or paNDita-s, that is merely an extra responsibility. They can be liberated from saMsAra merely from devotion and nAmajapa, as is said in the viShNupurANam. If you can't see past your western liberal feminist view of other cultures (and your bias towards bauddha dharma) as well as Indological over-simplification/generalizations, then I would prefer it if you wouldn't even bother talking about Hinduism (or even Indian culture in general for that matter). If varNAshrama (as described in authoritative Hindu texts) promotes greed in your view, then I can't even imagine what you'd say about the agniparikSha of sItA in the rAmAyaNam. :eek:

shubhama~Ngalam

P.S. inb4 strawmen along the line of "herp....hindutvavAdI dvija is defending oppression...derp."
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member


praNAm,

You know what, I'm totally wrong. Comparing dark-skinned people to pishAcha-s [demons] as the nAstika g[au/o]tama buddha did in the t[r]ipiTaka ["yathA kho pana ambaTTha etarahi manussA pisAche disvA'pisAchA'ti sa~njAnanti; evameva kho, ambaTTha, tena kho pana samayena manussA pisAche'kaNhA'ti sa~njAnanti"] is so much more "egalitarian" and "liberating" than the nasty discriminatory varNAshrama of those pagan Hindu-s and their brAhmaNism which promotes "greed" and "delusion" and causes severe "duHkha." :rolleyes: Lol, it's funny how most sarvashUnyatAvAdI-s I meet (in person and online) have this urge to make others view their religion as superior to others and completely ignore the fact that others can access their scriptures and point out the inconsistencies in their argument.

And it also gives others a chance to lift quotes out of context and attribute prejudice to the Buddha. :p

Ambattha Sutta

Here Buddha is exposing the origin of the prejudices of the time held by the people of that time in his discourse with a prejudiced Brahmin:
“Reverend Gotama, there are four castes : 5 the Khattiyas, the Brahmins, the merchants and the artisans. And of these four castes, three – the Khattiyas, the merchants and the artisans – are entirely subservient to the Brahmins. With regard to this, it is not proper that they should not pay homage to the Brahmins.” This was the third time Ambattha accused the Sakyans of being menials.

Then the Lord thought : “This young man goes too far in abusing the Sakyans. Suppose I were to ask after his clan-name?” So he said : “Ambattha, what is your clan?’ “I am a Kanhayan, Reverend Gotama”.

“Ambattha, in former days, according to those who remember the ancestral lineage, the Sakyans were the masters, and you are descended from a slave-girl of the Sakyans. For the Sakyans regard King Okkaka as their ancestor. At one time King Okkaka, to whom his queen was dear and beloved, wishing to transfer the kingdom to her son, banished his elder brothers from the kingdom – Okkamukha, Karandu, Hatthiniya and Sinipura. And these, being banished, made their home on the flank of the Himalayas beside a lotus-pond where there was a big grove of teak-trees.6 And for fear of contaminating the stock they cohabited with their own sisters. Then King Okkaka asked his ministers and counsellors : “Where are the princes living now?” and they told him. At this King Okkaha exclaimed : “They are strong as teak (saka), these princes, they are real Sakyans!”7 And this is how the Sakyans got their well-known name. And the King was the ancestor of the Sakyans.

“Now King Okkaka had a slave-girl called Disa, who gave birth to a black child. The black thing, when it was born, exclaimed : “Wash me, mother! Bath me, mother! Deliver me from this dirt, and I will bring you profit!” Because, Ambattha, just as people today use the term hobglobin (pisaca) as a term of abuse, so in those days they said black (kanha). And they said : “As soon as he was born, he spoke. He is born a Kanha, a hobgoblin!” That is how in former days … the Sakyans were the masters, and you are descended from a slave-girl of the Sakyans.”

On hearing this, the young men said : “Reverend Gotama, do not humuliate Ambattha too much with talk of his being descended from a slave-girl : Ambattha is well-born of a good family, he is very learned, he is well-spoken, a scholar, well able to hold his own in this discussion with the Reverend Gotama!”

Then the Lord said to the young men : “If you consider that Ambattha is ill-born, not of a good family, unlearned, ill-spoken, no scholar, unable to hold his own in this discussion with the ascetic Gotama, then let Ambattha be silent, and you conduct this discussion with me. But if you think he is … able to hold his own, then you be quiet, and let him discuss with me.”

(full sutta at above link)​
 
Last edited:

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
And it also gives others a chance to lift quotes out of context and attribute prejudice to the Buddha. :p

Ambattha Sutta

Here Buddha is exposing the origin of the prejudices of the time held by the people of that time in his discourse with a prejudiced Brahmin:
“Reverend Gotama, there are four castes : 5 the Khattiyas, the Brahmins, the merchants and the artisans. And of these four castes, three – the Khattiyas, the merchants and the artisans – are entirely subservient to the Brahmins. With regard to this, it is not proper that they should not pay homage to the Brahmins.” This was the third time Ambattha accused the Sakyans of being menials.

Then the Lord thought : “This young man goes too far in abusing the Sakyans. Suppose I were to ask after his clan-name?” So he said : “Ambattha, what is your clan?’ “I am a Kanhayan, Reverend Gotama”.

“Ambattha, in former days, according to those who remember the ancestral lineage, the Sakyans were the masters, and you are descended from a slave-girl of the Sakyans. For the Sakyans regard King Okkaka as their ancestor. At one time King Okkaka, to whom his queen was dear and beloved, wishing to transfer the kingdom to her son, banished his elder brothers from the kingdom – Okkamukha, Karandu, Hatthiniya and Sinipura. And these, being banished, made their home on the flank of the Himalayas beside a lotus-pond where there was a big grove of teak-trees.6 And for fear of contaminating the stock they cohabited with their own sisters. Then King Okkaka asked his ministers and counsellors : “Where are the princes living now?” and they told him. At this King Okkaha exclaimed : “They are strong as teak (saka), these princes, they are real Sakyans!”7 And this is how the Sakyans got their well-known name. And the King was the ancestor of the Sakyans.

“Now King Okkaka had a slave-girl called Disa, who gave birth to a black child. The black thing, when it was born, exclaimed : “Wash me, mother! Bath me, mother! Deliver me from this dirt, and I will bring you profit!” Because, Ambattha, just as people today use the term hobglobin (pisaca) as a term of abuse, so in those days they said black (kanha). And they said : “As soon as he was born, he spoke. He is born a Kanha, a hobgoblin!” That is how in former days … the Sakyans were the masters, and you are descended from a slave-girl of the Sakyans.”

On hearing this, the young men said : “Reverend Gotama, do not humuliate Ambattha too much with talk of his being descended from a slave-girl : Ambattha is well-born of a good family, he is very learned, he is well-spoken, a scholar, well able to hold his own in this discussion with the Reverend Gotama!”

Then the Lord said to the young men : “If you consider that Ambattha is ill-born, not of a good family, unlearned, ill-spoken, no scholar, unable to hold his own in this discussion with the ascetic Gotama, then let Ambattha be silent, and you conduct this discussion with me. But if you think he is … able to hold his own, then you be quiet, and let him discuss with me.”

(full sutta at above link)​
The suttam says nothing about those being commonly held prejudices (it just said manussA, which could refer to some people or many people), and the original pALi does not say anything about "as a form of abuse." The text to me is stating that Buddha intentionally tried to humble and/or insult him after ambaTTha called sAkya-s menial. The anecdote seems to be figurative and makes no sense realistically; no baby says "asuchismA parimochetha", they would likely first say "appa" or "mAtA" or something. Also, if they did view dark skinned people as pishAcha-s, then did they consider ambaTTha to be some type of brahmarAkShasa or something (since he's a descendant of kanha, a brAhmaNa/uLAro)? Sorry, but you're not making sense. In any case, the lineage of the "manussA"/manuShyAH (people) that made those statements is never mentioned, so the contention that the people referred to therein are brAhmaNa-s still seem quite misplaced and/or biased (and this is assuming an individual did indeed make those statements and that gotama remembered his past lives as vessantara, sumedha, etc. and could recall what was said, rather than making stuff up in order to insult ambaTTha). To be honest, I don't know what the culture was like in uttarakos[h]ala or magadha, but I doubt that they actually believed in such nonsense that dark skin makes one a pishAcha; I have never read any such view in a Hindu text (the closest thing I can think of is when maudgalya, in the gopatha brAhmaNa, says that the color associated with tamas [darkness/ignorance] is black, which doesn't really mean anything as black also has positive connotations as well such as that of conjugal love).
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member

The suttam says nothing about those being commonly held prejudices (it just said manussA, which could refer to some people or many people), and the original pALi does not say anything about "as a form of abuse."
Here's a different translation of the sutta, if you prefer:
Buddhist Library Online | Ambatta Sutta

or this translation:
III. Ambattha Sutta
The text to me is stating that Buddha intentionally tried to humble and/or insult him after ambaTTha called sAkya-s menial.
Ambattha also called them black in verse 11:
11. 'Certainly not, Gotama. It is proper to speak with a Brahman as one goes along only when the Brahman himself is walking, and standing to a Brahman who stands, and seated to a Brahman who has taken his seat, or reclining to a Brahman who reclines. But with shavelings, sham friars, menial black fellows, the offscouring of our kinsman's heels{1}--with them I would talk as I now do to you!'​
The text to me is stating that Buddha intentionally tried to humble and/or insult him after ambaTTha called sAkya-s menial.
Indeed. Later on in the sutta Buddha asks:
21.
<...>
'What do you think, Ambattha? What have you heard, when Brahmans old and well stricken in years, teachers of yours or their teachers, were talking together, as to whence the Kanhâyanas draw their origin, and who the ancestor was to whom they trace themselves back?'

'Just so, Gotama, did I hear, even as the venerable Gotama hath said. That is the origin of the Kanhâyanas, and that the ancestor to whom they trace themselves back.'​
So the Brahmin admitted that it was what he was taught.
The anecdote seems to be figurative and makes no sense realistically; no baby says "asuchismA parimochetha", they would likely first say "appa" or "mAtA" or something. Also, if they did view dark skinned people as pishAcha-s, then did they consider ambaTTha to be some type of brahmarAkShasa or something (since he's a descendant of kanha, a brAhmaNa/uLAro)? Sorry, but you're not making sense. In any case, the lineage of the "manussA"/manuShyAH (people) that made those statements is never mentioned, so the contention that the people referted therein are brAhmaNa-s still seem quite misplaced and/or biased (and this is assuming an individual did indeed make those statements
Near the beginning of the sutta, it says that Ambattha was well educated:
3. Now at that time a young Brahman, an Ambattha{1}, was a pupil under Pokkharasâdi the Brahman. And he was a repeater (of the sacred words) knowing the mystic verses by heart, one who had mastered the Three Vedas, with the indices, the ritual, the phonology, and the exegesis (as a fourth){2}, and the legends as a fifth. learned in the idioms and the grammar, versed in Lokâyata sophistry, and in the theory of the signs on the body of a great man{1},--so recognised an authority in the system of the threefold Vedic knowledge as expounded by his master, that he could say of him: 'What I know that you know, and what you know that I know.'​
and that gotama remembered his past lives as vessantara, sumedha, etc. and could recall what was said, rather than making stuff up in order to insult ambaTTha).
No need to invoke all that, as Buddha was born as a Sâkya, and would have learned it before he became a contemplative.
To be honest, I don't know what the culture was like in uttarakos[h]ala or magadha, but I doubt that they actually believed in such nonsense that dark skin makes one a pishAcha; I have never read any such view in a Hindu text (the closest thing I can think of is when maudgalya, in the gopatha brAhmaNa, says that the color associated with tamas [darkness/ignorance] is black, which doesn't really mean anything as black also has positive connotations as well such as that of conjugal love).
This was also in the post-Vedic times, with all the corruption that went along with those times.
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
Ambattha also called them black in verse 11:
11. 'Certainly not, Gotama. It is proper to speak with a Brahman as one goes along only when the Brahman himself is walking, and standing to a Brahman who stands, and seated to a Brahman who has taken his seat, or reclining to a Brahman who reclines. But with shavelings, sham friars, menial black fellows, the offscouring of our kinsman's heels{1}--with them I would talk as I now do to you!'​
You do realize that ibbhA kaNhA can also mean servant of the kaNha-s rather than "black servant" and that makes more sense, right? It's egotistical of ambaTTha to look down on others regardless (or view them as servants), but the reference to skin color is not cut and dry as was the case with the buddha, nor did he ever equate dark-skinned people to demons.
Indeed. Later on in the sutta Buddha asks:
21.
<...>
'What do you think, Ambattha? What have you heard, when Brahmans old and well stricken in years, teachers of yours or their teachers, were talking together, as to whence the Kanhâyanas draw their origin, and who the ancestor was to whom they trace themselves back?'
'Just so, Gotama, did I hear, even as the venerable Gotama hath said. That is the origin of the Kanhâyanas, and that the ancestor to whom they trace themselves back.'​
So the Brahmin admitted that it was what he was taught.
You're blaming me from quoting out of context, yet don't realize that those verses were in regard to ambaTTha being a "dasiputta," not in regard to dark-skinned people being pishAcha-s? The latter is entirely an invention of buddha, as he admits when stating that ambaTTha was indeed considered a human and not a demon (tvaM vutte ambaTTho mANavo tuNhI ahosi).
Near the beginning of the sutta, it says that Ambattha was well educated:
3. Now at that time a young Brahman, an Ambattha{1}, was a pupil under Pokkharasâdi the Brahman. And he was a repeater (of the sacred words) knowing the mystic verses by heart, one who had mastered the Three Vedas, with the indices, the ritual, the phonology, and the exegesis (as a fourth){2}, and the legends as a fifth. learned in the idioms and the grammar, versed in Lokâyata sophistry, and in the theory of the signs on the body of a great man{1},--so recognised an authority in the system of the threefold Vedic knowledge as expounded by his master, that he could say of him: 'What I know that you know, and what you know that I know.'​
How is this relevant? All this seems to prove (is my opinion) is that the authors of the tipiTaka only classified the trAyi vidyA as "veda-s" and didn't consider the atharvaveda to be legitimate. Either that, or they just lacked knowledge of Hindu traditions.
No need to invoke all that, as Buddha was born as a Sâkya, and would have learned it before he became a contemplative.
Regardless, he never substantiated his own lineage, so who is he to speak of another individual's hereditary lineage? From my perspective, gautama buddha was no more a descendent of "okkAka" (ikShvAku) than the arunthathiyar are descendents of arundhatI. In fact, the chance of the former being true is most likely more slim as most Indologists agree that the origin of buddha's shAkya clan is foreign/non-indigenous to bhArata.
This was also in the post-Vedic times, with all the corruption that went along with those times.
Really? Post-Vedic (Agamika and paurANika) Hinduism was, to an extent, more open than during the Vedic period (with the exception of shAkta Agamika/tAntrika intitiations. which were very strict). In any case, vyAsa is said to have composed the mahAbhAratam (and the other itihAsa-s and purANam-s) in order for shUdra-s and women [who are not dvija-s] in order for them to still attain shAstraj~nAna:

&#2360;&#2381;&#2340;&#2381;&#2352;&#2368;&#2358;&#2370;&#2342;&#2381;&#2352;&#2342;&#2381;&#2357;&#2367;&#2332;&#2348;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2370;&#2344;&#2366;&#2306; &#2340;&#2381;&#2352;&#2351;&#2368; &#2344; &#2358;&#2381;&#2352;&#2369;&#2340;&#2367;&#2327;&#2379;&#2330;&#2352;&#2366;&#2404;
&#2325;&#2352;&#2381;&#2350;&#2358;&#2381;&#2352;&#2375;&#2351;&#2360;&#2367; &#2350;&#2370;&#2338;&#2366;&#2344;&#2366;&#2306; &#2358;&#2381;&#2352;&#2375;&#2351; &#2319;&#2357;&#2306; &#2349;&#2357;&#2375;&#2342;&#2367;&#2361;&#2404;
&#2311;&#2340;&#2367; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2350;&#2366;&#2326;&#2381;&#2351;&#2366;&#2344;&#2306; &#2325;&#2371;&#2346;&#2351;&#2366; &#2350;&#2369;&#2344;&#2367;&#2344;&#2366; &#2325;&#2371;&#2340;&#2350;&#2381;&#2405;&#2406;&#2407;.&#2406;&#2410;.&#2406;&#2408;&#2411;&#2405;

strIshUdradvijabandhUnAM trayI na shrutigocharA|
karmashreyasi mUDhAnAM shreya evaM bhavediha|
iti bhAratamAkhyAnaM kR^ipayA muninA kR^itam||01.04.025||

"For those shUdra-s, shrI-s (women), and friends of the dvija-s who do not understand the veda-s, he (vedavyAsa) thus thought to act for the supreme benefit of those befooled people. Thus thinking out of mercy [for them], the muni (sage) completed the AkhyAnam known as the bhAratam."
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Part 1
You do realize that ibbhA kaNhA can also mean servant of the kaNha-s rather than "black servant" and that makes more sense, right? It's egotistical of ambaTTha to look down on others regardless (or view them as servants), but the reference to skin color is not cut and dry as was the case with the buddha, nor did he ever equate dark-skinned people to demons.
If you look at the text, the ancestor of Ambattha was named Kanha,, hence the clan name Ambattha's clan name of Kanhâyana. Buddha was relating the story as told by the Kanhayanas and the Sakyas.



You're blaming me from quoting out of context, yet don't realize that those verses were in regard to ambaTTha being a "dasiputta," not in regard to dark-skinned people being pishAcha-s? The latter is entirely an invention of buddha, as he admits when stating that ambaTTha was indeed considered a human and not a demon (tvaM vutte ambaTTho mANavo tuNhI ahosi).
Nope. He was relating the oral tradition of the time if you care to check the text. Ambattha agreed that Buddha rendered the oral tradition correctly. I will post the entire portion of the text, so you an be sure it is not being lifted out of context, but will hide it to save space:

16. Then the Blessed One thought thus: 'This Ambattha is very set on humbling the Sâkyas with his charge of servile origin. What if I were to ask him as to his own lineage.' And he said to him:

'And what family do you then, Ambattha, belong to?'

'I am a Kanhâyana.'

'Yes, but if one were to follow up your ancient name and lineage, Ambattha, on the father's and the mother's side, it would appear that the Sâkyas were once your masters, and that you are the offspring of one of their slave girls. But the Sâkyas trace their line back to Okkâka the king{2}.

'Long ago, Ambattha, King Okkâka, wanting to divert the succession in favour or the son of his favourite queen, banished his elder children--Okkâmukha, Karanda, Hatthinika, and Sinipura--from the land. And being thus banished they took up their dwelling on the slopes of the Himâlaya, on the borders of a lake where a mighty oak tree grew.

And through fear of injuring the purity of their line they intermarried with their sisters.

'Now Okkâka the king asked the ministers at his court: "Where, Sirs, are the children now{1}?"'

'There is a spot, Sire, on the slopes of the Himâlaya, on the borders of a lake, where there grows a mighty oak (sako). There do they dwell. And lest they should injure the purity of their line they have married their own (sakâhi) sisters.'

'Then did Okkâka the king burst forth in admiration [93]: "Hearts of oak (sakyâ) are those young fellows! Right well they hold their own (paramasakyâ){2}!"

'That is the reason, Ambattha, why they are known as Sâkyas. Now Okkâka had a slave girl called Disâ. She gave birth to a black baby. And no sooner was it born than the little black thing said, "Wash me, mother. Bathe me, mother. Set me free, mother, of this dirt. So shall I be of use to you."

'Now just as now, Ambattha, people call devils "devils," so then they called devils "black fellows" (kanhe). And they said: "This fellow spoke as soon as he was born. 'Tis a black thing (kanha) that is born, a devil has been born!" And that is the origin, Ambattha, of the Kanhayanas s. He was the ancestor of the Kanhâyanas{3}. And thus is it, Ambattha, that if one were to follow up your ancient name and lineage, on the father's and on the mother's side, it would appear that the Sâkyas were once your masters, and that you are the offspring of one of their slave girls.'

17. When he had thus spoken the young Brahmans said to the Blessed One: 'Let not the venerable Gotama humble Ambattha too sternly with this reproach of being descended from a slave girl. He is well born, Gotama, and of good family; he is versed in the sacred hymns, an able reciter, a learned man. And he is able to give answer to the venerable Gotama in these matters.'

18. Then the Blessed One said to them: 'Quite so. If [94] you thought otherwise, then it would be for you to carry on our discussion further. But as you think so, let Ambattha himself speak{1}.'

19. 'We do think so; and we will hold our peace. Ambattha is able to give answer to the venerable Gotama in these matters.'

20. Then the Blessed One said to Ambattha the Brahman: 'Then this further question arises, Ambattha, a very reasonable one which, even though unwillingly, you should answer. If you do not give a clear reply, or go off upon another issue{2}, or remain silent, or go away, then your head will split in pieces on the spot{3}. What have you heard, when Brahmans old and well stricken in years, teachers of yours or their teachers, were talking together, as to whence the Kanhâyanas draw their origin, and who the ancestor was to whom they trace themselves back?'

And when he had thus spoken Ambattha remained silent. And the Blessed One asked the same question again. [95] And still Ambattha remained silent. Then the Blessed One said to him: 'You had better answer, now, Ambattha. This is no time for you to hold your peace. For whosoever, Ambattha, does not, even up to the third time of asking, answer a reasonable question put by a Tathâgata (by one who has won the truth), his head splits into pieces on the spot.'

21. Now at that time the spirit who bears the thunderbolt{1} stood over above Ambattha in the sky with a mighty mass of iron, all fiery, dazzling, and aglow, with the intention, if he did not answer, there and then to split his head in pieces. And the Blessed One perceived the spirit bearing the thunderbolt, and so did Ambattha the Brahman. And Ambattha on becoming aware of it, terrified, startled, and agitated, seeking safety and protection and help from the Blessed One, crouched down beside him in awe{2}, and said: 'What was it the Blessed One said? Say it once again!'

'What do you think, Ambattha? What have you heard, when Brahmans old and well stricken in years, teachers of yours or their teachers, were talking together, as to whence the Kanhâyanas draw their origin, and who the ancestor was to whom they trace themselves back?'

'Just so, Gotama, did I hear, even as the venerable Gotama hath said. That is the origin of the Kanhâyanas, and that the ancestor to whom they trace themselves back.'

22. And when he had thus spoken the young Brahmans fell into tumult, and uproar, and turmoil; and said: 'Low born, they say, is Ambattha the Brahman; his family, they say, is not of good standing; they say he is descended from a slave girl; and the Sâkyas were his masters. We did not suppose that the Samana Gotama, whose words are righteousness itself, was not a man to be trusted!'

23. And the Blessed One thought: [96] 'They go too far, these Brahmans, in their depreciation of Ambattha as the offspring of a slave girl. Let me set him free from their reproach.' And he said to them: 'Be not too severe in disparaging Ambattha the Brahman on the ground of his descent. That Kanha became a mighty seer{1}. He went into the Dekkan, there he learnt mystic verses, and returning to Okkâka the king, he demanded his daughter Madda-rûpî in marriage. To him the king in answer said: "Who forsooth is this fellow, who--son of my slave girl as he is--asks for my daughter in marriage;" and, angry and displeased, he fitted an arrow to his bow. But neither could he let the arrow fly, nor could he take it off the string again{2}.

'Then the ministers and courtiers went to Kanha the seer, and said: "Let the king go safe, Sir; let the king go safe{3}."

"The king shall suffer no harm. But should he shoot the arrow downwards, then would the earth dry up as far as his realm extends."

"Let the king, Sir, go safe, and the country too."

"The king shall suffer no harm, nor his land. But should he shoot the arrow upwards, the god would not rain for seven years as far as his realm extends{4}."

"Let the king, Sir, go safe, and the country too; and let the god rain."

"The king shall suffer no harm, nor the land either, and the god shall rain. But let the king aim the arrow at his eldest son. The prince shall suffer no harm, not a hair of him shall be touched."

'Then, O Brahmans, the ministers told this to Okkâka,


and said: "Let the king aim{1} at his eldest son. He will suffer neither harm nor terror." And the king did so, and no harm was done. But the king, terrified at the lesson given him, [97] gave the man his daughter Madda-rûpî to wife. You should not, O Brahmans, be too severe to disparage Ambattha in the matter of his slave-girl ancestress. That Kanha was a mighty seer:
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Part 2

How is this relevant? All this seems to prove (is my opinion) is that the authors of the tipiTaka only classified the trAyi vidyA as "veda-s" and didn't consider the atharvaveda to be legitimate. Either that, or they just lacked knowledge of Hindu traditions.
You might want to recheck the text there. It mentions more than that.

Regardless, he never substantiated his own lineage, so who is he to speak of another individual's hereditary lineage? From my perspective, gautama buddha was no more a descendent of "okkAka" (ikShvAku) than the arunthathiyar are descendents of arundhatI. In fact, the chance of the former being true is most likely more slim as most Indologists agree that the origin of buddha's shAkya clan is foreign/non-indigenous to bhArata.
Buddha related the oral tradition, and Ambattha said that was how the tradition was related by his teachers to him. Buddha was a Sakya, and related the story of the Sakyas, as well as the story of how the Kandhayana traced their lineage from the Sakyas.

Really? Post-Vedic (Agamika and paurAnika) Hinduism was, to an extent, more open than during the Vedic period (with the exception of shAkta Agamika/tAntrika intitiations. which were very strict). In any case, vyAsa is said to have composed the mahAbhAratam (and the other itihAsa-s and purANam-s) in order for shUdra-s and women [who are not dvija-s] in order for them to still attain shAstraj~nAna:

&#2360;&#2381;&#2340;&#2381;&#2352;&#2368;&#2358;&#2370;&#2342;&#2381;&#2352;&#2342;&#2381;&#2357;&#2367;&#2332;&#2348;&#2344;&#2381;&#2343;&#2370;&#2344;&#2366;&#2306; &#2340;&#2381;&#2352;&#2351;&#2368; &#2344; &#2358;&#2381;&#2352;&#2369;&#2340;&#2367;&#2327;&#2379;&#2330;&#2352;&#2366;&#2404;
&#2325;&#2352;&#2381;&#2350;&#2358;&#2381;&#2352;&#2375;&#2351;&#2360;&#2367; &#2350;&#2370;&#2338;&#2366;&#2344;&#2366;&#2306; &#2358;&#2381;&#2352;&#2375;&#2351; &#2319;&#2357;&#2306; &#2349;&#2357;&#2375;&#2342;&#2367;&#2361;&#2404;
&#2311;&#2340;&#2367; &#2349;&#2366;&#2352;&#2340;&#2350;&#2366;&#2326;&#2381;&#2351;&#2366;&#2344;&#2306; &#2325;&#2371;&#2346;&#2351;&#2366; &#2350;&#2369;&#2344;&#2367;&#2344;&#2366; &#2325;&#2371;&#2340;&#2350;&#2381;&#2405;&#2406;&#2407;.&#2406;&#2410;.&#2406;&#2408;&#2411;&#2405;

strIshUdradvijabandhUnAM trayI na shrutigocharA|
karmashreyasi mUDhAnAM shreya evaM bhavediha|
iti bhAratamAkhyAnaM kR^ipayA muninA kR^itam||01.04.025||

"For those shUdra-s, shrI-s (women), and friends of the dvija-s who do not understand the veda-s, he (vedavyAsa) thus thought to act for the supreme benefit of those befooled people. Thus thinking out of mercy [for them], the muni (sage) completed the AkhyAnam known as the bhAratam."[/COLOR][/I][/B]
Ambattha was a Brahmin who understood the Vedas. He showed prejudice towards others because he was showed prejudice because his lineage came through a slave-girl. In this sutta, Buddha goes through the reasoning why it is not right to show prejudice to anyone due to their lineage. (Continue reading the sutta where I left off the hidden quote to confirm the truth of what I am saying.)
I am not misrepresenting anything here. Can you say the same thing about the assertions you have made in your posts regarding this sutta?
 
Top