- Joined
- Feb 18, 2025
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 48
- Awards
- 1
In the Vinaya Pitaka Suttavibhanga, Parajika 1 (Vinaya III.21), the Buddha says, “It would have been better, foolish man, to put your penis into the mouth of a deadly poisonous snake than into a woman’s sexual organ.” Hatred for women, and by extension material world, is the core of Buddhist monastic tradition. No one wants to talk about this aspect of Buddhism. It was not feminist. It was misogynist. Even Ashoka mocks women's rites on his edicts.
When Buddhism left India Buddhist merchants funded the Brahmins. As a result today, like ancient Buddhists Brahmins are promoting anti-women Hinduism Ram temples without Sita, Krishna with Arjun not Radha. Hindu monasteries are more important today than Hindu temples where gods were once worshipped as a conjugal pair.
A new claim is making the rounds. Hindu temple art, we are told, is really Buddhist art. The apsara on the pillar, the dancing figures on the shikhara, all of it supposedly traces back to the Buddhist stupa and cave. Vishnu is actually Bodhsattva. Shiva is also Bodhisattva. The claim collapses the moment you ask what Buddhism actually valued.
The Buddha left his wife and infant son in the night, and this abandonment is remembered as the great renunciation. The Vinaya forbids monks from dancing, singing, wearing garlands, watching a dance at all. Pleasure is not neutral in this worldview. Pleasure is the obstacle.
Jainism goes further. The tirthankara is carved standing or seated, never gesturing. Stillness is the iconographic ideal because stillness is the ethical ideal.
Hinduism runs the opposite direction. Shiva marries and has children. Krishna dances with the gopis in the forest at night. Ram is a king, bound to wife and subjects, not a monk. Vishnu chases Lakshmi through a tamarind grove. Ganesha eats sugarcane and dances with snakes. The Gita Govinda is built entirely on longing. This is not decoration on a philosophical core. This is the core. Shringara and Rasa are the categories through which the tradition thinks about the divine.
Yes, many Buddhist shrines (like Gaya) were claimed by corrupt Hindu priests but that does not mean "all" Hindu mythology is Buddhist at core. In fact, most Buddhist "activitsts" confuse naked images of Jain sages with Buddha images. Jain sages do not wear robes. They also are shown on the heads of Yakshis and Yaksha this was seen in Buddhist art too. But Buddha was always clothed. The reason: he said women would chase monks if they walked naked as meditation made monks very attractive.
Cunning Brahmins have long claimed everything Hindu descends from the Veda. The neo-Buddhist claim on temple art is the mirror of that move, a different lobby, a different point of origin, the same flattering genealogy.
The "lower" truth of Buddhism, Jainism and neo-Hinduism includes women. The "higher" truth excludes women. No women in Buddhist and Jain heaven. Indra's paradise full of apsaras is lower. But there is no Vaikuntha without Lakshmi, no Goloka without gopis and no Kailasa without yoginis.
When Buddhism left India Buddhist merchants funded the Brahmins. As a result today, like ancient Buddhists Brahmins are promoting anti-women Hinduism Ram temples without Sita, Krishna with Arjun not Radha. Hindu monasteries are more important today than Hindu temples where gods were once worshipped as a conjugal pair.
A new claim is making the rounds. Hindu temple art, we are told, is really Buddhist art. The apsara on the pillar, the dancing figures on the shikhara, all of it supposedly traces back to the Buddhist stupa and cave. Vishnu is actually Bodhsattva. Shiva is also Bodhisattva. The claim collapses the moment you ask what Buddhism actually valued.
The Buddha left his wife and infant son in the night, and this abandonment is remembered as the great renunciation. The Vinaya forbids monks from dancing, singing, wearing garlands, watching a dance at all. Pleasure is not neutral in this worldview. Pleasure is the obstacle.
Jainism goes further. The tirthankara is carved standing or seated, never gesturing. Stillness is the iconographic ideal because stillness is the ethical ideal.
Hinduism runs the opposite direction. Shiva marries and has children. Krishna dances with the gopis in the forest at night. Ram is a king, bound to wife and subjects, not a monk. Vishnu chases Lakshmi through a tamarind grove. Ganesha eats sugarcane and dances with snakes. The Gita Govinda is built entirely on longing. This is not decoration on a philosophical core. This is the core. Shringara and Rasa are the categories through which the tradition thinks about the divine.
Yes, many Buddhist shrines (like Gaya) were claimed by corrupt Hindu priests but that does not mean "all" Hindu mythology is Buddhist at core. In fact, most Buddhist "activitsts" confuse naked images of Jain sages with Buddha images. Jain sages do not wear robes. They also are shown on the heads of Yakshis and Yaksha this was seen in Buddhist art too. But Buddha was always clothed. The reason: he said women would chase monks if they walked naked as meditation made monks very attractive.
Cunning Brahmins have long claimed everything Hindu descends from the Veda. The neo-Buddhist claim on temple art is the mirror of that move, a different lobby, a different point of origin, the same flattering genealogy.
The "lower" truth of Buddhism, Jainism and neo-Hinduism includes women. The "higher" truth excludes women. No women in Buddhist and Jain heaven. Indra's paradise full of apsaras is lower. But there is no Vaikuntha without Lakshmi, no Goloka without gopis and no Kailasa without yoginis.
