Mystics and Missionaries

[Aditya, the Cheerful Hindu Skeptic]

"Ven. Tantra" <troyoga at YAHOO.COM> has written as follows:
>And it still does. But who are they, really?

Do you mean to say that you do not know who they are where they are?

The Buddhism itself is a mission with a defined church called Sangha.
The 3 sentences uttered  daily as a prayer by them are : 
1. Buddha sharanam gachhami
2. Sangham sharanam gacchami.
3. Dhammam sharanam gacchami

(Parenthetically speaking, the current establishment in USA though limited
by the First Amendment, has set up its own ritual in the form of Pledge of
Allegiance.  I cannot see any justification for its utterance at each and
every public gathering,  even a sport event or start of a school day etc.)

Even though Buddhism is now considered a religion for intellectuals and
freethinkers but obviously more rigid and allows very little individualism. 

It is claimed that Buddha was an atheist but the organization that he
founded made him a god of his own church.

In this respect Buddhism may be akin to Marxism as I consider Marxism
practiced today to be no less a religion than christianity.

A large number of  missionaries were sent abroad by King Asoka who adopted
Buddhism as his state religion. These missionaries are responsible for the
spread of Buddhism throughout Asia. There are even Buddhist gideons
worldwide who place Buddhist texts in your hotel rooms in many Asian cities.
It is said that Siddarth's own son joined him and became a missionary.

>I applaud Steve Farmer's Sep. 2000 posts re. "'Buddha'
>before the Pali Canon?" Steve has made a significant
>contribution by excellently articulating the essence
>of an inquiry that has gone too long unexplored. I
>don’t know why scholars continue to treat this Buddha
>Myth question so uncritically—or maybe I do know.

I missed his postings because I was too busy at the time.
I will see if they are available in the archives.

>did exist. They believe "The Buddha" existed in a way
>more believable than, say, Jesus may or may have not
>existed. They believe in an "irreducible" human being
>even though admitting no available evidence.

Th only physical evidence of Jesus's existence, the shroud has been shown to
be a 13th century item but Buddha's teeth are supposed to be available and
it may be possible to do DNA analysis to determine his age and time.
Mohammed's hair is supposed to be preserved in Kashmir but no one has yet
done DNA analysis on that so far.

>irreducible to what: A sixth century BC sunnyasin who
>taught some sort of raja-yoga and espoused a special
>doctrine, who took on many ascetic disciples and
>enjoyed broad community support?

That is good enough explanation and what more do you need?
However, his doctrine was revolutionary since the mainline practice was more
individualistic and did  not have any organization.
I


Have a peaceful and joyous day.
Aditya Mishra 
Primary email: a018967t at bc.seflin.org
Primary homepage: http://www.pompano.net/~aditya 
ICQ # 1131674 Phone #: (954)746-0442  Fax # (209)315-8571
Random thought of the day:
        The notion of a "record" is an obsolete remnant of the days of the 80-column card. ... Dennis M. Ritchie