BUHLER DROWNS HIMSELF AFTER FAKE DISCOVERIES

Alois Anton Furer's Fake Buddha Discoveries

Georg Buhler (1837-1898), the German scholar who translated Manusmriti, drowned in Lake Constance, on 8 April 1898, under mysterious circumstances. He supposedly committed suicide after his pupil Alois Anton Führer's fake archaeological discoveries in India. Buhler had generously endorsed Führer's fake "discoveries", and Fuhrer had plagiarised Buhler's documents.

Lake Constance, where Buhler committed suicide, refers to three bodies of water on the Rhine at the northern foot of the Alps: Upper Lake Constance, Lower Lake Constance, and a connecting stretch of the Rhine called the Lake Rhine. These water bodies lie within the Lake Constance Basin in the Alpine Foreland through which the Rhine flows. The lake is situated where Germany, Switzerland, and Austria meet. Its shorelines lie in the German states of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria, the Swiss cantons of St. Gallen, Thurgau, and Schaffhausen, and the Austrian state of Vorarlberg.

Contemporary accounts mostly attributed Buhler's drowning to an accident. An obituary of him by Austrian Indologist Moritz Winternitz, "Georg Buhler in Memoriam" states that "while enjoying alone in a small boat a beautiful evening on the Lake of Constance, he seems to have lost an oar, and in trying to recover it, to have overbalanced himself". But it has been speculated that it was a suicide motivated by Bühler's connections to a scandal involving his former student Alois Anton Führer. (1) Führer (1853 – 1930) was a German Indologist who worked for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). (2) He is known for his archaeological excavations, which he believed proved that Buddha was born in Lumbini, Nepal. (3) Führer's archaeological career ended in disgrace as "a forger and dealer in fake antiquities", and he had to resign from his position in 1898. (4)

Buhler

On that fateful day, Buhler was travelling from Vienna to Zurich, to spend the Easter vacation with his wife and son, who were staying there with relatives. He left Vienna on 5 April and broke his journey at Lindau in Lake Constance. According to Winternitz, he was probably tempted by the fine weather and wanted to enjoy roaring before proceeding to Zurich. (5) On the 7th, after rowing with a small hired boat, he returned to the hotel. On the next day, he hired the same boat to take another trip. He was last seen at about 7 pm. The next day the boat was found floating bottom upwards on the lake. Buhler had not informed his wife about the travel, which is suspicious.

T A Phleps, who wrote, Lumbini on Trial: The Untold Story, raised the question of whether it was an accident. (6) British Writer Charles Allen opined that Buhler must have committed suicide considering possible defamation for upholding and publishing forged material, particularly related to the "discovery" of Buddha's birthplace. During the last years of his life, Buhler was connected to Alois Anton Führer, an archaeologist in the Archaeological Survey of India. Führer, who joined the ASI in 1885, "was engaged in plagiarism since 1882, the nature of which not only escaped the notice of many scholars but on the contrary, they considered it as a work of serious scholarship."(7)

Führer was born in Limburg an der Lahn, Germany, into a Catholic family. He studied Roman Catholic theology and Oriental studies at the University of Würzburg, was ordained in 1878 and received his PhD in 1879. His Sanskrit lecturer, Julius Jolly, was associated with the Bombay School of Indology. Probably due to him, he was appointed as a teacher of Sanskrit at St Xavier's Institute in Bombay. (8)

Julius Jolly (1849 – 1932) was a German scholar and translator of Indian law and medicine. Born in Heidelberg, the son of physicist Philipp Johann Gustav von Jolly (1809–1884), Jolly studied comparative linguistics, Sanskrit, and Iranian languages in Berlin and Leipzig.  Jolly became a Professor at the University of Würzburg in 1877, in the fields of comparative linguistics and Sanskrit. In 1882–1883 he visited India as Tagore professor of law, Calcutta, where he gave twelve lectures later published as Outlines of a History of the Hindu Law of Partition, Inheritance and Adoption (1885).

In 1896, Jolly contributed to Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde (Encyclopedia of Indo-Aryan Research), later revised by Jolly and in 1928 translated by Balakrishna Ghosh, under the title Hindu Law and Custom. In this volume, Jolly discussed family law and heirship, the law of things and obligations, offences and penalties, court procedures, customs and traditions. In 1901 he also contributed a study of Indian medicine, still considered one of the most complete studies of the history of Indian medical literature.

Jolly edited the law books of Vishnu, Narada, and Manu, and translated the first two for the Sacred Books of the East (Vol. 7, The Institutes of Visnu, 1880; and Vol. 33, The Minor Law-Books: Brihaspati, 1889). He retired in 1922, when he became co-editor of the Journal of Indian History, but continued to give lectures in Würzburg till 1928. He published a new critical edition of Kautilya's Arthashastra in collaboration with R. Schmidt in the Panjab Sanskrit Series, 1923–1924.

Following Jolly's footprints, in 1882, Führer was able to publish two lectures about Hindu Law in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. (9) The lectures were entirely plagiarized from earlier works: only about one-tenth of the content is his own. (10) Führer left the Catholic Church around 1884 and converted to Anglicanism which cost him his job; he returned to Germany, from where he applied for a new job in the museum in Lucknow in India. (11)

Führer came back to India in 1885 and on his arrival, Alfred Comyn Lyall appointed him Curator of the Lucknow Provincial Museum. Führer immediately set about improving the museum. Impressed by the changes, Lyall, the Chair of the Museum's Management Committee, wrote to Calcutta asking whether a part-time job for Führer could be found with the Archaeological Survey of India. (12) He thus came to hold a double appointment, one as Curator at the museum and the other as Archaeological Surveyor to the North-Western Provinces. He was part of the N-W.P. and Oudh Circle of the Archaeological Survey. (13)

In 1886, the turning point came: Führer was instructed by the government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh and the Government of India to carry out an expedition to Nepal. (14)

But, from 1888, there was severe lobbying aimed at reducing Government expenses and curtailing the budget of the Archaeological Survey of India, a period of about ten years known as the "Buck crisis", after the Liberal Edward Buck. (15) In effect, this severely threatened the employment of the employees of the ASI, including Führer, who had just started a family and become a father. (16) These existential threats to his livelihood may have become "a motive for misbehaviour" on the part of Führer. Buck announced in 1892 that the Archaeological Survey of India would be shut down and all ASI staff would be dismissed by 1895, to generate savings for the Government's budget. (17) The prospect of being fired may have prompted Führer to act recklessly with his discoveries in a desperate attempt to avoid that fate. He may have thought a great discovery within the next three years might be able to turn public opinion and save the funding of the ASI. (18)

So, in 1891, Führer started excavations at the Ramnagar site of Ahichchhatra. (19) The excavations were quite disappointing. (20) Pressured by the need to get results, Führer started to report invented discoveries, such as ancient dated inscriptions that never existed, and non-existent Jain inscriptions. (21) German Indologist Heinrich Lüders would later be able to show that the supposed Jain inscriptions were fakes compiled from earlier real inscriptions found in Mathura. (22) In 1912 Lüders summarized "As all statements about epigraphical finds that admit of verification have proved to be false, it is very likely that no inscriptions at all have turned up". (23)

Führer also went to Sanchi during the 1891–1892 season and recovered tens of unpublished donative inscriptions, but these could not have the impact he hoped for. (24) Only a new inscription by King Ashoka achieved sufficient impact on public opinion. (25)

Führer carried out very successful excavations at the Kankali Tila site of Mathura between 1889 and 1891 which improved his understanding of the history of Jainism and gained him a reputation "as the most successful of the professional excavators".(26) Still, Führer's reports continued to be the result of extensive plagiarization, taking especially from the work of his superior Georg Bühler at that time, although this is not clear-cut and may only be the result of intensive cooperation between the two. (27) Führer's reports are also noted for being particularly vague and lacking details. (28)

Fuhrer

In 1912, Lüders identified in the Lucknow Provincial Museum forged inscriptions in Brahmi on artefacts belonging to Führer's excavations at Mathura and Ramnagar, forgeries which he attributed to Führer himself. (29) Some of the forged inscriptions were direct copies of inscriptions on other objects, previously published in Epigraphia Indica. (30)

Führer was on a survey tour to Burma, in 1893–1894. In 1894, he declared a "'path-breaking discovery" of three ancient Gupta inscriptions he said he found at Pagan and Tagaung in Burma. The "discovery" pushed back the epigraphical knowledge of interactions with India by close to six centuries, generating huge acclaim. (31) He published the "discovery" in his Progress Reports of the Epigraphical Section in the Working Season of 1893–94. He elaborated a description of the inscriptions he had supposedly found, without ever producing a drawing or a photographic proof, although he had a draftsman and a photographer with him on the expedition. (32) Large extracts of his report were reproduced in The Indian Antiquary Vol-xxiv (1895). (33) His "discovery" was taken at face value, and its conclusions were repeated by many scholarly works such as the Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States in 1900, before being adopted by popular works as well: "By the early 1900s, anyone with an interest in the archaeology of Burma had ample opportunity to read about the Gupta inscriptions in Fuhrer's own words". (34)

It was only uncovered many years later that the inscriptions were actually inexistent, a fact revealed openly by Charles Duroiselle in 1921: "This Sanskrit inscription never existed, but was invented in toto by Dr Fuhrer while on a tour in Burma". (35) Source analysis shows that he imagined the content of these inscriptions by basing himself on older publications and a list of kings from the Indian Hatthipala Jataka. (36) These events marked "a scandalous career of forgery which would some years later, come to an end in Kapilavastu". (37)

The Nigali Sagar pillar (also called the "Nigliva" pillar) of Ashoka, initially discovered by a Nepalese officer on a hunting expedition in 1893, (38) was inspected by Furer in March 1895, and he also "identified" a Brahmi inscription said to be from the time of Ashoka. (39)Besides, Führer made a detailed description of the remains of a monumental "Konagamana stupa" near the Nigali Sagar pillar, (40) which was later discovered to be an imaginative construct. (41) Fuhrer wrote that "On all sides around this interesting monument are ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures" when actually nothing can be found around the pillar. (42) In the following years, inspections of the site showed that there were no such archaeological remains. Every word of Führer's description was false. (43) It was finally understood in 1901 that Führer had copied almost word-for-word this description from a report by Alexander Cunningham about the stupas in Sanchi. (44)

The announcement of these great "discoveries" succeeded in bringing the "Buck Crisis" to an end, and the ASI was finally allowed in June 1895 to continue operations, subject to yearly approval based on successful digs every year. (45) Georg Bühler, writing in July 1895 in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, continued to advocate for the preservation of the ASI, and expressed that what was needed were "new authentic documents" from the pre-Ashokan period, and they would "only be found underground". (46)

In 1896, accompanied by the regional Nepalese governor, former Commander-In-Chief of the Nepalese Army General Khadga Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, Führer "discovered" a major inscription on a pillar of Ashoka, an inscription which, together with other evidence, confirmed Lumbini as the birthplace of the Buddha. (47)The pillar itself had been known for some time already, reported by Khadga Shamsher to Vincent Arthur Smith a few years earlier. (48) Führer made his "great discovery" when he dug the earth around the pillar and reported the discovery of the inscription in a pristine state about one metre under the surface. (49) He claimed that the locals called the site "Rummindei", which he identified with the legendary "Lumbini", whereas it was found that the site was only called "Rupa-devi". (50) The authenticity of the "discovery" remained doubtful, (51) and was openly disputed in a 2008 book by British writer Charles Allen. (52)

Fuhrer's report on discoveries in Nepal

Following the "discovery" of the pillar, Führer relied on the accounts of ancient Chinese pilgrims to search for Kapilavastu, which he thought had to be in Tilaurakot. Unable to find anything, he started excavating some structures he said were stupas. In the act of faking pre-Mauryan inscriptions on bricks, he was caught by Vincent Arthur Smith. (53) The inscriptions were bluntly characterized by Smith as "impudent forgeries". (54)

Führer was again involved in a major discovery in January 1898: the reliquaries at Piprahwa. But he arrived only after the discovery was made, and did not have time to tamper with the evidence. (55)

Around the same time, Führer was selling fake relics "authentified" by a nonexistent inscription of Upagupta, the preceptor of Ashoka, to Shin U Ma, an important monk in Burma. (56) He wrote to the Burmese monk: "Perhaps you have seen from the papers that I succeeded in discovering the Lumbini grove where Lord Buddha was born", noting that "you have unpacked the sacred relics of our Blessed Lord Buddha which are undoubtedly authentic, and which will prove a blessing to those which worship them faithfully". (57) An "authentic tooth relics of the Buddha" sent by Führer in 1896 turned out to have been carved from a piece of ivory, and another sent in 1897 was that of a horse. (58) The forgery was reported in 1898 to the British North-Western Provinces Government in India by Burmologist and member of the Burma commission Bernard Houghton. An enquiry led to Führer's resignation on 16 September 1898. (59)

Führer had come under suspicion in March 1898 following the reported forgeries of the Buddha's relics. (60) A formal inquiry was launched into his activities, but officials struggled to find a "printable" reason for Führer's dismissal. (61) Führer was officially confronted by Vincent Arthur Smith, who reported the forgeries of the Buddha's relics. (62) Führer was exposed as "a forger and dealer in fake antiquities". (63) Smith also blamed Führer for administrative failures in filing his reports to the Government, and for a false report about his preparations for future publications on his archaeological research: Führer was obliged to admit "that every statement in it [the report] was absolutely false." (64) The false inscriptions supposed to authentify the Buddha relics were not mentioned in the investigations, apparently out of fear of casting doubt on the other epigraphical discoveries made by Führer. (65) The false publication of the ancient Burmese inscriptions, the object of an institutional cover-up, would not come to light before 1921, with the revelation of their inexistence made by Charles Duroiselle. (66)

Führer was relieved of his positions, his papers seized and his offices inspected by Smith on 22 September 1898. (67) Führer had written in 1897 a monograph on his discoveries in Nigali Sagar and Lumbini, Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's birthplace in the Nepalese tarai, (68)which was withdrawn from circulation by the Government. (69)

Führer was dismissed and returned to Europe with his family. He died on 5 November 1930 in Binningen, Switzerland.

Vincent Arthur Smith, after retirement in 1901, revealed the blunt truth about the Nepalese discoveries and published a stark analysis of Führer's activities, apparently worried that "the reserved language used in previous official documents has been sometimes misinterpreted". (70) Smith said of Führer's description of the archaeological remains at Nigali Sagar that "every word of it is false", and characterized several of Führer's epigraphic discoveries as "impudent forgeries". (71) However, Smith never challenged the authenticity of the Lumbini pillar inscription and the Nigali Sagar inscription "discovered" by Führer. (72)

Lumbini pillar inscription

These "discoveries", at the time they were made, generated fantastic praise for the work of Führer. (73) According to the New York Post (3 May 1896) the Nigliva discovery "seems to carry the origin of Buddhism much further back". (74) The Liverpool Mercury (29 December 1896) reported that the discovery that Lumbini (also called Paderia) was "the actual birthplace of the Buddha ought to bring devout joy to about 627,000,000 people". (75) The Pall Mall Gazette (18 April 1898) related that the Piprahwa discovery "contains no less a relic than the bones of the Buddha himself". (76)

Führer was replaced as Curator of the Lucknow Museum by Edmund Smith, previously the Province's Architectural Surveyor. (77) The excavations in the Nepal Terai were entrusted to Babu Purna Chandra Mukherji, who published the results of his investigations in 1903 in A Report on a Tour of Exploration of the Antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal, the Region of Kapilavastu, in which Smith included an introduction entitled "Preparatory note" which details several of the forgeries made by Führer. (78)

Führer had an unusual religious career. He served as a Catholic priest, but in 1887 converted to Anglicanism. Following his expulsion from government service in India, Führer made plans to become a Buddhist monk. Quoting the Ceylon Standard, the Journal of the Mahabodhi Society noted: "Much interest has been excited in Buddhist and other circles at the prospect of Dr Führer coming to Ceylon to join the Buddhist priesthood. The Press notices recently made regarding this gentleman have given rise to grave suspicion. We understand that Dr Führer will have an opportunity given him of refuting the charges made against him before he is accepted by the leading Buddhists here as an exponent of the religion of Buddha."(79) These plans seem to have come to nothing because in 1901 Führer re-converted to the Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland and worked as a priest from 1906 to 1930. (80) 

The connection that Führer had with Buhler was extraordinary-While working with the ASI, he sent impressions of many inscriptions, supposedly found during the excavation, to Buhler in Vienna, who deciphered and validated them. Huxley sees this as a joint venture of Führer and Buhler. (81) Buhler had no chance to see the originals of any of the inscriptions excavated by Führer. Führer wrote false reports, drawing from Buhler's work of Sanchi and Mathura and inserted it in his Ramanagar account. "This wholesale deception appears to have passed completely unnoticed during this period," Phelps writes, "including apparently by Buhler himself." (82)

Further, Phelps remarks: "Immediately following Führer's exposure in 1898, Buhler drowned in Lake Constance in mysterious circumstances, and since he had enthusiastically endorsed all of Führer's supposed discoveries, one cannot help but wonder whether this tragedy was accidental."

Charles Allen suggests that Führer must have sent from Lucknow copies of his "preliminary brief report on the results of the Nepalese excavations...1897-198" and proof copies of Antiquities of Buddha Sakyamuni's Birthplace in the Nepalese Tarai to Buhler in Vienna. If Buhler had compared the two documents, he would have realised that Führer's "discoveries," which were fully endorsed and lauded in print by Buhler were bogus. (83) Allen ascertains that Buhler had indeed taken his own life after he was led to believe that the Priprahwa inscription was another fraud by Führer. (84)

The re-conversion of Führer proved the design of the missionaries about India. Georg Buhler, who had acknowledged Fuhrer's "discoveries", had also a missionary background- he was the son of a priest, Rev. Johann G. Bühler in Borstel, Hanover. Führer had studied Roman Catholic theology. After re-conversion, he is said to have been the Professor of Indian languages at Basel University, but it seems that he only applied for this post and was rejected. Instead, he worked from 1906 as a pastor in Binningen near Basel.

If the fraud was a joint venture, as Huxley suspected, it would have been a missionary design, to appropriate Buddha.

______________________

1. Charles Allen (2010), The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal, Penguin Books India, pp. 173–176

2. "Fuehrer, Alois Anton (1853-1930)". Indologica - Digitalisate (in German). 21 September 2010

3. Führer, AA (1897). Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's Birth-Place in the Nepalese Tarai. Allahabad: Government Press, North-Western Provinces and Oudh. pp. 1–48.

4. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. pp. 235–236.

5. Winternitz,  Moritz, Georg Buhler in Memoriam, Indian Antiquary 1898, 27:337-349, quoted in Amruta Chintaman Natu, Georg Buhler's Death: Perception and Possibility, 2019, Centre of Jaina Studies, News Letter, SOAS, University of London, March 2019, Issue 14

6. ibid

7. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 490

8. ibid, 20 (4): 489–502.

9. ibid, 20 (4): 490 

10. ibid

11. 20 (4): 489–502

12. ibid

13. ibid

14. ibid, 492

15. ibid, 496–498

16. ibid, 496–498

17. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 66.

18. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 496–498

19. ibid, "Some years later A. Führer undertook the excavation of a temple without much result." in Possehl, Gregory L. (2003). "Ahichchhatra". Oxford Art Online

20. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 496–498

21. ibid

22. ibid

23. ibid

24. ibid

25. ibid

26. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 494–495.

27. ibid

28. ibid

29. Allen, Charles (2010). The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal. Penguin Books India. p. 242, Lüders, H. (1912). "On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Provincial Museum". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. 44: 153–179.

30. ibid

31. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 499–502.

32. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 59–82.

33. Education Society’s Press, Byculla Bombay (1895). The Indian Antiquary Vol-xxiv(1895). p. 275 "Source of Sanskrit words in Burmese"

34. Harvey, G. E. (2019). History of Burma: From the Earliest Times to 10 March 1824 The Beginning of the English Conquest. Routledge. p. 211

35. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 60–61

36. Duroiselle, Charles (1921). A list of inscriptions found in Burma. Rangoon Superintendent, Government Print., Burma. p. ii, note 1.

37. Finot, L. (1922). "Review of Report of the Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Burma, for the year ending 31st March 1921; Report of the Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Burma, for the year ending 31st March 1922; A List of Inscriptions found in Burma. Part 1. The List of Inscriptions arranged in the order of their dates". Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient. 22: 208

38. In 1893 a Nepalese officer on a hunting expedition found an Asokan pillar near Nigliva, at Nigali Sagar." Falk, Harry (January 1998). The discovery of Lumbinī. p. 9

39. Smith, Vincent A. (1897). "The Birthplace of Gautama Buddha". The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland: 616

40. Führer, Alois Anton (1897). Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's birth-place in the Nepalese tarai /. Allahabad : Govt. Press, N.W.P. and Oudh. p. 22

41. Thomas, Edward Joseph (2000). The Life of Buddha as Legend and History. Courier Corporation

42. "On all sides around this interesting monument are ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures." This elaborate description was not supported by a single drawing, plan, or photograph. Every word of it is false." in Rijal, Babu Krishna; Mukherji, Poorno Chander (1996). 100 Years of Archaeological Research in Lumbini, Kapilavastu & Devadaha. S.K. International Publishing House. p. 58.

43. Mukherji, P. C.; Smith, Vincent Arthur (1901). A report on a tour of exploration of the antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal the region of Kapilavastu;. Calcutta, Office of the superintendent of government printing, India. p. 4

44. Falk, Harry (January 1998). The discovery of Lumbinī. p. 11

45. Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 499–502

46. Bühler, G. (1895). "Some Notes on Past and Future Archœological Explorations in India". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland: 649–660, Huxley, Andrew (2010). "Dr Führer's Wanderjahre: The Early Career of a Victorian Archaeologist". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 20 (4): 499–502.

47. Weise, Kai (2013). The Sacred Garden of Lumbini: Perceptions of Buddha's birthplace. UNESCO. pp. 63–64

48. ibid

49. ibid

50. Thomas, Edward J. (2013). The Life of Buddha. Routledge. p. 18, note 3

51. Thomas, Edward J. (2002). History of Buddhist Thought. Courier Corporation. p. 155, note 1.

52. Allen, Charles (2008). The Buddha and Dr Führer: an archaeological scandal. London: Haus

53. Dhammika, Shravasti (2008). Middle Land, Middle Way: A Pilgrim's Guide to the Buddha's India. Buddhist Publication Society. p. 41. Fuhrer's attempt to associate the names of eighteen Sakyas, including Mahanaman, with the structures, on the false claim of writings in pre-Asokan characters, was fortunately foiled in time by V.A. Smith, who paid a surprise visit when the excavation was in progress. The forgery was exposed to the public." in East and West. Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. 1979. p. 66

54. Mukherji, P. C.; Smith, Vincent Arthur (1901). A report on a tour of exploration of the antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal the region of Kapilavastu;. Calcutta, Office of the superintendent of government printing, India. p. 4

55. Ciurtin, Eugen. "Review of Charles ALLEN, The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal [New Delhi: Penguin, 2010]": 542.

56. "As pointed out by Smith, in his preparatory note to Mukharji's Report, the inscriptions were 'impudent forgeries', and Führer had even gone to the extent of furnishing as proof fake relics of the Buddha, and a forged inscription of Upagupta, the preceptor of Ashoka..." in Singh, Upinder (2004). The discovery of ancient India: early archaeologists and the beginnings of archaeology. Permanent Black. p. 320. Mukherji, P. C.; Smith, Vincent Arthur (1901). A report on a tour of exploration of the antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal the region of Kapilavastu;. Calcutta, Office of the superintendent of government printing, India. p. 4

57. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 72–74

58. ibid, 19 (1): 72–74.

59. ibid  19 (1): 72–76

60. 19 (1): 74–77

61. 19 (1): 76–77

62. ibid

63. Beckwith, Christopher I. (2017). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Princeton University Press. pp. 234–235

64. Willis, Michael (2012). "Dhār, Bhoja and Sarasvatī: from Indology to Political Mythology and Back". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 22 (1): 152.

65. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 76–77

66.  ibid, 19 (1): 76–77. Finot, L. (1922). "Review of Report of the Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Burma, for the year ending 31st March 1921; Report of the Superintendent, Archæological Survey, Burma, for the year ending 31st March 1922; A List of Inscriptions found in Burma. Part 1. The List of Inscriptions arranged in the order of their dates". Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient. 22: 208

67. Willis, M. (2012). "Dhar, Bhoja and Sarasvati: From Indology to Political Mythology and Back". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 22 (1): 129–53

68. Führer, Alois Anton (1897). Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni's birth-place in the Nepalese tarai. Allahabad : Govt. Press, N.W.P. and Oudh

69. Thomas, Edward Joseph (2000). The Life of Buddha as Legend and History. Courier Corporation. p. 18.

70. Mukherji, P. C.; Smith, Vincent Arthur (1901). A report on a tour of exploration of the antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal the region of Kapilavastu;. Calcutta, Office of the superintendent of government printing, India. p. 4

71. ibid

72. Smith, vincent A. (1914). The Early History Of India Ed. 3rd. p. 169

73. Huxley, Andrew (2011). "Mr Houghton and Dr Führer: a scholarly vendetta and its consequences". South East Asia Research. 19 (1): 65

74. ibid

75. ibid

76. ibid

77. Allen, Charles (2010). The Buddha and Dr Führer: An Archaeological Scandal. Penguin Books India. p. 178

78. ibid

79. Anon, Journal of the Calcutta Mahabodhi Society 10.8-9 (December 1901 and January 1902), p. 1

80. Arx, Urs von (2005). In Marco Jorio, Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz vol. 4, Basel: Schwabe

81. Huxley, p 495

82. Phelps, T A, Lumbini on Trial: The Untold Story, 2008. Quoted in Amruta Chintaman Natu, Georg Buhler's Death: Perception and Possibility, 2019, Centre of Jaina Studies, News Letter, SOAS, University of London, March 2019, Issue 14

83. Allen, p 165

84. Allen, 176

© Ramachandran 

THE BUDDHA AS A HINDU AND MARXIST

The Mystery of the Adi Buddha

I had been to Bodh Gaya.Buddha got enlightenment while meditating underneath a fig tree here.Emperor Asoka's evil queen Tissarakha  thought Asoka was pouring his love and affection to the tree instead of her and used a Mandu thorn to kill the tree in the Mahamega arama.Hindus had been visiting Bodh Gaya since atleast Buddha's own life time.The site was actually maitained by a lineage of Saiva priests.

Why so?

It is because there was a Hindu Buddha.The Adi Buddha,who is considered to be an avatar of Vishnu.

In Lalita Vistara, it is described how Gautama Buddha meditated on the same spot as the predecessor Buddha. The original name of Bodhgaya is Kikata, after Gautama attained enlightment there, it came to be known as Buddha gaya. Even today the rituals of worship is preformed by sannyasis of Sankaracharya sect.

Lankavatara Sutra, the famous buddhist work says that Ravana, King of Lanka first worshipped Vishnu incarnation Buddha then successive and future Buddha.

It is very evident that Purana and Buddhist Chronology does not synchronize with each other, while they seem to be saying about the same person. When Analyzing this question. It becomes apparent that we have merged two Buddhas. The Adi Buddha or Avatar Buddha of Vishnu and Shakya Buddha or Gautama Buddha into One.

Adi Buddha was born on 1887BC to Mother Anjana in Kikata (Bodh Gaya).

He established the Philosophy of Ahimsa, Non Violence. He preached against ritual animal sacrifices that has crept into Vedic Hinduism. He emphasized the divine in all beings and divinity of all souls arousing compassion for all.

Bhagavata Purana says "At the commencement of the Kāli-yuga will Vishnu become incarnate in Kikata, under the name of Buddha, the son of Jina, for the purpose of deluding the enemies of the gods."

Puranas say that Adi Buddha was born in Ikshvaku Dynasty.

Adi Buddha is contemproary of Srenika(Sunika) whose father was Hemajit or Kshemajit or Kshetroja or Ksetrauja. Son of Srenika is Kunika. His son is Dharshaka.

Siddhartha was was born around 560BC in the royal family of Suddhodana and Mayadevi in Lumbini in Nepal. Siddhartha received his name Gautama from his spiritual Master Gautama Muni, who belonged to Kapila dynasty,as per Sundarananda Charita. He left home, his royal comforts to find enlightenment. He went to Bodh Gaya to meditate and got enlightenment.It again means Bodh Gaya was a pilgrimage centre during his time.

Gautama Buddha is the propagator of Bahyatmavada, Jnanatmavada and Sunyavada, three pillars of Atheism. He Went to Bodhgaya to meditate because of its spiritual potency as the birthplace of Adi Buddha.

If Adi Buddha was the contemporary of srenika,as stated above,again confuion arises-Bimbisāra (c. 558 – c. 491 BC or during the late 5th century BC,was  also known as Seniya or Shrenika in the Jain histories.He was a King of Magadha (r. 543 – 492 BC or c. 400 BC and belonged to the Haryanka dynasty. He was the son of Bhattiya,a chieftain. His expansion of the kingdom, especially his annexation of the kingdom of Anga to the east, is considered to have laid the foundations for the later expansion of the Maurya Empire.

He is also known for his cultural achievements and was a great friend and protector of the Buddha. Bimbisara—according to Hiuen Tsang—built the city of Rajgir (Rajagriha), famous in Buddhist writings (others attribute the city's foundation to his successor).He was succeeded on the throne by his son Ajatashatru.

Bimbisara welcomes Buddha

He became a devotee of Jainism impressed by the calmness of Yamadhar (a Jain Muni). He frequently visited Samavasarana of Lord Mahavira seeking answers to his queries.Per Jain scripture, Bimbisara killed himself in a fit of passion, after his son had imprisoned him. Consequently, he was reborn in hell, where he is currently residing, until the karma which led to his birth there comes to an end.It is further written, that he will be reborn as Mahapadma (sometimes called Padmanabha), the first in the chain of future tirthankaras who are to rise at the beginning of the upward motion (Utsarpini) of the next era of time

According to Buddhist scriptures, King Bimbisara met the Buddha for the first time prior to the Buddha's enlightenment, and later became an important disciple that featured prominently in certain Buddhist suttas. He is recorded to have attained sotapannahood, a degree of enlightenment in Buddhist teachings. Although Bimbisara let the women in his palace visit Buddha in his monastery in the evenings; the women wanted a hair-and-nail stupa they could use to venerate the Buddha any time. Bimbisara spoke with Buddha who complied with their requests.

Many biographies of the Buddha begin not with his birth in his last lifetime but in a lifetime millions of years before, when he first made the vow to become a buddha. According to a well-known version, many aeons ago there lived a Brahman named (in some accounts) Sumedha, who realized that life is characterized by suffering and then set out to find a state beyond death. He retired to the mountains, where he became a hermit, practiced meditation, and gained yogic powers. While flying through the air one day, he noticed a great crowd around a teacher, whom Sumedha learned was the buddha Dipamkara. When he heard the word buddha he was overcome with joy. Upon Dipamkara’s approach, Sumedha loosened his yogin’s matted locks and laid himself down to make a passage across the mud for the Buddha. Sumedha reflected that were he to practice the teachings of Dipamkara he could free himself from future rebirth in that very lifetime. But he concluded that it would be better to delay his liberation in order to traverse the longer path to buddhahood; as a buddha he could lead others across the ocean of suffering to the farther shore. Dipamkara paused before Sumedha and predicted that many aeons hence this yogin with matted locks would become a buddha. He also prophesied Sumedha’s name in his last lifetime (Gautama) and the names of his parents and chief disciples and described the tree under which the future Buddha would sit on the night of his enlightenment.

Over the subsequent aeons, the bodhisattva would renew his vow in the presence of each of the buddhas who came after Dipamkara, before becoming the buddha Shakyamuni himself. Over the course of his lifetimes as a bodhisattva, he accumulated merit (punya) through the practice of 6 (or 10) virtues. After his death as Prince Vessantara, he was born in the Tusita Heaven, whence he surveyed the world to locate the proper site of his final birth.

He determined that he should be born the son of the king Shuddhodana of the Shakya clan, whose capital was Kapilavastu. Shortly thereafter, his mother, the queen Maha Maya, dreamed that a white elephant had entered her womb. Ten lunar months later, as she strolled in the garden of Lumbini, the child emerged from under her right arm. He was able to walk and talk immediately. A lotus flower blossomed under his foot at each step, and he announced that this would be his last lifetime. The king summoned the court astrologers to predict the boy’s future. Seven agreed that he would become either a universal monarch (chakravartin) or a buddha; one astrologer said that there was no doubt, the child would become a buddha. His mother died seven days after his birth, and so he was reared by his mother’s sister, Mahaprajapati. As a young child, the prince was once left unattended during a festival. Later in the day he was discovered seated in meditation under a tree, whose shadow had remained motionless throughout the day to protect him from the sun.The later legend is well known.

The Nirvana of Buddha

But the irony is that,for a man who espoused Ahimsa,the end was by eating meat.At age 80 the Buddha, weak from old age and illness, accepted a meal (it is difficult to identify from the texts what the meal consisted of, but many scholars believe it was pork) from a smith named Chunda, instructing the smith to serve him alone and bury the rest of the meal without offering it to the other monks. The Buddha became severely ill shortly thereafter, and at a place called Kusinara (also spelled Kushinagar; modern Kasia) lay down on his right side between two trees, which immediately blossomed out of season. He instructed the monk who was fanning him to step to one side, explaining that he was blocking the view of the deities who had assembled to witness his passing. After he provided instructions for his funeral, he said that lay people should make pilgrimages to the place of his birth, the place of his enlightenment, the place of his first teaching, and the place of his passage into nirvana. Those who venerate shrines erected at these places will be reborn as gods. The Buddha then explained to the monks that after he was gone the dharma and the vinaya (code of monastic conduct) should be their teacher. He also gave permission to the monks to abolish the minor precepts (because Ananda failed to ask which ones, it was later decided not to do so). Finally, the Buddha asked the 500 disciples who had assembled whether they had any last question or doubt. When they remained silent, he asked two more times and then declared that none of them had any doubt or confusion and were destined to achieve nirvana. According to one account, he then opened his robe and instructed the monks to behold the body of a buddha, which appears in the world so rarely. Finally, he declared that all conditioned things are transient and exhorted the monks to strive with diligence. These were his last words. The Buddha then entered into meditative absorption, passing from the lowest level to the highest, then from the highest to the lowest, before entering the fourth level of concentration, whence he passed into nirvana.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the term ādibuddha is often used to describe Samantabhadra, Vajradhara or Kalachakra. In East Asian Mahayana, the ādibuddha is typically considered to be Vairocana.

The Guhyasamāja Tantra says of Vajradhāra, " Vajradhara, the Teacher, who is bowed to by all the Buddhas, best of the three diamonds, best of the great best, supreme lord of the three diamonds."

Alex Wayman notes that the Pradipoddyotana, a tantric commentary, states that the "three diamonds" are the three mysteries of Body, Speech, and Mind. Wayman further writes: "Tsong-kha-pa's Mchan-'grel explains the "lord of body": displays simultaneously innumerable materializations of body; "lord of speech": teaches the Dharma simultaneously to boundless sentient beings each in his own language; "lord of mind": understands all the knowable which seems impossible.

According to the 14th Dalai Lama, the ādibuddha is also seen in Mahayana Buddhism as representation of the universe, its laws and its true nature, as a source of enlightenment and karmic manifestations and a representation of the Trikaya.

Within the Nichiren school of Japanese Buddhism, the Nikko-lineage, specifically the Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Shoshu, regard Nichiren as the Adi-(primal) Buddha and dispute the contentions of other sects that view him as a bodhisattva.

Tibetan thangka of Vajradhara

Sanghyang Adi Buddha is a concept of God in Indonesian Buddhism. This term was used by Ashin Jinarakkhita at the time of Buddhist revival in Indonesia in the mid 20th century to reconcile the first principle of the official philosophical foundation of Indonesia (Pancasila), i.e. "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa" (lit. "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence") that requires the belief in a supreme God, with Buddhism which strictly speaking does not believe in such monotheistic God.This concept is used by the Indonesian Buddhist Council, an organization that seeks to represent all Buddhist traditions in Indonesia such as Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana.

Adi Buddha is a term used in Tantric Buddhism to refer to the Primordial Buddha. The term Sanghyang Adi Buddha is agreed upon and used by the Indonesian Supreme Sangha and the Indonesian Buddhist Council as the designation for the God Almighty. This term is not found in Pāli Canon, but used in some old Indonesian Vajrayana texts such as Sanghyang Kamahayanikan.

Sang Hyang Adi Buddha refers to "the seed of Buddhahood" inside every being. In Mahayana Buddhism, Adi Buddha refers to the primordial Buddha that outlines the same Universal Dhamma.The Adi-buddha is not a monotheistic deity as in the Abrahamic traditions, but is rather the primordial nature of mind, the part of the mind that never enters samsara, and is thus the "primordial Buddha." As the Primordial Buddha never entertains conceptual ignorance or proliferation, all that arises is referred to as "self-liberated."

Indonesian National Encyclopedia (1988) describes Adi Buddha and the traditions that are used this term thus:

"Adi-Buddha is a term for the Almighty God in Buddhism. This title came from the Aisvarika tradition of Mahayana in Nepal, which is spread through Bengal, and became also known in Java. Aisvarika is the term for the disciples of theist view in Buddhism. This word came from 'Isvara' which means 'God' or 'Great Buddha' or 'the Almighty', and 'ika' which means 'follower' or 'disciple'. "

"This term is used by the Svabhavavak Buddhism in Nepal. This school is one of the branch of Tantrayana school of Mahayana. The term for God Almighty in this school is Adi-Buddha. Later, this view also spread to Java in the time of Srivijaya and Majapahit. The present scholars knows this term from the paper of B.H. Hodgson, a researcher who studied the religious in Nepal.

"According to this view, one can coalesce (moksha) with Adi-Buddha or Isvara through his efforts with the ascetic path (tapa) and meditating (Dhyana)."

The use of Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a name for a supreme God is controversial among Indonesian Buddhists to the present day. The reason is that the concept of Sanghyang Adi Buddha, which only exists in Tantrayana/ Vajrayana traditions, is not a god in the sense of a personal god of the monotheistic religions. The use of the name of Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a personal god, is the product of a compromise with political reality, and is contrary to the teachings of Buddhism. Because of this political compromise, Indonesian Buddhism differs from mainstream Buddhism. This controversy also extends to Very Venerable Ashin Jinarakkhita as the originator of the term Sanghyang Adi Buddha as a god in Buddhism.

Mahavamsa traces the Shakya dyansty to Ikshvaku dynasty and starts the dynasty with Ikshvaku.

Threvada Texts refer to six Preceding Buddhas (Those who have been awakened) as Vipasyin, Sikin, krakuccanda, Konagamara and Kashyapa, also they say Maitreya as the Buddha of the future.

Amara Simha, Buddhist scholar, who wrote Amarakosha gives eighteen names of Vishnu avatara including the name Sugato (Which Shankara calls Buddha) and seven names of Shakya Simha Buddha without any mention of Sugato. So we can even argue that Shankara talks about avatar Buddha not Shakya Buddha. Amarakosha states the Lord Buddha is also known as Samanta Bhadra, whereas Gautama Buddha is a human being.

Analysing Buddhist texts like Prajna-Paramita sutra, Astasahastrika prajna- paramita sutra, Sata-Shastrika Prajna, Pramita Sutra, Lalita Vistara shows three categories of Buddha namely,

Human Buddhas: Like Gautama, who came to be known as Buddha after enlightment.
Bodhisattva Buddhas: Personalities like Samanta Bhadraka who were born enlightened.
Adi(Original-First) Buddha: the Avatar of Vishnu.

Adi Shankara, who can be termed founder of Hinduism,in discussion with others treated both Buddhas as one person and did not discriminate between the two.Hindu scholars doesn't see Vedanta in Buddhism,since Buddha was a Nasthika.Maybe,Buddhism can be included only as part of the Purva Mimamsa,which dwelt only in outer spheres of human actions.With his Advaita Mayavadha philosophy Sankara not only stopped the rise of Buddhism in India, assuring its decline. 

By Combining two Buddhas Indology scholars have ignored the Purana accounts and thus the Indian mythology. Whenever the Puranas refers to Adi Buddha,the euro centric scholars will cite Gautama Buddha to discredit and vice versa.

Colonel Kennedy, argues that the Buddha of the Purana and Buddha the founder of the Buddhist system of religion have nothing in common but the name, and that the attempted identification of these two is simply the work of European scholars, who have not been sufficiently careful to collect information, and to weigh the evidence they have had before them.

The Cambridge and Oxford histories of India accept 483 B.C as the date of Buddha’s nirvana. But, William Jones, on the basis of Chinese and Tibetan records infers that Buddha lived in the 11th century B.C. Historian Fleet, who makes a study of ‘Rajatarangini’, thinks that Buddha lived in the 17th century B.C. Chinese monk Fa-Hien puts Buddha’s Nirvana at 1050 B.C. These contradictory theories arise from the euro centric existential dilemma.

Indology scholars just pick and choose to discredit Purana sources. The history that Buddha lived in the 5th century B.C was propounded by E.J Rapson who writes that the exact date of Buddha’s Nirvana is not known and hence the popularly accepted year of Buddha’s Nirvana is imaginary. Western scholars arbitrarily skipped 12 centuries of Indian history because their ‘hypothesis’ about Alexander’s invasion did not match with centuries-old Indian chronology.

We see that Early Buddhist texts distinguishes the two Buddhas, while the later ones seem to ignore the former. The Rock Edicts of Piyadasi teachings are of Adi Buddha and not Gautama Buddha. Gautama Buddha is not the avatar of Vishnu. Avatar of Vishnu is Adi Buddha.

Buddha is considered as an avatar of Vishnu, by traditions within Hinduism. Buddhists traditionally do not accept the Buddha to be a Vishnu avatar. The adoption of Buddha may have been a way to assimilate Buddhism into the fold of Hinduism.Much like Hinduism's adoption of the Buddha as an avatar, Buddhism legends too adopted Krishna in their Jataka tales, claiming Krishna the Vishnu avatar, to be a character whom Buddha met and taught in his previous births. The adoption of the Buddha in texts relating to Hindu gods, and of Hindu gods in Buddhist texts, is difficult to place chronologically. According to Alf Hiltebeitel and other scholars, some of the stories in Buddha-related Jataka tales found in Pali texts seem slanderous distortions of Hindu legends, but these may reflect the ancient local traditions and the complexities of early interaction between the two Indian religions.

Bodh Gaya

Though an avatar of Vishnu, the Buddha is rarely worshipped like Krishna and Rama in Hinduism.According to John Holt, the Buddha was adopted as an avatar of Vishnu around the time the Puranas were being composed, in order to subordinate him into the Brahmanical ideology. Further adds Holt, various scholars in India, Sri Lanka and outside South Asia, that the colonial era and contemporary attempts to assimilate Buddha into the Hindu fold are part of a nationalistic political agenda, where the Buddha has been reclaimed triumphantly as a symbol of indigenous nationalist understandings of India's history and culture.

Swami Vivekananda said:

"Buddha was a great Vedantist (for Buddhism was really only an offshoot of Vedanta), and Shankara is often called a “hidden Buddhist”. Buddha made the analysis, Shankara made the synthesis out of it. Buddha never bowed down to anything — neither Veda, nor caste, nor priest, nor custom. He fearlessly reasoned so far as reason could take him. Such a fearless search for truth and such love for every living thing the world has never seen."

He added:

"In Buddha we had the great, universal heart and infinite patience, making religion practical and bringing it to everyone’s door. In Sankaracharya we saw tremendous intellectual power, throwing the scorching light of reason upon everything. We want today that bright sun of intellectuality joined with the heart of Buddha, the wonderful infinite heart of love and mercy. This union will give us the highest philosophy. Science and religion will meet and shake hands. Poetry and philosophy will become friends.."

There are several other statements of Vivekananda on Buddha,which are contradictory;he has also termed Buddha a Hindu.In Notes Taken Down in Madras ( 1892-1893) ,Vivekananda says,"Buddha,we may say now,ought to have understood the harmony of  religions;he introduced sectarianism."

But in Vivekananda's Buddha's Message to The World ( 18 March 1900 ) Vivekananda remarked:

"Buddha was the triumph in the struggle that had been going on between the priests and the prophets in India. One thing can be said for these Indian priests — they were not and never are intolerant of religion; they never have persecuted religion. Any man was allowed to preach against them. Theirs is such a religion; they never molested any one for his religious views. But they suffered from the peculiar weaknesses of all the priests: they also sought power, they also promulgated rules and regulations and made religion unnecessarily complicated, and thereby undermined the strength of those who followed their religion."

Vedantists will never agree with Vivekananda's statement that Buddha was a vedantist.Buddhism,infact,has nothing to do with vedanta.For this too,I quote Vivekananda:"Buddhism proves nothing about the Absolute Entity. In a stream the water is changing; we have no right to call the stream one. Buddhist deny the one, and say, it is many. We say it is one and deny the many. What they call Karma is what we call the soul. According to Buddhism, man is a series of waves. Every wave dies, but somehow the first wave causes the second. That the second wave is identical with the first is illusion. To get rid of illusion good Karma is necessary. Buddhists do not postulate anything beyond the world. We say, beyond the relative there is the Absolute".

The Oxford professor and later President of India, S Radhakrishnan states that "as a matter of fact, nowhere did Buddha repudiate the Upanishad conception of Brahman, the absolute"; that Buddha, if anything, "accepted the Upanishad's position". Buddhologists like K.R. Norman and Richard Gombrich meanwhile, argue that the Buddha's anatta theory does indeed extend to the Brahmanical belief expounded in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that the Self (Atman) is the Universal Self, or Brahman.They point to the Pali Alagaddūpama-sutta, where the Buddha argues that an individual cannot experience the suffering of the entire world.

Ambedkar,the Dalit leader who in 1935 declared his intention to convert from Hinduism to Buddhism and converted about 20 years later, rejected that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Ambedkar, while he was a Hindu and before he launched a new form of Buddhism, reinterpreted Buddha's teachings into what he called Navayana (New Vehicle), wherein he tried a Marxist interpretation of Buddha teachings. He founded and converted to a new version of Buddhism, a version which criticized and rejected Hinduism, but also Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism because, according to Ambedkar, they all misrepresented the Buddha.

To me,arguing on philosphy is intellectual masturbation.Buddha need not be a Hindu to be accepted into its fold because Buddha is part of the great Indian tradition where the Samkhya/Charvaka primeval Marxist philosphy ruled for 700 years.Hinduism even accepts that soulless philosphy part of its tradition.Hence,the ousted Rama advised his brother King Bharatha to  honour the Charvakas,the then Marxists,while knowing the Marxists are intolerant.Hence the many lives of Buddha makes the Indian tradition vibrant and exotic.

© Ramachandran