Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Comment This is an archive.
Please do not edit this page. Use Talk:Buddhism in modern India instead.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dalit Buddhist movement/Archive 1 article.

Contents

[edit] Debate and Discuss points

All users if anything is not acceptable then put a point in the discussion page and then correct it. I have corrected few points such as Proper Understanding of Buddhism. For me it not acceptable in Global Context but I think in Indian Context is it right. Fall of Buddhism and Revival of Buddhism are interesting points for world scholars and especially Buddhist scholars. Don't keep any hate in mind before reverting others comments. The Many Scholars are doing research in India about Buddhism and day by day the relations between Hindus and Buddhist are like fighting modes. So this is not the place to fight. Only debate and corrent the statements to keep the article good and informative. Religion is a sensitive issue so be cool Truthlover 17:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Recently the Gujarat Govt. controlled by Hindus has passed a anti-Conversion law. The Jain and Buddhist community leaders are opposing it. Interesting to keep watch on current developments. Truthlover 17:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The user Hkelkar is not coming forward for debate as well as not giving contact details to clarify the issues. Dhammafriend 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I made and suggested a few edits on this page before I noticed the hair-raising arguments already going on about its content. I have studied this movement for 24 years, and my intention with these edits was to make the page more readable and more neutral. For this reason I have edited out "Bodhisattva" from the description of Ambedkar. I am not pro-Buddhist or pro-Hindu -- just interested in presenting information so that people who are unfamiliar with the movement might learn a bit. (LHM)

[edit] Mr. HkelkarPlease come forward with your list of points which you find not acceptable

Mr. Kelkar, I would be happy to answer your questions,provide all the information you need if you could come up with a list of issues you are not ready to accept in this article. I havent seen any thing wrong in it Also before asking proofs please be prepare to come forward with proofs for Vedas, Manusmirti A clearly defined defination of Hindus. Since you do not accecpt any links please let us know what kind of proofs you are looking for.

Do not unneccessarily put any article on hold for nothing.Bodhidhamma

The fact is that per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Partisan religious websites should be used with caution. That means that it should be stated at worst, with qualification. BEar in mind that partisan Hindu, muslim, Sikh etc sources are also treated in the same way on wikipedia. Find SCHOLARLY information to back your claims and maybe we can discuss. By the way, Dhammafriend, you might want to look up Wikipedia:SockpuppetryHkelkar 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Kelkar. Its upto Wikipedia to decide if the user is using multiple usernames. They can confirm with my IP address as Dammafriend lives in Germany and I live in USA. Since you are asking me to provide Scolarly proofs why dont you follow same rules while writing History Of Hunduism? Why you are deleting my changes without giving any explanation.

9000 years is acceptable to you without any credible evidence? Buddha was Vishnu's Avatara is acceptable to you without any evidence? then why you question this article?

Er those things are stated or implied in the language as "beliefs" not "facts" on wikipedia. Big difference.Hkelkar 13:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
.Hkelkar there are many false claims like Buddha as Avatar of Vishnu do you ask proofs for these things? Can you define who a Hindu is? Don't be a hidden attacker on Indian Buddhist Movement. The user .Bodhidhamma wants to have discussion on your points but you are not coming forward to debate. Don't teach others what to do and not to do because everybody can learn Wikipedia. Its a great source of information Truthlover 16:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The user Hkelkar is not following Wikiepedia Directives for discussions and NPOV

Regarding Indian Buddhist Movement article I have asked the user to come for specific points that are not acceptable. But he is showing his anti-Buddhist mindset ans it not open for any discussions. Wiki Administrators except Brahmin and Shudra Varnas please take note of this. Dhammafriend 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I will also report this ethnic characterization as a personal attack.These edits are severely demented.Hkelkar 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Please come forward for what kind of attacks are you talking? I have clearly mentioned that the article is about present Buddhist movement in India and current happenings. This year October 2006 millions of people are converting to Buddhism at Nagpur in India. Come and see for the proofs. Dhammafriend 16:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You have made several ethnic characterizations in my talk page and on this talk page. Until you stop making ethnic and racial attacks on people I refuse to discuss with you. Please stop, for this is detrimental to the purpose of wikipedia. Just because somebody is Jewish, brahmin, Buddhist or Shudra does not mean that he should/should not edit certain articles or participate in discussion. What you have said so far is BLATANTLY racist and hatemongering and action will be taken to that effect.Hkelkar 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Please come to the specific point. If you say all I write is wrong?? This is too much !! For your kind information we oppose all kind of social discrimination like racism, Hindu-casteism, Hindu-untouchability. As a Buddhist from my heart I believe in Equality, Liberty and Fraternity the basic principles of Buddhism. What racism are you talking? I have not called Black or any such remarks. We have Black, White Buddhists in Europe I am working with such Buddhis people Dhammafriend 16:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


I must add my opinion to this debate. I entirely agree with Dhammafriend, that dubbing Ambedkar's Buddhism "neo Buddhism" smacks of discriminatory intent. There are numerous western Buddhist schools that are even more blatant deviations from the 3 ancient schools. Yet these schools included under the category "Buddhism" without any "neo" tag. I have been to Buddhist schools where people even re-introduce the idea of God and "Christ energy", and nobody seems to want to classify that separately. The fact that it is mainly Buddhists on non-Dalit, but Indian descent who attempt to dub Ambedkarite Buddhism as suspect Buddhism, suggests some casteism.

I vote that Dhammafriend contextualise the "neo-Buddhist" tag to include the history of Brahminical hostility to Dalit leadership and innovation in the scriptural-religious sphere.

The Buddha's teachins are not like the Koran. Ambedkar's teaching is certainly closer to the Pali Canon than Vajrayana or Pure Land.

[edit] Claims that I am anti-Buddhist and source for Navayāna

The only textual edits I've made to this page are, redirects from Navayana and Navayāna, inclusions of a reference section, and the definition of navayāna.

Contrary to what Dhammafriend says, I am an American of Indian descent and a Theravāda Buddhist of former Brahmin caste.

Buddhist do not have caste neither they believe any former caste like Brahmin,Bhangi ,Scheduled Caste, OBC caste etc. So don't claim false things. I have Buddhist friends in America who can certainly verify your identity. So if want to discuss you can also meet our Buddhist friends in America so don't try to fool wikipedia community. Who gave you ordination as Buddhist? Do you know the process to become a Buddhist? Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited Navayāna into the article because in Buddhism in India : Challenging Brahmanism and Caste by Gail Omvedt (This book is incredibly anti-Caste and is pro-Buddhist) I have read Neo-Buddhism being referred to as Navayana, which is is obviously a non-IAST transliteration of navayāna.

Legal system in India have Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Christens as Religion. So you can not say is 'referred' ? Its strange. When our cencus is done people are referred as their religion Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim etc. So Navayana is baseless term in every legal sense Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ambedkar's Buddhism seemingly differs from that of those who accepted by faith, who 'go for refuge' and accept the canon. This This much is clear from its basis: it does not accept in totality the scriptures of the Theravada, the the Mahayana, or the Vajrayana. The question that is then clearly put forth: is a fourth yana, a Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma really possible within the framework of Buddhism?" (8)

The book blatantly says that Ambedkar DESIGNED what has become known as navayāna. He did not found the Navayana publishing house. I edited in that there is a Navayana publishing house into the article so people would not confuse, navayāna, yāna, and Navayana, the publishing house.

It is true that there is a publishing house known as Navyana so what? It is not a Buddhist publishing house. It is a book publisher not a religion publisher. So you can't put their name in the Indian Buddhist Movement article because its a religious movement. Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend is wrong in his claims that Buddhism died in India, Buddhism was slayed, not killed. Buddhism still exists in Ladakh, Darjeeling, (and Chittagong in Bangladesh). Dr. Ambedkar recreated a Buddhist population that disappeared from most of India. His religious beliefs differ in certain ways from the ancient school of Theravāda and younger schools of Vajrayāna, Tantrayāna, and Mahāyāna, so hence what he revived was neo-Buddhism, somewhat like how organizations like Hellenion have revived the Greek religion as a form of neo-paganism. Neo-Buddhism translate into Pāli would be navayāna, new vehicle.

Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India so you can not brand is Old OR Neo! Its Buddhism. People from Europe /USA are converting to their own found Buddhist practices. All are Buddhist so newly converted people are not branded as neo ! Please also visit www.e-b-u.org. In Indian Context Buddhist from Ladakh, Assam, Maharshtra, Karnataka etc. are a fighting unitedly for Buddhist Revival. Do you know All Indian Buddhist Monk Association ? Especially for Mahabodhi Temple Liberation Movement world Buddhist are united. Buddhist monk from Japan Bhante Surai Sasai is doing best in Central Region of India Nagpur to mobiliese masses Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also mentioned in Reconstructing the World: B. R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India by by Surendra Jondhale & Johannes Beltz. If you search through its index on Amazon you can specifically see that the word Navayāna is repeated multiple times

The Article is about Buddhist Movement in India current status and present developments. So it is not about Dr. Ambedkar for that we have separate article so you can post your views there. Not in this article. About Dr. Gail Omvedt you might have read her books only but our friends have arranged her Lecture in IIT Bombay www.iitb.ac.in and all know her personnaly. Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly Thursday, 2006-09-21 T 00:25 UTC

[edit] NPOV Buddhist Movement Crossing Hindu Caste Barriers

The article is about present Buddhist religious activities in India. There is no violation of POV. Many people who are branded as Hindus from different castes are converting to Buddhism on their own to escape from Hindu Caste System and Hindu Untouchability. Buddhists accepts everybody irrespective of his Hindu Castes. Anybody wants to check he can visit India especially on October 2006 in Nagpur where thousands of people convert each year. Many news are available to check its truth. Brithish Buddhist, Japanese Buddhists and ShriLankan Buddhists are helping Indian Buddhist to carry out mass conversions. Dhammafriend 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

Recently, User:Dhammafriend moved this page from Neo-Buddhism to Indian Buddhist Movement with the explanation, "Movement started by Dr. Ambedkar is known as Modern Buddhist Movement. Dr. Ambedkar rejected many theories of even traditional Buddhists especially the reason of renunciations i.e. myth propagated by Buddhists of 4 sites seen by Prince.". I will agree that, when I wrote the initial version of this page, I wasn't sure if Neo-Buddhism was really the best title, but it has the advantage of being used occasionally outside of Wikipedia. Where does the expression "Indian Buddhist Movement" come from? It's all capitalised, as if it were a proper name; "Indian Buddhist movement" sounds like it could apply to any form of Buddhism in India.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also interested to see a source for the name Navayana, which is now listed as the Pali name for this movement.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no source for the name. It is used a default name used by some so as to distinguish from the ancient schools of buddhism.(mahayana, hinayana). the word has no scriptural support and is certainly not a Pali word. Hence i am deleting the part "or Navayāna Buddhism (Pāli नवयान navayāna, literally "new vehicle")" Indian Buddhist practice is general. It does not confirm to any particular school of thought. Though it can be argued that it bears more resemblance to the theravada school but this is my POV. there is not need to mention it. Dr B R Ambedkars 'Buddha and His Dhamma' is considered final authority on all doctrinal matters by Indian Buddhists --Yeditor 11:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The name Navayana can not be applicable to present Indian Buddhist Movement because it is a non secterian movement. If you see the All Indian Buddhist Monk Organization it represents all Buddhists in India. Especially from Aasam, Maharashtra and Karnataka. Some scholar's like Gail Omvedtt Or Christopher Queen has used the term 'Navyan i.e. new Vehical' just as a new term than Mahayan and Hinyan. Now all Buddhists are united for liberation of Mahabodhi Vihar, Bodhagaya from Brahmin and Shudras (so-called Hindu) control. All Hindus irrespective of their caste and Varna are anti-Buddhist. So they try to absorb Buddhism in their caste ridden Hindu fold. But '22 vows' given by Bodhisattva Dr. Ambedkar is the heart of present Buddhist movement. Dhammafriend 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please add official view

i think that in this article, there shall be a place for the official view of india. i think it to be a indispensible point, in case a NPOV is to be maintained. u can put all views there, but if it lacks the official view, then it surely lacks something.

nids 11:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Nidhi in your Hindu Religion what is the status of women? Please see Women in India and Women In Hinduism. For hundreds of year education for women was banned, they are treated a Ati-Shudra i.e. lower caste than Shudra which is equivalent to Untouchables. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar through constitutional methods gave you protection. So better you worry about Caste Based Hinduism. The Indian Buddhist from Assam to Maharashtra and from Punjab to Tamil Nadu do understand the anti-Buddhist attitude of Hindus. Now-a-day thousands of people are converting to Buddhism. Visit Nagput this October 2nd 2006. You will find millions of people converting to Buddhism. Dhammafriend 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
dont assume the gender of other person just by your choice. I am male FYI. I will shortly answer your other concerns. nids(♂) 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, let's say something, but let's not give it undue weight. How much nuance is there in the official position on Buddhism? If I recall correctly, the Indian Constitution defines Hinduism as including Buddhism and Jainism. However, it also seems that Buddhists are measured separately from Hindus in the census.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

no. u can check 2001 census. buddhists were include in hindus in 2001 census, along with Jains. nids 13:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

All non-Brahmin Hindus are Shudra because this is Kali Yuga as per Hindu religion. The Shudra Hindus are hypocrite. Same case here with Nidhi and other anti-Buddhist HINDUS i.e. Shudra people. Please read the cencus report very well. There are religious cencus. 1. Hindus, 2. Muslims, 3. Christens, 4. Sikhs, 5. Buddhists and 6. Jains. National minority commission has BUDDHIST representative aslo. Bhante Surai Sasai a Japanese Born Indian Buddhist is the leader of Indian Buddhist movemernt. Especially he is fighting for Total Buddhist Control on Mahabodhi Vihar. This sacred site of Buddhists in under control of Shudra Hindus like Mr. Yadav Or Shudra Hindu Mr. Modi. Please check it before commenting. Dhammafriend 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article currently says, "According to the 2001 census, there are currently 7.95 million Buddhists in India i.e.0.8 % of total population of India, at least 5.83 million of whom are Buddhists in Maharashtra."—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

yes they are counted differently as a sect. so are jains and many other sectarians. but the total hindu population of 900 millions, as told by CIA world facts, include all these sects. Hinduism is not a well defined religioin. it encourages different schools of thoughts and one of them was infact athiestic.

and as a matter of fact buddists who have, so called, converted from hinduism, get all the benefits of scheduled castes, reserved exclusively for lower caste hindus. while those converting to christianity or Islam dont get those benefits, thus emphasising the fact of different religious identities.

nids 08:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hindus who are converted to Buddhism could not get any benifits till 1990. But Prime Minister V.P. Singh and [Mandal Commission] gave reservation for Buddhists also for political gains and to get vots of Buddhists. There is nothing wrong. If Hindus are taking reservation then what is wrong if Buddhists take it? First stop the reservation of Hindus then we will stop reservation of Buddhists. The Indian Buddhists don't need it. You can go in court against it. India is a democricy and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar has given equal right to everybody while framing the Constitution. Even Hindu Ati-Shudra women like Nidhi has equal rights because Buddhism preaches Eqality.Dhammafriend 13:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Get your facts right before you distort them. Dalit Buddha's have always got the benefits of reservation. This is the Only reason that there have been more so-called converts to Buddhism rather than Christianity or Islam. This part was done by Ambedkar himself.nids(♂) 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Low-caste people who convert to Buddhism receive the benefits reserved for low-caste people. That seems normal. If a black man in the U.S. converts to Islam, he is still eligible for affirmative action (to the extent that it is in effect in the first place). What seems unusual to me is that a low-caste Indian who converts to Christianity or Islam loses benefits. I have no idea why these benefits should have anything to do with religion.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

see this is just to emphasise that there have been atrocities in the past to lower caste hindus. in case of america, they were based on racial discrimination and not on religious. so they must apply to black man, as he is not losing his race, just changing his religion. in case of india, they were based on the caste system of religion. moreover, christianity and islam do not allow caste differences among its pupils. so is buddhism. but in india, since buddhism, (including neo-budhhism) is officially included in Hinduism, (also see Hinduism), so the caste based benefits applies to them. I would love to have ur argument on this topic. but since wikipedia is based on NPOV and basically on facts, i would like u to add the official view on this article, and then we can continue our arguments. waitin for ur action nids 09:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

i shall wait for few more days. either u add about the official view, or i will be adding. if u have any arguments please put them forward. else i shall take it as a green signal from u. nids 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, I'm aware of evidence that the Indian constitution, at least in some places, defines Hinduism as including Buddhism. I have yet to see any evidence indicating that this the official position in any other sense, and so I object to including that in the article. As for the constitution, we might as well mention it, but it doesn't seem like a very important fact, especially since Neo-Buddhism didn't even exist when the constitution was written.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

as for the fact, neo- buddhism was envisioned by ambedkar in 1935 only when he denounced hinduism. as for the matter of officialism, everybody knows that reservations to scheduled castes extend to budhhists and it is also well known that they use it. if there is any record, that u find, wherein neo-buddhist refuse to utilize the benefits reserved to lower caste hinduls only, saying that neo-buddhism is a different religion and it does not allows division on the basis of castes, it is not important.

but since neither u wont find such records nor do they exist, it is important to mention this fact. nids 17:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

i would also request u to read hinduism article once. so that u first understand hinduism. it is not a monomorphic monotheistic religion. it is a evolving process. u can claim that u are an athiest and still an Hindu. it does not denounce worship or followin of great men (like Islam calls worship of sufi saints to be apostasy and so the punishment for them in Islam is just death). if i extend ur view that neo-buddhism is a different religion, than what will u say for Arya Samaj.nids 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that reservation is applied to Buddhists and is used by Buddhists. What I want is a source for your interpretation that this shows that Buddhists are officially Hindu.
I read the article on Hinduism per your suggestion. I am aware that the categorisation which makes "Hinduism" one thing and Buddhism something else is arbitrary. However, that doesn't change the fact that this is the way these words are normally used, so to "Buddhism is part of Hinduism" is wrong unless it's qualified. This is especially relevant to this article, because Ambedkar and his followers and successors were so explicit that their goal in embracing Buddhism was to reject Hinduism.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

i m not asking to write that buddhism is a part of hinduism. even i can say that i worship shiva and i m not a hindu. its a different matter altogether.

what i want in this article is that reservations for Scheduled castes apply to Buddhists who have converted from lower class hindus. and they do not apply when they convert to an abrahmic religion. so just mention this in the article that officially u dont loose hinduism tag from u even if u convert to buddhism. u are basically denouncing some of the practices of hinduism.(say idol worship, or even vishnu and shiva worship). as u must have read that u can be a athiest and still be a hindu. u have the option of not using reservations for u when they apply to u. if this is the case with neo buddhists, it should not be mentioned that they are officially hindu. since it applies and it is used(reservations), it must be mentioned here. nids 09:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If 'Nidhishsinghal' are so much worried about reservation then change your Hindu caste become a Hindu Chamar OR Hindu-Bhangi and take the benifits of reservation. The Buddhists are not asking to convert you. Instead of changing religion change you caste be a Hindu and take tell the world that you become a Hindu Bhangi. Neither the Christen world nor the Buddhists world cares about your chnage of caste. Buddhists don't need any reservation. Only Hindus fight for it because they are divided into caste and subcastes. Dhammafriend 14:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We can certainly mention that low-caste people who convert to Buddhism retain their reservations, while they would lose them if they converted to Christianity of Islam. I still don't think this makes them officially Hindu, though.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

first mention this (ur first part) in the article. and for the second part, i m not saying that they officially become hindu. what i m sayin is that legally they can claim that they are Hindu. i m not saying that they have to call themselves hindu. of course u can have ur own identity, but if some of them want to say that they are buddhist and hindu too, then legally and officially they are right. while this priviledge does not extend to other monomorphic monotheistic religions. u cant claim that u are a muslim and a hindu at the same time, nor u can claim that u r christian and a muslim at the same time. u can only be one of them. got my point


also how can u say that they arent officially hindu, when the reservations apply to them, which are exclusively reserved for lower caste hindus. they ofcourse have the option of not using them, in which case they arent hindus, (officially). but as everyone knows that, almost all of them use the reservations.

moreover, government of india census, (can check 2001 census details), includes them in Hindus, as a subsect. there are many subsects wherein some separatists claim themselves to be different from hindus.(u would like to check Jainism), but majority identify themselves as hindus. as a matter of fact, on some restaurants in europe etc. u can find on menu Hindu Jain food. while some Jain can claim themselves to be separate from Hindus. nids 18:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

and as for Ambedkar part. read his article too(once). he denounced hinduism well into 1935 and even espoused the idea of separate Pakistan. he, infact, merged his political party, (independent labour party) with Muslim league and wrote editorials and all in favour of Pakistan in several papers and magazines. it was, when, he was disparaged by them, he decided not to go to pakistan and embrace islam. his aim was just to disparage hinduism, and nothing else. nids 18:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids what you wrote above is false propoganda and personal attacks on Babasaheb. The hindu sangh/parivar desperately tries to include both sikhs and buddhists and call them as hindus. This has political reasons. What is important is not any the official view but what the Buddhists and Sikhs consider themselves. The fact is that both these communities would prefer death than being called as parts of hinduism. Thus I ( a buddhist myself) will not allow any such wrong view.

The reason why, formerly scheduled caste, converts to Buddhism or Sikhism get reservation is because they relentlessly struggled for this right. There is no mention of 'Hindu' on their caste certificates. There is no such struggle inside the muslim community.The Andhra Pradesh goverment proposed reservations for muslims. But it was struck down by the courts and still there was no reaction by the Muslims. Lately Some voices are being raised in the christian community (John Dayal) for reservations but these have been viewed as a conversion tactic and hence dismissed. You cannot get anything free in India. You need to struggle for it. Your views are the same as those expressed on a POV fork (Neo Buddhism)It has been recommended for deletion and redirect to this page.--Yeditor 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

for the ambedkar part, please refer to his article on wikipedia. if u r saying that this article is a POV, plz clarify. it is in this article that it is written that he merged his political party with Muslim league. he espoused the idea of separate pakistan, and he even asked his followers to join the british army during 1942, when Quit India movement was at prime and Congress asked all its supporters to withdraw from the anglican services. he was to go to settle in pakistan, but when he was insulted by them, he decided to settle in india only. i accept that he suffered atrocities as a child and his growing up years, but if u are goin to justify all his acts on that basis than u r justifying palestinian terrorists too, for whatever they do.
and as for the official part, what will u say for Jains. and Arya Samaj. And Aghori Sadhus. all of these inculding neo-Buddhist have been included in the Hindus in the official Census of India 2001. i just want to mention these parts and also that they are eligible for reservations. moreover, even i know many buddhist who are happy to call themselves Hindus, who are u to take that right away from them. there may be some separatists, but nobody is forcing them to be called hindu. its just about their will and their right. while this right does not extend to say a muslim, or a christian that he can claim himself to be hindu at the same time.
i m a hindu, and i like many of buddhs ideas. those ideas have, infact, influenced our Vedanta philosophy.
please tell ur objections. nids 15:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. The misinformation on Dr. Ambedkar was an obvious attempt to villfy Dr Ambedkar by associating him with seperatists. It had no truth. Dr. Ambedkars thoughts ( Highly critical of Jihnna and Muslim league) can be found in his book Pakistan or the Partition of India. I have deleted that part. It was the Hindu Mahasabha Ideologue V. D Savarkar who exhorted indians to join the army and help the british. MK Gandhi also lent support to this move. not Babasaheb. I know all buddhists and sikhs are more than happy to dissassociate themselves from Hindus. The jains also dislike being called hindus. I am not taking away anyones right. On the contrary you seem extremely keen to deny distinct identity to Buddhist and Sikhs for your political reasons. Census matters are for the sake of mere convinience of counting. Census does not and cannot make any statement that Buddhism or Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. Thus there is no official view. --Yeditor 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nids .. Please follow the link to read today’s Headline in India’s, national daily “The Hindu”. The Demand for Reservations for Christians and Muslims is becoming stronger and some state Governments ( Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu) are proposing them though the central government has not yet accepted the demand countrywide. Your argument of including Buddhists as Hindus on the basis of reservations thus falls flat--Yeditor 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Nids .. You are not being truthful when you say that Buddhists like to be called as Hindus. I would like to draw your attention to the 22 vows that more than 500,000 Buddhists took when the converted to Buddhism in 1956 in a grand ceremony at Nagpur. They are in this article. You should have at least read the full article before hitting the discussion page with your agenda. They show how vehemently the Buddhists have rejected Hinduism. For your information please read some of them below

1) I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them. 2) I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I worship them. 3) I shall have no faith in ‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them. 4) I do not believe in the incarnation of God. 5) I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda. 6) I shall not perform ‘Shraddha’ nor shall I give ‘pind-dan’. 8) I shall not allow any ceremonies to be performed by Brahmins. 19) I renounce Hinduism, which is harmful for humanity and impedes the advancement and development of humanity because it is based on inequality, and adopt Buddhism as my religion.--Yeditor 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

first of all, i hate hindu mahasabha and i know that even they lent support to british army for the second world war. i even dont like mahatma gandhi for many of his views, but it is wrong to accuse him that he supported the partition of indians in the war. whatever few literary texts i could read, i do not find any clear evidence of him supporting the war. he infact intesified the quit india movement in 1942. i dont see any reason why you cannot accept that ambedkar asked his followers to support the british army.

it is fact that he merged his independent labour party with the muslim league and espoused the idea of separate pakistan. the book that you are talking about, was written after he decided to settle in India. I think it would not be hard for you to accept that he had to write such book wherein he would ridicule pakistan, since he decided not to settle in pakistan. it wont be easy for him if he continued his same views.

as for the muslim and christian reservations, are you saying that they are demanding reservations on the basis of caste, or are they asking for reservations on the basis of religion. please tell me if they are asking reservations on the basis of caste. in that case it would make my reservation point useless and even ridiculous, (although i always thought that muslims and christians do not allow for caste differences, and support equality).

moreover, are you saying that these buddhists are different sect from traditional ones and anyone who accepts hinduism too, cannot be a part of neo-buddhist identity. i will then not try to harm there distinct identity, and accept that they are totally different from hinduism. but please point out that if you are saying these neo-buddhists are totally different from other buddhists.

also, can i ask you a personal question. since hinduism is not a well defined religion,(even an athiest can be a hindu), those buddhists who identify themselves as hindus too, can they be called hindu buddhas and included officially in hinduism. waiting for your reply. nids 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Now Buddhists and Hindus are totally separate religions. Please read 22 vows properly this proves the anti-Hindu stand of present Buddhist generations. Non-Brahmin Hindus especially Shudra Hindus don't accept any theory becasue Hipocricy is their heart. Dhammafriend 14:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


It continues to amaze me how these "self-styled Buddhists" tout ideals of Dhamma, Ahimsa and Shanti (faith, nonviolence and peace) and then go right around and express the most bilious (and, quite frankly, mentally diseased) hate and bile against millions of Hindus who are perfectly happy with their faith and who make no attacks on Buddhism, and, point of fact, REVERE the Buddha as a saint. In Bihar, there are millions of HINDUS who visit the tree of enlightenement to pray to it, and these "Buddhists" attack them. These people pervert the teachings of Buddha and exploit the political situation in India to fester bigotry and hate against Hindus in order to further their ambition.
I'm sorry if this sounds polemical,but these people frighten me more than the Islamic terrorists who bombed trains and murder women and children. It's like those so-called "Buddhists" who applauded Zia-ul-Haq when he ordered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Hindus in Bangladesh and then went right around "Ahimsa" and publicly declared that Hindus do not deserve the same rights as others because they are "animals who deserve to get slaughtered". I appeal to these chauvinists to keep their views to themselves and not SOIL wikipedia with hate-speech and nonsense. This article has the most WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations that I have seen on wikipedia so far and statements that, if made in countries in Europe (with stringent hate-speech laws) would land them in prison like David Irving.I am NOT a Hindu and have no partisan bias when I say this, but there is no ideological difference between the touters of anti-Hindu hate and Joseph Goebbels, who demanded that millions of my people be shoved into ovens and murdered.Hkelkar 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nids and I

One By one: regarding Gandhi. Most people Indians as well as westerners know Gandhi as the hero of the movie “Gandhi”. If I ask your to refer Dr. Ambedkar’s “Mr. Gandhi and the Emancipation of Untouchables” or “Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah” , U will reject it as baised, so I am referring you this book“The Gandhi no body knows” by Richard Grenier. Originally written as a critique of the movie “Gandhi”, now this is regarded as Gandhi’s biography. You will be surprised what a loyal soldier of ‘Her Majesty’ Gandhi was.. If you read through the book you will find ample evidence of Gandhi’s unflinching support of every war effort of the British stating from his career in South Africa, Below is an extract

“To present the Gandhi of 1893, a conventional caste Hindu, fresh from caste-ridden India where a Paraiyan could pollute at 64 feet, as the champion of interracial equalitarianism is one of the most brazen hypocrisies I have ever encountered in a serious movie.

The film, moreover, does not give the slightest hint as to Gandhi's attitude toward blacks, and the viewers of 'Gandhi' would naturally suppose that, since the future Great Soul opposed South African discrimination against Indians, he would also oppose South African discrimination against black people. But this is not so. While Gandhi, in South Africa, fought furiously to have Indians recognized as loyal subjects of the British empire, and to have them enjoy the full rights of Englishmen, he had no concern for blacks whatever. In fact, during one of the "Kaffir Wars" he volunteered to organize a brigade of Indians to put down a Zulu rising, and was decorated himself for valor under fire.

For, yes, Gandhi (Sergeant Major Gandhi) was awarded Victoria's coveted War Medal. Throughout most of his life Gandhi had the most inordinate admiration for British soldiers, their sense of duty, their discipline and stoicism in defeat (a trait he emulated himself). He marveled that they retreated with heads high, like victors. There was even a time in his life when Gandhi, hardly to be distinguished >from Kipling's Gunga Din, wanted nothing much as to be a Soldier of the Queen. Since this is not in keeping with the "spirit" of Gandhi, as decided by Pandit Nehru and Indira Gandhi, it is naturally omitted from he movie."--Yeditor 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


"The Gandhi nobody knows" is an extremely racist rant cooked up by Grenier. It is full of factual errors ("Khilafat" is a mispronounciation of "Caliphate"?? Come on) and tantamounted to a hate-filled attack against all Indians (Westerners simply put all Indians as "Hindus", whether they are Hindu,Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Jewish). I seriously doubt that Grenier would even perceive a difference between Hindus and Buddhists. He'd just lump them all into "subhuman brown people", for all his hate and bile. He even went as far as saying that Islam was a "Western Religion" (odd, since today Neoconservatives argue the exact opposite and advocate bombing Muslim countries back to the stone age). The article has been thoroughly refuted by the publication below:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451bdbfbefb61?

Titled :

"Why Gandhi drives the Neoconservatives Crazy".

Read it and be enlightened. In fact, the rebuttal is from the same neoconservative magazine from where Grenier published. Grenier was a neoconservative fanatic and would hate Buddhists EVEN more than he hated Hindus (since classical Buddhism preached nonviolence, and neoconservatives are extremely violent people and wish for war everywhere). Hkelkar 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

first of all, many of my questions have remained unanswered. please read my above post and answer them.

i know that Gandhi was a chamcha of britishers,(just like Nehru) and i can cite further examples which even you do not know. i know he was awarded the victorian cross for being loyal to british. and as i already told you that i hate gandhi for many of his views. what i did not know was that he supported the discrimination to the black majority of south africa. i will read this part for myself. and from authentic sources.

but are you denying that he intensified the quit india movement of 1942. are you also denying that he, at least in last years of his life, worked for the upliftment of untouchables and even given them the name harijans.

and why are you not accepting the truth about ambedkar merging his independent labour party with muslim league. there are editorials that refer to his support for separate pakistan and even separate dalitistan. this is even referred now a days, when the lower caste political leaders support caste based reservations on the basis of his comments of receding the demand of separate dalitistan in return for 15% quota. nids 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the relevance of Ambedkar merging his party with the Muslim League? What do we learn from this?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Ambedkar never merged his party with Muslim Leaue. To understand his views about Muslims please read [Partition of India OR Pakistan]. In this book Dr. Ambedkar clearly mentions that Muslim State is danger and Hindu State is very dangerous. Because both the religions are based on blind beliefs. The Buddhist movement in India is becoming stronger to anti-Buddhist Shudra Hindus are writing false things. The Non-Brahmin Hindus are Shudra Hindus. These Shudra Hindus are the enemies of Buddhism. Dhammafriend 14:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

actually there is no relevance of this in the particular article. it was brought up for it was said that the views i want to represent here are similar to gandhi and hindu mahasabha, so i explained the truth about ambedkar too.nids 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reservations for christians and muslims

I can tell you for a fact that the demand for reservations by these communities has been under that argument that even after they have changed their religion, their caste tag refuses to go and they still suffer discrimination at the hand of Hindus in public services (education, Jobs etc) because of their historical hindu caste . ( as all christians and muslims of were lower castes). I will search adequate references of John Dayal (head of Catholic association) who is championing the cause of reservations for christians and post it here for you. --Yeditor 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

you are wrong if you say, that only the lower castes converted to islam and christianity. i know many rajputs and other upper classes (including brahmins) who converted to islam and christianity. if they are denied reservations and only the lower caste converts to islam and christianity get the reservations, only in that case does it make my above point on reservation ridiculous and useless.

are you also saying that upper class hindus discriminated with lower class muslims and christians and supported the upper class converts.

as of now, no upper class buddhist convert gets reservation benefits. u only get reservation benefits if you were a scheduled caste before conversion.

nids 01:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nidhi, I think you are pretty much worried about reservation so I request you that don't change your religion. Change your caste. Become a proud Hindu Chamar Or proud Hindu Bhangi and take the benifits of reservation also tell the same thing to all your Hindu i.e. Shudra friends the simplest way to be a Hindu and also to get benifits of reservation. Dhammafriend 14:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I am talking in percentages.. When i say all, I mean most. lets not split hair. I dont have so much time to engage in a debate on everything under the sun. So please limit your discussion to the part you want to edit. Regarding buddhists, Before the mass conversion Buddhism was as good as dead in India. It was practiced in a very very insignificant number of people that to in very remote and inaccessible parts of the country like Ladhakh or few north eastern states. Thus it can be safely said that all the buddhists are so called Neo-Buddhists. there are hardly any "upper class" buddhists. a few arun shouries here and there do not count. Moreover the above demand for reservation is as made by John Dayal. I am only quoting him. --Yeditor 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i also want to stick to the point. it does not matter what arun shourie says, but are u dissallowing a upper class hindu to convert to buddhism. moreover you said that there are going to be reservations for muslims and christians. i just wanted to know that will they be based on caste discriminations or religious ones. if and only if they are based on caste differences, does than it make my point useless. nids 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Anybody can convert to Buddhism. But for Hindus 22 vows given by Bodhisattva Dr. Ambedkar are compulsory because they come from a caste ridden, degraded religious and very degraded spiritual background. Hindu Brahmin, Hindu Bhangi, Hindu Bania Or Hindu Chamar all are welcome in Buddhist fold. The Indian Buddhist are broad minded and always accept everybody. Today Buddhism in India is the fastest growing religion. Please read Riddles in Hinduism written by Bodhisattva Ambedkar to know the real truth of Hindu religion. Dhammafriend 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
So you do admit that Ambedkarite pseudo-Buddhists make special reservations for Hindus, which, in on itself, is a racist attitude held by the Ambedkarites.Hkelkar 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thegreyanomaly and all anti-Buddhist people

User Thegreyanomaly the article "Indian Buddhist Movement" is about Religious movement which is growing in India slowly since last 50 years. If you are anti-Buddhist we certainly don't have any objection about your religion. You can be a Brahmin-Hindu if you are a priest by profession in any temple otherwise you are a Shudra-Hindu because all non-priest i.e. non-Brahmins are SHUDRA in Hindu Religion. In Kali Yuga Hindus have only two Varna as per the religious philosophy of Hindus. If you are from India then you might be knowing that Buddhism in India was totally killed. Some blame Brahmins Or some blame Muslims for that, it is a vast topic of study. I don't want to blame anybody. Hindu Castiesm, Hindu Untouchability and Caste based Graded Inequality became very strong after fall of Buddhism in Indian sub-continent and before British came to India. Education to all non-Brahmins was banned and the rigid Hindu Religious laws made by Brahmins like Manusmriti, VishnuSmriti and other DharmaShastras became the laws to govern the non-Muslim society.

British gave education for all and broke the anti-Human Hindu Laws. After Independence Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India. He also established "Buddhist Society of India" certainly NOT Navayana Society! So there is no meaning branding the movement as Navayana. Because the founder of India's Buddhist Revival Movement which is certainly against Hindu Casteism and injustice that Hindus are doing since hundreds of years called his movement as Buddhist Movement. Also Dr. Ambedkar said that 'He will convert whole India back to Buddhism' but he was killed just within 6 weeks after his conversion to Buddhism. Some people blamed Brahmins for his death. It is not sure how he died. I dont want to blame anybody. So you can discuss current Buddhist Developments in the article "Indian Buddhist Movement". About Hindu Caste and related things you better write to Hindu Articles Or Caste Related to Articles. If Navayana is a anto-caste publication then you should put that link in Caste Related article.

In India legal system we have Hindus, Muslims, Christens and BUDDHIST as different religion. Expecially our 2001 cencus gives more details about different religions population. We dont have any 'Navayana Buddhist' in whole India neither it is recognized legally anywhere. Officially we have around 1% Buddhists in India. This population unofficially can be 4% also because thousands of people are converting to Buddhism. But lets take official figures.

Caste is a problem of Hindus certainly not the problem of Buddhists. Be a contributor to wikipedia but don't just try to vandalise different articles. Dhammafriend 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Caste is as much a problem for Muslims (Ashraf/Ajlaf/Sayyid/Mojahir) and christians (upper caste priests/lower caste parishoners) as it is for Hindus see Indian Caste System for sourced edits to that effect (remember sources? Those things that peoper editors do?).Hkelkar 16:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Those Brahmin and Shudra so called Hindus converted to Islam has carried the Caste to even Muslims and polluted Islam with Hindu Casteism. The basic problem is in Varnas preached by Veda and DharmaShastra. But why are dragging Muslims here? The current debate is only about present status of Indian Buddhist Movement. We do not care casteism of Shudra Or Muslims. plese concentrate on Buddhist Issue dont mix with other issuse OK. Can you tell me which Varna Hinud are you?? Dhammafriend

[edit] Warning

This article is, as it stands, complete hatemongering nonsense. It is full of unsourced rubbish and weasel words. I am warning all parties that if they persist in using wikipedia as a soapbox to express false views and tout hate-speech I will bring admins into this matter and file a full request for arbitration. Please cooperate to build an objective and useful article that presents the facts without POV.Hkelkar 07:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Above is false propoganda, This warning applies to you. Stop pushing Bhramin Pov. Yeditor 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This warning applies to you. Stop being incivil and making racial slurs against people or you will be reported.Hkelkar
Buddhist Movement is strongest religious movement in India so the anti-Buddhist people especially caste Hindu Brahmins and their fellow Shudra Varna Hindu brothers always oppose any unbiased truth telling articles. It is my open challenge to the world community to come to India and see how different people from various castes e.g. Dalits, Nomadic Tribes, Bhangi and even Brahmin are converting to Buddhism to end caste system. The charges by all non-priest by profession i.e. Shudra Hindus are absolute false. It is my request to Arbitation Committee to look in the all the articles by Caste Brahmin and Shudra Hindus. Those wants to check the present status please come to India I'll arrange meetings and will give you live proofs also. I am a Buddhist and working among India's poorest masses like Untouchables. Our religious friends from Japan,ShriLanka, Taiwan and England are actively involved in Buddhist Movement in India. Dhammafriend 17:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar please be specific to the points you want to change. Buddhism is the stongest religious movement in India. This year is the 2550th anniversary of Buddha and 50th anniversary of religious conversion day of Dr. Ambedkar. So please visit October 2006 toNagpur in India and see how thousands of people from several castes are converting to Buddhism with 22 vows. This shown the Dr. Ambedkar's castelesss movement is successful and Indians is once again converting to Buddhism also 22 vows make the anti-Brahmin and anti-Hindu stance very much clear. So don't feel bad about success of Buddhism in India. Don't be anti-Buddhist because world Buddhist are coming together. Buddhist from Japan, England, Taiwan, ShriLanka are propagating Buddhism in India. These people are helping to strengthened the Buddhist movement started by Dr. Ambedkar on 14th October 2006. This article discusses the present Buddhist religious activities in Indian Buddhism and its revival. So be a positive contributor if not then at least don’t show your anti-Buddhist sentiments. It is difficult for a Shudra Varna Hindu like you to understand the current Buddhist movement and how the Buddhist world is helping Indian Buddhist. Better understand your own Hindu Religion; especially Veda,Geeta, Varna and Hindu Caste system. preached by Hindu religious scripture. Also know that all those so-called Hindus who are not priests by current profession are Shudra by Varna i.e. VarnaShram Dhamra. So please understand all religions comparatively with all positive and negative aspects to create a religious harmony Dhammafriend 18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar i believe is Jewish. It hardly matters to him. Instead of unsourced, illogical, and imaginative rants about "Brahminism", why not find some actual sources from real writers/ historians to back this up. Buddhism declined because they couldn't argue with Adi Shankara, he crushed them in his debates, and because peace is not the best way to fight the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to divert the attenstion by making false claims. Why are you branding Hkelkar as Jew? It is Hkelkar who will tell his identity. If he is Jew then why is branding Buddhist movement in India as anti-Hindu again and again? Dhammafriend 10:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I am Jewish, and am now going to report these ethnic characterizations as personal attacks.Hkelkar 16:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Or and weasel:New discussion

The 22 vows is unsourced and, as it is written now, is basically pure hatemongering. I give one last warning before I will report this to arbitration. Several other claims are unsourced.
Several weasel words in this article subtly trying to tout racist anti-Hindu dialectic.Hkelkar 16:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The 22 vows may or may not be "hatemongering", but they are a quote from Ambedkar, which means that we are simply reporting it. As for the weasel words, can you give some examples?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all cite a source for the 22 vows. The claim that the 22 vows make his anti-Hindu racism "clear" is uncited and POV. Several weasel words are below:
"These leaders argue that the actual numbers are considerably higher"?????? actual, probably etc etc. What the hell are these?Hkelkar 16:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Lets take only official and legal data from www.censusindia.net OK? Whatever legal sources accpet the Indian Buddhist population lets accept. So this point is also clear. Anything else? Dhammafriend 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That still does not address the weasel words in this article.Hkelkar 17:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"However, it remains to be seen whether this move will be able to successfully reinvigorate the Indian Buddhist movement.". "remains to be seen"????? By whom??? Who says so? The editor?Hkelkar 16:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand your points. The word "probably" does not appear in this article. The word "actual" is not a weasel word. Is "However, it remains to be seen ..." intended as an example of weasel wording? I agree that it is not an example of exemplary encyclopedia writing; that said, however, it is entirely neutral and I don't see what makes it contentious.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
At best, it's OR because it does not cite the person or persons who "remain to see" anything.Hkelkar 09:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue of 22 Vows was sorted out on Dr. Ambedkar article's discussion.please read there. So finally it was moved from Ambedkar article to this article. So why again same discussion? Dhammafriend 17:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's still unsourced here. I am not concerned with the Amdedkar article here. I am only concerned with this article and it's obvious hate-speech.Hkelkar 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar, do you disagree that Ambedkar said these things? If not, we can provide a good citation in an orderly fashion, but there is no need to argue about it on the talk page. And, frankly, your continued references to "obvious hate-speech" in this article make you seem more than a little tendentious and border on trolling.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I want sources to that effect. Since wikipedia is not a reliable source for wikipedia, I want third party sources.
Do you assert or suspect that it is untrue?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
My assertions are unimportant. I want satisfaction of WP:Reliable Sources.Hkelkar 18:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar and Nat Krause this year October 2006 is a 50th anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar's conversion to Buddhism. And WOLRD BUDDHIST Conferece is arranged in Nagpur. If kelkar Or all anti-Buddhist people who are unaware of the Present Indian Buddhist Movement can come and understand the status. Please visit www.jambudvipa.org for further details. Our British Buddhist Friends, FWBO www.fwbo.org and www.tbmsg.org has arranged the International meet. so Questions raised by Kelkar can be easily sorted out. Just to be anti-Buddhist is a mind set of Brahmin-Shudra Hindus. Also visit www.buddhistchannel.tv for current news and updates. Dhammafriend
Wikipedia is a place for proper and preferably scholarly edits. It is not a soapbox for linkspamming and religious proselytizing.Please take yourt preachings to a blog or a forum somewhere. You're annoying people here.Hkelkar 09:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, the fact remains that the editor who has been slanting this article seems to have an agenda of defaming Hindus. As long as the Indian so-called "Buddhist" movement is discussed on its own merits (as oposed to lashing out at Hindus) then it's fine. As it stands, I belive that it's hate-speech.I'm sorry if you find this "tendentious", but I would welcome any reasonable discussion on this matter, instead of Dhammafriends "tendentious" edits and polemical attacks on this talk page.Hkelkar 17:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine, let's have a neutral and non-tendentious article. What do the 22 vows have to do with this?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source for these 22 vows? Is it necessary to mention all of them here? I think it's necessary only to mention key vows and point the reader to the reference for the sake of brevity.Hkelkar 18:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Indian so-called "Buddhist" movement is popular?? On which planet? If it's do damn popular why do Buddhists form an insignificant fraction of the population per all reliable and verifiable statistics???Hkelkar
How significant is your command of the English language, that you have chosen to start critiquing other people's choice of wording? www.m-w.com describes popular as meaning "of or relating to the general public"; what this means is, a movement that is not restricted to a few intellectuals.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The wording here is out of context. It indicates that Buddhism is a majority movement (popular in the more er "popular" meaning). I feel that this should be expanded to specifying the context in which the word "popular" is used to remove ambiguities.Hkelkar 17:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"Buddha and Dhamma" is a Buddhist "Bible"? Who says so? Do Buddhists in Japan agree? Do Buddhists in Laos agree? Are Laotian Buddhists even aware of the existence of this so-called "Buddhist Bible"???Hkelkar 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on this point.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The Article is rlated to only Indian Buddhist and present Indian Buddhist Movement. Why are you dragging Japan, China here? Dhammafriend
Because you claim that it is the "Bible" (oh dear Gawds) for Buddhists ie ALL Buddhists ie even buddhists in other countries which is completely false and, quite frankly, gibberish.
"Proper Understanding of Buddhism"??? As detailed by Ambedkar??? Yeah,right! So the millions of Buddhists in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia etc who haven't even heard of this Ambedkar guy do not have a proper understanding of Buddhism, is that it? Ridiculous!Hkelkar 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I took out that whole section.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
anti-Buddhist hate is too much in Brahmin Shudra Hindu minds. Dhammafriend
You don't seem to be too short on anti-Hindu propaganda either.Hkelkar 09:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, all this laughable content that was put there by a truly "tendentious" editor serves to demonstrate the cultish nature of this so-called Indian Buddhist movement.Like any cult, they deny the truth about Buddhism being a primarily non-Indian religion and try to establish writings by obscure writers (to most Buddhists in the world) as some sort of canon. This is exactly the kind of attitude held by the Mormons or the Scientologists.Hkelkar 18:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr.Hkelkar you are not the first anti-Buddhit person on this planet. the Indian Buddhist Movement is very strong and fastest growing religous movement on planet known as Earth. The country is India i.e. Bharat. For Statistical details over the period of last 50 yers please visit Census India site. I think all your question have got the answers ! The Language used by u like which planet etc.. shows you are full hate towards Buddhist so debate is a civilised manner. Nat Krause has initiated the talks in a good manner so you be also talk in a good manner. I do undertand Vanas Hindu Religion, Caste System, DharmaShastras and Hindu Religious lasws etc very well.Dhammafriend
I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!! Despite repeated warnings and a word from an admin you continue to attack me, calling me "anti-Buddhist", "Brahman", "Shudra" and what not. I am reporting this user again as warning him has clearly served no purpose.Hkelkar 09:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to your trollish rants here I am not an anti-Buddhist, nor an anti-Hindu, anti-Semite, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, or anti-Scientologist, anti-Mormon, anti-Feminist, anti-Homosexual, anti-Martian, anti-Bahaii, anti-Zoroastrian, or anti-anyone. I TOO respect all human beings and all peoples of all faiths, cultures, and creeds. What I have trouble respecting are people who waste other people's valuable time and attack and characterize the ethnicity of users when they can;t make any coherent arguments. Particularly disturbing is that the said ethnicities or religious affiliations have absolutely no bearing on their edits on wikipedia. Please stop this RIGHT NOW.Hkelkar 09:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not SHOUT, it is uncivil and doesn't make your point any clearer. Thank you. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 18:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I got angry. It's just very difficult for me to tolerate obnoxious prosetylizing and virulent racism that comes from missionaries of any religion, and wikipedia is no place for such things anyways.Hkelkar 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Sources

I have cited sources that show that scholars have called Ambedkarite Buddhism navayāna. Dhammafriend refuses to believe that Ambedkarite Buddhism could be branded
It is true that Dr. Ambedkar played a very important role in reviving Buddhism in India so we respect him a lot and the Buddhist world also very much interested in his interpretation of Buddhism for a social cause. It is only a one part of mass Buddist Movement in India. All have come together. So people from Tamil Nadu like Sakya Group by Iyothee Thass, Dharmananda Kosambi, Ambedkar, Banglore Mahabodi Society by Acharya BuddhaRakkhita all compramises a true Indian Buddhist Movement. So we can't brand current movement as only and only movement of Ambedkar. Even British Buddhist who are settled in India have dedicated their life for development of Buddhism in India. Please visit http://www.tbmsg.orgDhammafriend
Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India so you can not brand is Old OR Neo! Its Buddhism. People from Europe /USA are converting to their own found Buddhist practices. All are Buddhist so newly converted people are not branded as neo ! Please also visit www.e-b-u.org. In Indian Context Buddhist from Ladakh, Assam, Maharshtra, Karnataka etc. are a fighting unitedly for Buddhist Revival. Do you know All Indian Buddhist Monk Association ? Especially for Mahabodhi Temple Liberation Movement world Buddhist are united. Buddhist monk from Japan Bhante Surai Sasai is doing best in Central Region of India Nagpur to mobiliese masses Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
the fact is all Buddhism is branded something or the other and scholars have branded Ambedkarite Buddhism as navayāna. Ambedkarite Buddhism is the only Buddhist movement in India. Buddhists from Ladakh, Assam, or Darjeeling are ancestral Buddhist populations that did not get extinguished, hence, the "Indian Buddhist Movement" should only be applicable to Ambedkarite Buddhism, which has been called navayāna
Dhammafriend is stubborn and keeps reverting the article and removing statement "or Navayāna Buddhism (Pāli नवयान navayāna, literally "new vehicle")". May I put this back in, along with my citation.
Thegreyanomaly 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I originally posted this on Tom Harrison's talk page, but he said he needs a third opinion.
Gail Omvedt has called in Navayana in her book Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahminism and Caste and I've ssen it in the index of Reconstructing the World: B. R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India by Surendra Jondhale and Johannes Beltz
Buddhist in India is a homogeneous society. I have told many times see the ALL INDIA BUDDHIST MONKs Organiation and MAHABODHI VIAHAR you will get that all are together. Also see MAHABODHI TEMPLE LIBERATION MOVEMENT and current upadates. Dhammafriend
Its known that Ambedkarite Buddhism does vary from the main 'ancient' sects, hence, it itself should be a sect and the last time I checked it is mainly Ambedkarite Buddhism that can be called an Indian Buddhist movement and scholars have called this Buddhism, Navayāna
Thegreyanomaly 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The claims made in the caste-barrier section are all unsourced and, quite frankly, read like the proselytization of a preacher (Dhamma-thumper?).Provide cited sources to establish reliable statistics, or the section also gets axed.Hkelkar 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Thegreyanomaly and Mr.Hkelkar I dont know which Varnas you belong to, might be Shudra Varnas because only preist in temples are Brahmin rests are Shudras as per Vedic and Hindu religion. But we know that Brahmin and Shudra i.e. so called Hindus both are staunch anti-Buddhist people. So for your information I am a Buddhist Missionary currently in GERMANY. The Buddhist world has taken serious interest in Indian Buddhist Movement. I have told you many times that check the Indian Census, National Minority Commission of India reports but you people are not ready to believe even the proper resourced material. See how Buddhist population aand Indian Buddhist Movement is growing fast. These are Indian Govt. Resources so you MUST believe the legal statistics provided by India. I have greater and practicle experiece in working Slums Of India propagating Buddhism. Our British Buddhsit Friends as well people from Japan, Like Bhante Nagarjun Surai Sasai are helping us in India. Visit http://ncm.nic.in/ and http://www.censusindia.net/ http://www.fwbo.org http://www.tbmsg.orgDhammafriend
For a Buddhist you sure engage in spreading a lot of anti-Hindu misinformation. Stop linkspamming.Hkelkar 10:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Kelkar, Why do you expect him to provide statistic. Could you please provide me exact dates of when Vedas were written? when Manusmriti was written. Or just tell me what really "Hindu" means? How do you define "Hindu". I will provide all the information you need.Bodhidhamma

[edit] Dhammafriend and Truthlover

Dhammafriend (and Truthlover) has completely reverted [Indian Buddhist Movement[|this page]] to how it was prior to his/their ban. He/They did not only remove the navayana concept, which he/they question but also all the citations that cleared up citation neccessity's. I have reverted the page to how it was prior. Thegreyanomaly 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also important to note that "they" reverted the 'official-style' referencing back to their informal previous citations, they also removed claims of dubious assertions and etc. the proof is [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] Thegreyanomaly 23:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir,

In what authority you are declaring that Indian Budhhist movement is Navayana? Do you have any approvals/references from the Indian Budhhist council/Society. ? The new name should be declared/approved only by those who practice buddhism/those who are from that region/those who are an authority in that religion from that region. Not any "tom-dick and harry"(My apologies if you find this word inappopriate, but i dont find any other word) can come and declare anything about our Indian Buddhist movement. If the Buddhists society decides that they should be called by that name then only it should be accepted.

If I proclaim the religion you follow as something else would you accept that?. Think realistically and in an appropriate way. Try putting yourself in others shoes and think how you are hurting other's feelings.? If you do not know how to respect other person's view you have no authority to write any buddhist article. Respect and love are the foundation stones of this religion. Please revert those changes back at it is vandalism of the property. If you have POV please discuss here and accordingly we will update this page. Ref: (Wikipedia's policy) If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.--Bodhidhamma 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend/Truthlover/Bodhidhamma, you did not respect my religion, Theravada Buddhism. You continually call me anti-Buddhist because I recognize the fact that when I was born I was a Hindu Brahmin. Now why should I recognize your offense from Navayana. The Title navayāna was declared by Ambedkarite scholars and the last time I checked the Ambedkarites were the only growing Buddhist population in India. To an extent, I understand your plight with the term navayāna, but when you edit it out you do not have the right to remove claims of dubious sources, without provided a url as a source, nor do you have the right to deformalize the reference system placed on a page. Simply linking to an url is not proper. One must put it as a reference with the whole superscripted number as a link deal
Thegreyanomaly 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr Thegreyanomaly This was my first reply to you. I dont find anything disrepctful in it. If you really understand buddhism you must have read somewhere knowledge should be based upon perception, inference and valid testimony.(This is from Sankhya FYI) Not cooked stories or street side gossip.
If you are theravada buddhist, then you should have respected others views. becuase that is the basic foundation of buddhism Love and respect.
Please search on this page and find when I have called you anti-buddhist. I am trying to follow wikipedia's procedures and policies. becuase people take excuse of any such language/technical errors to divert the attention from real discussion.
Again, If you are Theravada Buddhist and do not belong to Indian Buddhist society, what authority you have to claim that the Ambedkarite movement is a navayana? Did any one from Ambedkarite community accept it? If I give you other name suppose "Tom" which is not acceptable to you, what would be your reaction.
Please think and answer insted of diverting the talk from the real topic.--Bodhidhamma 02:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that Buddhism at it's core is about love and respect and, above all else, the root principle of ahimsa. Then explain to me why Indian Neo-Buddhists raided Hindu temples in Karnataka a few years ago, vandalized deities and bludgeoned the priests to death?

Explain to me why, when the Taleban came to power in Afghanistan and demolished statues of the Buddha by explosive, not a peep was heard from the Ambedkarites and many Ambedkarites cheered with the Muslims at Malegaon when they expressed support for the terrorist Taleban?

Explain to me why the Islamist anti-Hindu hate-book "Hinduon ki Haqeeqat", written and distributed by Islamist terror outfit Lashkar-e-Quahhar is endorsed by many Neo-Buddhists.

Hkelkar 02:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

HKelkar, Please focus on the topic we are discussing. Do not bring irrelevant issues here. This talk page is for Indian Buddist movement. We can make lots of accusations on each others. Which would lead us nowhere. Stick to one point before you start/jump another point. I am not responding to accusations/concerns because I do not want to divert our attention from the issues we are disucssing here. --Bodhidhamma 17:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bodhidhamma, art thou not Dhammafriend/Truthlover? -Thegreyanomaly 22:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Claims by Thegreyanomaly and Hkelkar

The user Hkelkar claims he is 'Jewish'. The user Thegreyanomaly claims he is ex-Brahmin and Thervada Buddhist. But both are not coming forward to discuss the present real Indian Buddhist Movement. I have invited them for personnal discussion manytime but both are running aways. To clear your views about Buddhist Movement in India I can arrange meetings and discussions through our Buddhist organizarional members in USA, Europe and India. I am a Buddhist Missionary and working for Buddha Dhamma propagation in India. These days I am travelling and working for Dhamma Mission in Germany. So be bold to come forward and discuss the Indian Buddhist Movement. This October 2006 at Nagpur, India thousands of people wil be converting to Buddhism in India to escape Brahmin-Shudra Hindu Casteism. Dhammafriend 14:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For some reason the Dalai Lama seems more Hindutva than convert seeker [4]. I wonder why?Bakaman Bakatalk 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Naturally the terrorist propaganda machine milligazette truncated the article. Here is the original full article with background and further events:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/25/india.lama/index.html

Hkelkar 04:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, based on this we can stop WP:AGF with milligazette.Hkelkar 04:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Another ref of the dalai lama condemning activities of people like Dhammafriend/Bodhidhamma (self-admittedly Buddhist "Missionaries"):

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/10/9_5.html

Hkelkar 04:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It takes quite a nerve to suggest that actions of a buddhist missionary like Dhammafriend are disapproved by HH Dalai Lama simply because he is a missionary, from your own link: "Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don't do it for fashion" Also, http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes111.html
"I would like to share some of my thoughts with all of you gathered here, brothers and sisters in Buddhism. First of all, Buddhism corresponds to a new tradition, a religion which did not previously exist in the West. Consequently, it is normal that all those who are interested in Buddhism in its Tibetan form would also like to be informed about and continue to study other religions and traditions. This is perfectly natural. However, for those who are seriously thinking of converting to Buddhism, that is, of changing your religion, it is very important to take every precaution. This must not be done lightly. Indeed, if one converts without having thought about it in a mature way, this often creates difficulties and leads to great inner confusion. I would therefore advise all who would like to convert to Buddhism to think carefully before doing so.
Second, when an individual is convinced that Buddhist teachings are better adapted to his or her disposition, that they are more effective, it is quite right that this religion be chosen. "
So to say that HH Dalai Lama would condemn the activities of Dhammafriend and even Bodhidharma (!!!! thats an amazing insult to so many east asian buddhists!!!) is to claim that they advised people to mindlessly convert to buddhism out of fashion. There is no evidence whatsoever that HH Dalai Lama would disapprove of buddhist missionaries, for, after all, what could then be said of Padmasambhava, who brought buddhism to tibet?? --Aryah 12:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And you accused me of being "offtopic". Lol! A fanatic is easy to spot. Dhammawhosit can preach hatred all he wants. He just needs to keep it off wikipedia.Hkelkar 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Pointing to and correcting a misuse and mispresentation of the words of HHDL is no more offtopic that that misuse of the words by HHDL. Think of another user whatever you wish as far as Im concearned, but dont misuse HH Dalai Lama to make your points when he doesnt. And this still doesnt even touch the fact that along with the user you found it necessary to mention Bodhidharma.. --Aryah 11:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VOI link

In the Reference section, there is a link to an unsourced POV article from voi.org, which appears to be a site more familiar with Hinduism than Buddhism. This article is not an appropriate reference because its neutrality is highly questionable.

It illustrated the Viewpoint of some scholars regarding neo-Buddhism so can be linked as a partisan viewpoint. Per WP:RS it can be qualified.Hkelkar 12:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Let the Hindu views also come forward about the Indian Buddhist Movement. So reference to VOI does not make any problem to the Buddhist article. Ambedkaritebuddhist 10:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki guidelines suggest that a strict adherence to facts rather than opinions is best. Therefore, the opinion, especially from an obviously non-neutral source like voi violates this guideline. If it is included, then it would also be seemly to include a complete contextualization of voi, and the author's documented support to acts of violence against religious minorities.

So the Goenka ref is also disallowed because it is from a aprtisan Neo-Buddhist source that mandates the genocide of Hindus ^_^.Hkelkar 19:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Kelkar, You have reverted all the changes and vandalised the articles with all links. All references and links are reverted by you. "Ase karane mhanaje chukiche kam aahe. Links dilya aahet na" 195.128.2.67 08:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
"Na mi bandhu. WP:RS padha".Hkelkar 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Indian Buddhist Movement by User Hkelkar

Do not remove the sourced edits of ambedkaritebuddhist. To do so is patterm vandalism and you will be indefblocked if you persist.

You are reverting article using popups so have discussion before reverting SOURCED information. Revert No. 1

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Ambedkaritebuddhist 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goenka is associated with the Indian Buddhist movement?

Where is the proof or at least the indication that Goenka is associated with the Indian Buddhist movement. If there is no such proof then the section about him should be moved to Buddhism in India.Andries 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems 'influential in' rather than simply 'associated with', but influential enought to warrant a mention. I dont see there actually being a consensus on his removal, as is claimed in the edit summary when he was removed; there have simply been no comments in the two days. Quick googling came up with this:

" the first year when I moved to India from Burma, there was a big public function put on by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's followers, who had become Buddhists. They invited me to their annual celebration of the day that Dr. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism. " - so thats one clear link, given by Goenka himself. Another link I found in this secondary source: http://www.sociology.ed.ac.uk/sas/papers/panel2_zelliot.rtf : "The center at Igatpuri founded by S.N. Goenka draws seekers from all over the world, including a sizable number of Maharashtrian Buddhists. One has even gone to a Vipassana meditation camp in the United States, and there is a group of graduate students at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, none of them from Maharashtra, who have take the initial ten day Vipassana course and conduct Saturday night meditation sessions in their dormitories. Proof that not only highly educated elite Buddhists attend Vipassana meditation sessions comes in a backhanded way from a Brahmin woman in Pune who complained that 'all these people who come to Igatpuri know nothing about Buddhism.' Goenka, on the other hand, has been very welcoming to Ambedkar Buddhists since he began teaching Vipassana meditation in the early 1970's." - so both confirm both a significant Goenka following in teh I.B.M. circles, and call Goenka "very welcoming to Ambedkar Buddhists", so clearly there is a link. Another fragment comes from http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-NX012/nx059202.htm - and one of the largest buddhology archives on the net:

"After Dr. Ambedkar The great tragedy was that he died just 6 weeks after the conversion leaving a movement of millions of the most backward and exploited people in India leaderless. ... There was, , very little effective Dharma teaching amongst the new .... Shri Goenka who teaches what he calls Vipassana meditation has also been extremely sympathetic, and many new Buddhists have benefited from his meditation retreats, "

again prominently mentioning Goenka as a teacher to the 'new buddhists' and even characterising him as 'extremely sympathetic' to them specifically.

I think there is clear evidence there is a link, and so will revert the deletion of that paragraph --Aryah 12:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not write simply that Goenka has been a meditation teacher for some members of the Indian Buddhist movement and leave it at that? Andries 22:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no dog in this, nor a wish to edit the article; phrase it as you wish. I simply showed some easily obtainable evidece of the appropriateness of some form of a mention. --Aryah 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This entire article is unsourced

The first step is to change the name of the article. It pretends to represent all Indian Buddhists, when it is actually a POV mouthpiece for the Ambhedkar Buddhist movement. HeBhagawan 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the relation between this article and Buddhism in India? Andries 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No relation at all. Buddhism in India is about the history and religion of Buddhism as it existed historically. Buddhism fizzled out in India during the latter half of the first Millenium following Adi Shankara's Hindu Revival.The so-called Indian Buddhist Movement as described here is neither Indian nor Buddhist nor a movement. This article describes a minor fringe of extremists who call themselves "Ambedkarites" and are but a small part of the overall Buddhist revivalism (started by Ambedkar in the 20th century). The Indian Buddhist movement is a very complex and intricate web of believers and followers and this article has been taken over by a fringe element of fanatics who are espousing a narrow view of it.Hkelkar 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
When I read the article I do not get the impression that it is about Indian Buddhism in general. It is already clear that the aricle is about the Ambedkar Buddhist movement. Andries 17:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What has Goenka to do with this article? Andries 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Goenka is an important figure among Indian Buddhists. He NOT an ambedkarite but he is an Indian Buddhist and but doing his best to propagate Buddhism in India. The latest Buddhist Pagoda construction in Mumbai, Maharashtra state and his Viapassana Academy in Igatpuri are playing important roles for Buddhist Movement in India. 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Search me.This is why I posted the RfC. Some fresh pairs of eyes are desperately needed here.Hkelkar 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In particular look at my last sourced edit [5] from "The Week", which satisfies WP:RS and is part of the NPOV schema of criticizing everything a little at the end but the Neo-Buddhists mass-reverted them and started personal attacks in my talk page.Hkelkar 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Everywhere the Article is shows that it is a Well Sourced Article. You can see reference number 1 to all! The claim by HKelkar that "entire article is unsourced" is false. Ambedkaritebuddhist 09:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ALL so-called Ambedkarites are NOT Buddhists in India they are still HINDU

So-called Ambedkarite concept is not applied to particular Religion such as Hindu, Christen, Or Buddhist. "According to the 2001 census, there are currently 7.95 million Buddhists in India i.e.0.8 % of total population of India, at least 5.83 million of whom are Buddhists in Maharashtra." This is the only MINORITY Population of Buddhists in India. Compared to 1951 census the percentage increase compared to any other Religion such as Hindu OR Muslim the Buddhist population in India growing fast. Especially because of religious conversion. In 2006 thousands of people have converted to Buddhism and International Media such as BBC and may others have given proper news about it. The article Indian Buddhist Movement is about only Buddhist people in India and their religious activities.Ambedkaritebuddhist 09:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Im confused by this comment. They are hindu? But I thought the point of the ceremony was precisely to denounce hindusim for the percieved injustice done by it to the Dalits? So how could they be hindu? Religion is a matter of identity, surely theyve made it clear they dont accept this identity? --Aryah 08:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The anti-Buddhist Brahmin people say that there are no Buddhist people at all in India also they argue that there is no Indian Buddhist Movement. They say only few Ambedkarites are writing the article. To PROVE the point that there is a very strong BUDDHIST MOVEMENT in India I gave them the actual and practicle Data Available on official CENCUS web site of India. There are millions of Ambedkarite all over India and world but all are not converted to Buddhism by taking 22 vows. So the people who are denouncing Caste based Hindu Religon and CONVERTING to Buddhism are Buddhist. Rest of the people in Govt. cencus is FORCIBLY and Cheatingly calculated as Hindu. To prove our point finally we have to give official data. So lets convert more people to Buddhism and show the world that Indian Buddhist Movement is alive and wrowing faster.Don't waste much time with debating hypocrate people but give PROPER REFERENCES and PROOFS and shut the mouth of such people. Take my inputs as positive manner. Ambedkaritebuddhist 16:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useless Article

This article is useless and meanigless. Administrators please whole delete the article. Buddhism means non-violence but the lower caste converted to buddhism dont understant basics of buddhism. Holybrahmin 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article cannot be deleted because the subject is clearly notable. Andries 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
But this article is against upper caste Brahmins so it is better to delte. The lower caste people are becoming anti-Hindu.Holybrahmin 09:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
What is lower caste/ upper caste? Your Hindu religion is casteiest doesn't mean all religions are like that. We Buddhists belivene in equality. Casteism by Hindu Religion is wrong and whole civilised wolrd blame anti-Buddhist Brahmins Ambedkaritebuddhist 16:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
People have misunderstood Hinduism. Its a philosophy of love for God Holybrahmin 09:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Im sure this contraversy is gaining intensity due to the currently warming up campaing of Dalit conversions. To think someone would claim this to be a useless article is really amazing. It really makes no difference is someone consideres it anti-Hindu, im sure Dr Ambedkar would not disagree one bit, see his book "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India" for his attitudes about Hinduism being a philosophy of love for God. But could you please explain to me why precisely would an article about someone supposedly against the upper caste be better deleated? By this logic, wikipedia should better delete all articles about communism and marxism and anarchism as well, since those movements are definitely against the upper class?? So wikipedia should not even mention that yugoslavia for instance existed in areas where I live, because its ideology was communist? I must say that personally Im not exactly saddened by the fact that lower casts are becomming less than satisfied with their traditional position in Hinduism, so I dont find it so appaling even if they are becomming anti-Hinduist (anti-Hindu i think would be ethnic not religious concept, so is out of place). One can certaly understand why. Mentioning it being an anti-hinduist atitude would make sence, again this is clearly the feel I had from reading the abovementioned book by Ambedkar. He was not symphathetic to hinduism, though, again, one can understand why. For all the undeniable greatness (and personal fascination) India has, I must say this aspect doesnt serve it to its honor...--Aryah 07:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Christianity in India also has a well-oiled caste system in operation, so conversion to Christianity is a ploy and does not help the Dalits. The anti-Hindu semtiments are not those of the Dalits converting but those of the rabidly Fundamentalist and violently racist missionaries who are manipulating them to do so, while the Dalits' plight does not change one iota. See national Liberation Front of Tripura for the real agenda of the missionaries and the massive slaughter of Hindus perpetrated on their behest.
Dalit Christians are just as persecuted by upper caste priests and nuns in Chtristian communities. With Islam it is even worse. Read Ambedkar's "Pakistan and the Partition of India", where the Muslim Caste System is adequately exposed, as well as the plight of the "Arzal" untouchables (Muslim Dalits) exploited by "Ashraf" upper caste Muslims.
As far as Buddhism is concerned, well, Neo-Buddhism is not Buddhism at all, but a cult of sociopaths disguising themselves as Buddhists who are trying to gain political mileage in India by inciting communal disharmony. The caste system can be whittled out, but through social reform, not through "religious conversions". The Dalit situation will only get worse with conversion as that will solve nothing and only give them a false sense of accomplishment while the Neo-Buddhist cult cashes in on the publicity assiduously.Hkelkar 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, blaming all the problems on the Caste Sytem alone is a very typical polemic based mre out of ignorance than any real knowledge of sociology or social dynamics. The Caste System is a highly mobile and flexible stratification and has been established as such by many western sociologists. However, it is, at best, and anachronism that will not help India anymore, it cannot be eliminated through the genocide of Hindus but through social reform, which these Neo-Buddhist whack-bags are not doing at all.
Besides, India is hardly the only country to have social stratification. From the Cohen/Israelites of Eretz Israel to the Castas of Latin America and the al-Akhdham untouchables of Yemen this happens all over the world. It is the inherent weaknesses of the Hindus as a people, their excessive acceptance of foreigners and their nonchalance to the genocide of their own people that makes India an easy target for the racist missionaries and their Eurocentric re-colonialization of India behind the veneer of "emancipating the Dalits". That's all it is, a veneer.Hkelkar 08:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


well the poster I responded to claimed that those wery lower casts are becoming anti-Hindu, not that their dissatisfaction is being manipulated by anti-Hindus. And all this has nothing to do with the heading under which were discussing; that this is a useless article. Of course caste system will not be touched by the conversions themselves, they are symbolic acts. That doesnt make them useless. Now I hope you can show why Neo-Buddhists are 'cult of sociopaths' and make more precise those spaceous claims of 'inciting communal disharmony' (one could hardly consider there to be harmony to begin with in the context of a caste system, right?) and 'genocide of Hindus' (extreme, no?) , and how this came about in the mere 50 years after Ambedkars death; this really extreme statement alone makes me feel less than inclined to take your word for anything about this situation. Its hard to think that a religious movemet would be primarely about the cast system, hopefully its primarely about the religion, but if it can be of symbolic service to a caste as well, why not. The flexibility of caste is hardly an impressive plus, and I, under the influence class conflicts of my areas, happen to believe in egalitarian social relationships, so tend to look down on rethoric that justifies caste 'stratification' with examples of blatant class opression. Now a concern about the 'excessive acceptance of foreigners .. racist missionaries' and 'nonachalance to the genocide of their own people' (again, one extreme phrase after another) while potentially justified is far from clearly the case here, and hard to make relevant to this article.--Aryah 08:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


You want clarity? Look at the National Liberation Front of Tripura and their full scale genocide of Hindus. This is a terrorist movement launched by racist Christian missionaries. This is pure genocide. Over 13000 Hindus slaughtered like cattle in 3 years alone is genocide. Over half a million Hindus ethnically cleansed from kashmir by Muslim terrorists is just as bad. 80,000 Hindus killed in Kashmir over the last 20 years by terrorists is genocide. This is just a simple fact. Naturally, liberals don;t see this as such because liberals are genocidal people themselves. They have the same intolerance and mania that they claim to oppose. Liberals are hypocrites and secular fascists. I would rather have caste than have a disgusting and barbaric concept like socialism in India.Socialism is the great poison of Humanity. Show me one socialist country that has done anything as worthwhile as the USA or Japan? None. Socialist countries are miserable shitholes where people rot in their own defecations for eternity while madmen like Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez destroy their own people and drag their countries back to the stone age. I hope that the Americans do us all a favour and bomb them all straight to the ninth level of hell.Hkelkar 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that neo-Buddhists are a cult can be gleaned from their acts. If they genuinely cared about the plight of the Dalits then they would work with Indians to improve their situation. Look at Lalu Prasad Yadav. Now there's an example of how lower castes SHOULD be emancipated.
Your "symbolic" argument is typical liberal socialist dialectic and does not gel with the facts."Symbolic" means nothing unless the people "Symbolizing" have a deep-seated hatred for Hindus. Then the "symbols" mean something only to those haters and bigots, not to reasonable people. The Neo-Buddhist cult have done nothing productive at all. They are like the scientology people in America. They clain to advocate for a better way of life but all they do is take your money and run.Hkelkar 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
"Egalitarian", eh? Sounds like Socialism to me! How many people have socialists murdered in the 20th century? Stalin's genocide of the Kulaks, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and "GReat Leap Forward" caused millions of deaths, Pol-pot, Lon-Nol, and now Kim-Jong-Il. Egalitarians have caused more deaths than all the religions of the world put together in the 20th century. No thanks. Let the Americans bomb them all. they can rot together with their friends in al-Qaeda.Hkelkar 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That having said, I do not agree with the original poster that this article is "useless", or that dalits are turning "anti-Hindu". The anti-Hindus are the bastards who are running the show.Hkelkar

Egalitarian and yes socialist in the sense of Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and much of Europe, who all justifiedly claim socialist heritage .. So, liberals and socialists are criptofascists, friends of al-quaeda that should be bombed, symbolic defiance to opression is 'typical liberal socialist dialectic' that means anything only to haters and bigots, neobuddhists bastards and a cult of hindu hatred, and Pol Pot the epiphany of egalitarianism. and the U.S. should bomb venezuela because it (and you) doesnt approve of who people ellected there.. really brilliant.. And all this outpouring of contempt because I noted that I preffered egalitarian societies and thought low about rethoric that justifies caste 'stratification' with examples of class opression...Only to admit at the end that your comments have all been offtopic in this section..--Aryah 09:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"symbolic defiance to oppression"? By becoming Christians? Look at Christianity and anti-Semitism, Christian Fundamentalism,Christian Identity,Aryan Nation,Ku Klux Klan,Spanish Inquisition,Goa Inquisition,The role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust. Some "symbol, eh"?Hkelkar 09:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand the relevance of the NLF of Tripur to neobuddhists, who you claimed are a cult of sociopaths and implied in genocides of hindus. I see no mention of them in the article you linked...
comming from a predominantly christian country, and to cut an irellevant flamebite short, these are not exactly things christianity automaticly simbolises here; different people choose different symbols and understand them differently. --Aryah 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Caste is not a thing Hinduism automatically symbolizes either, except to anti-Hindus.Hkelkar 09:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But like I said initially, it is a feature that it cannot be proud of; besides Ambedkar insists on a quite close connection of Hinduism and caste system... This makes it no worse than any other ideology or a belief system of course, all have their problems, but its not a great wonder that those on the recieving end of this inequality feel disgrunted with such a belief system in the first place, instead of being interested in its reform, and I for one cant blame them for this, and your rethoric against this is extreme to put it mildly. But you shifted the topic here which was about role of symbolism and not about what symbolises what; and for those who did convert away from hinduism due to caste there is a link and converting is symbolic of this defiance for them. It makes no differece if you consider this a just connection or not, and if you consider their choice of symbolic defiance good or not, and its not the case they are anti-Hindu because of this anymore than I am anti-Christian for rejecting christianity into which I was born , among other things for its treatement of women and sexual morality. And I dont mind having an occasional hetero-religious symbol around to symbolise this defiance.. --Aryah 10:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Buddhists are part of a pattern that will lead to more NLFT's.Hkelkar 09:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What is this Neo-Buddhist? Improve your knowledge about India and Indian Buddhist Movement. Hkelkar you are branding Indian Buddhists terorrists like NLFT?? This is a serious point and I'll complain to AdministratorsAmbedkaritebuddhist 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a streched assesment, if there is no direct link--Aryah 10:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I bear no animus against any nationality or people. My disdain for the leadership of Venezuela and North Korea does not extend to the people, who are just people I guess. It's the leadership that is abhorrent, who claim to represent the "freedom of the people" but who, in reality, oppress their own people more than anybody else in the world.Hkelkar 09:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no differing opinion here, though would not call for more wars by the U.S. like you did. But this is all amazingly offtopic. I simply cannot believe I became an advocate of Pol-Pot in your eyes for mentioning the word egalitarian... --Aryah 10:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


After going through your changes, 'holybrahmin', really, they amount to pure and simple vandalism. the subsentence where you mention the lover caste of Udit Raj is left, however, though I suspect it is meant as an insult, by some bizzare logic. The rest of your edit is, i have no other expression but repugnant in intention, and below standards even for an primary school essay. I have no other way to describe a general claim that lower casts are (inherently) too ignorant to understand Buddhim, a random vandalism stating that Vedas are pure and unsourced claim that some author is (simply) wrong, it seems simply because you (and the Vedas) think so. Nor an unsourced, offtopic and insultive claim that Mayawati is anti-Hindu biased. Really, this couldnt serve anyone to ones credit. Why is it impossible to have an article and lead a discussion on this topic that doesnt degenerate into random namecalling, outbursts of hatered and vandalism??? --Aryah 16:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree aboiut holybrahmin. Disagree about your inherently racistviews against Hindus.I quote Ambedkar frpm Pakistan and partition of India where he said that Muslim society is clearly full of more social evil than Hindu society

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/410.html

Anti-Hindu attutides above are based more on hate and, I suspect, jealousy over losing jobs etc. to Indians than any legitimate criticism.Hkelkar 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Holybrahmin larn to source edits and larn about WP:NPOV, WP:V,WP:CITE. Don't make ethnic attacks against people.Hkelkar 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we please use this talk page as per wikipedia:talk page only to discuss improvements to the article? Andries 20:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

'Disagree about your inherently racistviews against Hindus.' - Id be very suprised if I really were racist against hindus; if this is true, I dont know about it, am sorry about it and hope to stop being a racist. However, evidence pending, I think this is not true, and I dont see how i could be existentially worried about this, being on a different continet (to which I leave my IP to trace if you wish). I admire Indian culture and salute its impressive economic boom. The claim by Ambdekar that muslim society has even more evil frankly doesnt suprise me one bit; like I said, most cultures have their share of misery, but this does not justify any single shape of misery. Im sorry Andries, you are right, this is not productive, but I did feel I had to at least answer a direct accusation of being a racist. --83.131.150.131 03:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC) --Aryah 03:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not acuse you of being a racist. I said that your views were racist. Racist not in the strict sense of the word but in the more generic meaning ie directed against a particular ethno-cultural group. Perhaps a better term would be "bigoted views". The bigotry largely arises unintentionally out of ignorance rather than malice. I don;t regard you to be a racist since, had you been one, there would be a malicious tone to your posts and that is not the case. There is a clear difference.Hkelkar 03:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If you must reply to racist remarks then please not here but on the user talk pages. Andries 07:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some basics about Hindu Religion

I have gone through the whole discussions on talk page. Aryah, Ambedkaritebuddhist, Dhammafriend and all other users you should understand Hindu religion its basic is Varnashrama dharma. It is the bad karma of past birth that has made somebody as Lower Caste. You can blame GOD for that but please don't write any useless things on this so-called Indian Buddhist Movement. There are no Buddhists in India. I a upper caste Brahmin so I proud of it. Is there anything wrong?. There is no any Buddhist Movement. Holybrahmin 11:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For someone that doesnt even exist, those buddhists seem quite vocal :) Even the oficial statistics of buddhist in india report their existance but.. Also, who says its bad karma to be a Dalit? Its potentially very enlightening about the nature of existance :-D But regardless, its quite irellevant what hinduism teaches about rebirth for a purely descriptive, ecyclopedic article about a topic other than hindu rebirth such as this should be. ..But I should know better than to feed the trolls (and I take that WP:FAITH cannot reffer to this user anymore, given that users vandalisms of this article in the past)--Aryah 18:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Holybrahmin that "there is no Buddhist movement in India". I have personally seen Buddhist pilgrims going to the Holy tree of enlightenement in North India. While it is true that the Buddhist movement is weak, it is not nonexistent. Having said that, I must qualify that the editors POV-pushing in this article are NEO-Buddhists, who are a fringe movement within the larger Indian Buddhist movement and are essentially a cult along the lines of scientology or Jews for Jesus in America. Basically they CLAIM to be Buddhists but, in fact, are not. They have a political and cultural agenda behind their activities that has very little to do with normative Buddhism.Hkelkar 18:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep Hindu basics with you only. Don't vandalise Buddhist Article. Ambedkaritebuddhist 15:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Buddhism aims to "cross caste barriers", eh?

Then how do you explain this:

Burakumin#Religious_discrimination_against_burakumin

Aniother dirty little secret.Hkelkar 19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar The article is about Indian Buddhist Movement NOT Japan Buddhist. so why are you bringing Japanese Social issues here? Use Common Sense also and better put your views on Japanese Buddhists related pages. In Indian Buddhists don’t believe any discrimination that is why millions Hindus are converting to Buddhism. See the latest developments. Don't mix the issues. Ambedkaritebuddhist 16:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not so secret. Japanese Buddhists also supported the persecution of Christians (see Martyrs of Japan) and Japanese imperialism in the early 20th century. Buddhists have done ugly things in the name of Buddhism. I'm not sure that there's a religion that's not stained with blood. The question is what the religion is doing now -- is it rejecting doctrines that led to misery in the past, or is it insisting on them as essential to the religion? Contemporary Buddhism seems to me to be complicit with the power structure in some countries, sometimes fat, lackadaisical, and superstitious but ... the only part of the world where Buddhists have bloody hands at the moment is Sri Lanka. If Hindus would reject the caste system then it would no longer be a defect in Hinduism and the lower castes wouldn't feel any need to reject a religion that stigmatized them. It makes no sense to criticize them for converting, and only hold out the hope that Hinduism will change "eventually." Change first and THEN see if the dalits still want to leave. Don't criticize people for leaving a burning building. Zora 08:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
..and entering another one?As far as I can tell Hindus have gone through their fair share of reform movements as well (Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, Vivekananda, Vidyasagar etc).You don't see Dalits getting molten metal poured into their eyes like in the 10th century right? Besides, Casteism is a political matter now, not a religious one.Near as I can see only the racist missionaries and mad mullahs try to conflate it with religion as part of an agenda.Hkelkar 20:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Edits regarding Gail Omvedt

It was said in an edit by Dhammafriend that Omvedt's view are criticized by Indian Buddhist Leaders, yet she has a page on Ambedkar.org? [[6]] and several writings [[7]] Thegreyanomaly 04:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Gail's views are on Ambedkar.org then what? Those people have full right to put anything on their site. It is a site handled by few Buddhist Intellectuals. Study how to give respect to Intellectuals views. Dhammafriend 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger with Buddhism in India

Buddhism in India is a stub, but its purpose is similar to the purpose of this topic. It also links to this topic under the name neo-buddhism. It would seem logical to reformat this entire topic. We can divide it into four sections Theravada, Vajrayana/Tibetan, Mahayana, and Ambedkarite/Navayana Thegreyanomaly 23:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good suggession. I will certainly help for this NOBLE cause. Lower caste people are converting to Buddhism and becoming anti-Hindu is certainly issue to discuss. These so-called Buddhists neither understand the basics of Hinduism nor Karma Law. Keep figthing for unnecessary reasons. There is no need to convert to Buddhism the lower caset people like Dalits should concentrate on education and their development by remaining within the larger fold of Hinduism. The so-called Indian Buddhist Movement is primarily anti Brahmin and full of hate against upper caste Hindu people. It is better to merge this article with the lower castes are neo-Buddhists this is a right brand for anti-Hindu people. Also shows their LEVEL which they deserve. All Hindu Wikipedians please concentrate on this so called Indian Buddhist Movement. Holybrahmin 14:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You both Thegreyanomaly and Holybrahmin are playing with the article unnecessary. You can do whatever you want but remember Wikipedia has good policies and they are applicable to everyone. I have read all discussion on this page.Especially Your LANGUAGE. Any unbiased person will understand your views VERY WELL. RFC put by HKelkar is good. I want more unbiased people to come for discussion to know the truth.Ambedkaritebuddhist 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify to people. I'm an Indian American, I was born as a Brahmin Hindu. When I was 11 I became an Atheist and non-Hindu. I then became Jain for a year or two a couple years later. In August of 2004 (when I was 15), I became a Theravāda Buddhist. I'm an Indian Buddhist but I am not Ambedkarite/Navayānī. And to Holybrahmin, yes there are Buddhists in India and there are many non-Ambedkarite Buddhists. Go visit Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh, or any other state on the Indo-Tibetan border
Thegreyanomaly 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thegreyanomaly I never asked who are you? OR Never asked your Caste Brahmin by birth or your own religious enlightments?. For that you can write on your own Page. Take care while writings on Buddhist related articles. Wiki Administratotrs please take note of such explanations and the activities of such users. Ambedkaritebuddhist 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The generous and pratical attitude shown by Thegreyanomaly is good and others should have the same. It is better to call these ambedkarites hooligans or so-called Indian Buddhist as Lower Castes Or Dalits only. Brahmin is upper caste and learn to give respect to Brahmin views.Holybrahmin 09:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I would call this derogative speech, sorry, if you wish to call 10,000,000 people hooligans you sound pretty arrogant to say the least. rudy 19:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
There are 10 million Neo-Buddhists?Hardly.Quite a few Buddhists but fewer of the Neo-Buddhist cult.However, I disapprove of Holybrahmins Casteist perorations regarding "Lower Caste" and "Dalits" and what not and distance myself from them.Hkelkar 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I am extremely troubled by Holybrahmins comments and hope that he investigates his prejudices introspectively on this matter.Hkelkar 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hkelkar and Holybrahmin you both young boys dont give your unsourced sugesstions give some FACTS. What is neo-Buddhist population? Where do we find details about their population? Because now-a-days in USA/Europe and India many people are converting to Buddhism because of its Prajna (Understanding), Love and Peace loving nature. But all these people are called as Buddhist in their respective country. There are philosohpically different schools but the Buddhist world is Buddhist.About India before making any comment please go through the OFFICIAL INDIAN GOVERNMENT DATA about Buddhist population in India. Census of India 2001 DATA ON RELIGION Accept legal things only. Wikipedia believes in FACTS! Brush up bacis knowledge about Buddhist Population in India and also growing numbers. MY COUNTRY INDIA counts population Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains few other religions also but not neo-Buddhists. Where are these people? There is also another category known as Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes who constitutes approx. 25% population of whole India. These SC/ST majority illeterate very poor, oppressed people are branded as Hindus! Some of these SC/ST people are Ambedkarites but they are also Hindus. SC/STs are NOT called as Buddhists!! That is why Buddhist population in India is only around 0.8% or less. But it is continuously growing because of religious conversions such as 14th Oct. 2006 events. MY COUNTRY INDIA gives details about Buddhist in India. Brush up your knowledge about Buddhist Movement and Population in India then write. Your inputs with FACTS and official, proper references are always welcome. Ambedkaritebuddhist 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HKelkar, Thegreyanomaly, Holybrahmin and Aryah, Dhammafriend, Yeditor have proper discussion

Dear all, HKelkar, Thegreyanomaly and Holybrahmin you people take care while writing on this article. I have read all comments and discussion. Don't vandalise. HKelkar you have removed warnings with proof and link which I put on your talk page. HKelkar even equated poor Indain Buddhists with NLFT. I'll surely take action against it. Thegreyanomaly you also reverted article to Holybrahim changes. All of you working together against Buddhists. Your language is prejudiced against Buddhists. Reverts without discussion are common from you.

Now Aryah, Dhammafriend and Yeditor you have add information with more right link and proofs. Debate in a civilized manner. Don't be too aggressive agaisnt Hinduism. Its better to concentrate to make the the article more informative and useful . Watch the Language and Word used by all above users and complain Administrators. Especiall read their Talk Pages. If they revert their talk pages let them do. Also ask for proofs for all Hindu related articles and FACTS for their comments especially anti-Hindu article ! RFC Put by HKelkar is pending so don't vandalise and get more unbiased people for discussion.

Ambedkaritebuddhist 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the Bigotry

Reading this discussion page, I am seeing inflamatory and bigoted rhetoric against both Hindus and Buddhists. Wikipeida articles are supposed to be NPOV. So don't take partisan positions. Just report the facts that you have good citations for, and do it in a neutral manner.HeBhagawan 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, while Ambhedkar is certainly an important figure, the article should not be about his movement alone. There are other Buddhists in India, as others have noted. I support combining this article with Buddhism in India. HeBhagawan 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct.Somebody needs to keep the whack-jobs on both sides in check. It is truly a very sad thing that the bigotry comes from both sides, extremist Neo-Buddhist thugs and extremely Brahmanno-supremacist kooks. Neither of them are helping here.Hkelkar 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed some especially blatant POV edits by HolyBrahmin. Others may have done the same, but I am just looking at recent edits for now.HeBhagawan 01:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to RFC

I have spent the last 4 hours reading this discussion, as well as reading and the article itself and its subsequent links. In order to improve the article and bring the focus of the discussion back to improvements of it, I will provide my analysis of the issues and problems I've found. I'm writing as a person totally new to the topic, of reasonable intelligence and objectivity.

Before I do that, I would first like to state that I am completely opposed to the article "Buddhism in India" being merged with this one. Buddhism is a world religion, and the movement that is described here is only a sect within Buddhism. It's adherence to Dr. Ambedkar's 22 vows differentiates it completely from all other sects of Buddhism. There should be a different article about Buddhism in India, and it should be expanded to include all sects of Buddhism being practiced in India (even if very small) - not just this one. I looked at Buddhanet's directory of Buddhist organizations in India and found no less than 45 (http://www.buddhanet.net/asia_dir/abc_i.htm). There is actually material in this article that I feel should be brought to "Buddhism in India" that I mention below.

"(Pāli नवयान navayāna as dubbed by Ambedkerites)"

One woman, albeit a supporter of this movement, has proposed the use of the word navayana to describe it. However, the word in Wikipedia redirects to this article, even though a googling of the word leads to the publishing house and to the website of a completely different group (ttp://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/navayana.html). I don't feel that this redirect is appropriate, as it probably should be used to describe the publishing house in Wikipedia. Further, if only one person describes this movement as navayana, then it should be removed. Also, the use of the phrase "Ambedkerites" is unecessary and somewhat pejorative.

"Thinkers such as Iyothee Thass, Brahmananda Reddy, and Dharmananda Kosambi began to discuss it in very favourable terms." It would make this article more useful if the person who wrote this would start working on informative articles about these three people, if they are indeed notable. If they are not notable, then I suggest this sentence be removed.

"He took the three refuges and five precepts from a Buddhist monk in the traditional manner and then in his turn administered them to the 380,000 of his followers that were present." The monk is identified as Bhadant U. Chandramani in the following paragraph - please identify him here. The number 380,000 contradicts the number 500,000 mentioned earlier in the article, and both numbers seem awfully high without any cited sources. If a source can't be found, then no number should be mentioned at all. Instead, "many followers" can be used. Also, it would be great if some background as to how these followers became followers (classes? rallies? was there a newspaper? how did the word get out?) could be added and sourced.

"After receiving ordination from Buddhist monk Bhadant U. Chandramani, On 14th October 1956 at Nagpur, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar gave Dhamma Diksha to his followers." What school or sect of Buddhism did Bhadant U. Chandramani come from? It would be very helpful in understanding this movement if that would be included. Also, I couldn't find a definition of Dhamma Diksha anywhere. Could this please be defined?

"On 16th October 1956 he repeated another mass religious conversion ceremony at Chanda where he gave only 22 vows to all the people gathered there" Did Dr. Ambedkar write the vows? If so, it should be stated. It has been said in discussion that the vows themselves should be sourced. This would be very easy to do and would end that particular controversy.

"These 22 vows make clear Ambedkar's rejection of Hinduism and his embracing of Buddhism. The vows serve to separate the Buddhist community from the Hindu community." These are essay statements, not encyclopedic fact. They could be replaced with a sourced quote from Dr. Ambedkar saying roughly the same thing -in any case, they should be removed.

"On several occasions, when Buddhist leaders such as Udit Raj (who converted from his Hindu lower caste), have recited these statements in public, Hindu audiences have objected on the grounds that they believed the declarations to be anti-Hindu." This absolutely has to be sourced, and probably described in better detail - if there are several occasions it would be better to list the major ones individually. Udit Raj needs to be linked in this sentence.

"Hindu critics have argued that these efforts to convert Hindus to Ambedkarite Buddhism are political stunts rather than sincere commitments to social reform[4]." This statement is sourced by one article. A statement such as this - "The November 18, 2001 edition of The Week, a large weekly magazine in India, was highly critical of Udit Raj, calling into question his motives for converting Indians to Buddhism." - and then sourcing the article would be more factual and objective.

"Bodhisattva Dr. Ambedkar and 2006 Mass Conversions" This segment should just be called 2006 Mass Conversions, as there is no mention of Dr. Ambedkar in the body itself. If Dr. Ambedkar is believed to be a Boddhisatva by his followers, then a statement to that effect should be made. "Boddhisattva Dr. Ambedkar" is simply not factual, and the honorific should be removed. 2006 Mass Conversions should not be linked to an outside website.

"The Golden Jubilee or Dikshabhumi (celebrated on both October 2 and October 14, 2006 on different calendars) is an important milestone in the Indian Buddhist Movement. In recognition of the fiftieth anniversary, a number of people have converted to Buddhism." These sentences aren't very clear. A better statement might be: "October 2 and October 14, 2006, mark the 50th anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar and his subsequent conversion of initial followers. These dates are called Dikshabhumi, or The Golden Jubilee." The statement that a number of people have converted to Buddhism needs to be clarified. Specific,sourced, events should be described to replace this sentence.

"The Indian Buddhist community has strongly protested the religious conversion law." This statement needs to be sourced. It would be great if "the religious conversion law" could either be described or linked to a wikipedia article that elucidates this. Actually, a distinct Wikipedia article just on this law would be great. Furthermore, I feel this sentence is a bit out of place and needs to go in it's own section and expounded upon. After reading the Guardian UK article, it would seem to be a pretty big deal.

"The International Buddhist Media is giving a lot of publicity to Indian Buddhist Movement." International Buddhist Media should not be linked to an outside website. Also, one website doesn't not "a lot of publicity" make. Really, the sentence is not encyclopedic, not germaine to the 2006 conversions, and should be replaced with a sourced statement like "the publications x and x covered the (as yet to be described) 2006 mass conversion events."

"Hyderabad mass Conversion" This section described a mass conversion that took place on October 14 of this year, and therefore should go under 2006 Mass Conversions. It would also be helpful if Hyderabad were linked to Wikipedia article that describes it (I had no idea what it was).

"In response, Hindu nationalists have asserted that Dalits should concentrate on illiteracy and poverty rather than looking for new religions. They think that there are very few differences between Buddhism and Hinduism[5]." This statement should go in the controversies section. Dalit should be defined.

Ambedkar's Buddhism seemingly differs ... really possible within the framework of Buddhism?[1]" This is sourced to Gail Omvedt's book, but who actually said it? Can this quote please be assigned to an author?

"Majority Indian Buddhists espouse an eclectic version of Buddhism..." The author of this paragraph needs to source the entire thing. Also, this entire segment could be titled "Conversion, Theory, and Practice", along with some more information.

"Conversely, many orthodox Buddhists are uncomfortable with some of the liberties Ambedkar took in re-fashioning the four noble truths to have a direct social message." This needs to be sourced, and when sourced put into the controversies segment.

Buddhism in India after Ambedkar The segment does not adequately describe what happened with Dr. Ambedkar's followers from 1956 to today. The purpose of this segment is unclear.

"According to the 2001 census, there are currently 7.95 million Buddhists in India i.e.0.8 % of total population of India[3], at least 5.83 million of whom are Buddhists in Maharashtra[3]. This makes Buddhism the fifth-largest religion in India and 6% of the population of Maharashtra, but less than 1% of the overall population of India." These statistics can not be used to accurately gauge the number of Dr. Ambedkar's followers. Every single documented Buddhist in India is not a follower of Dr. Ambedkar or has taken the 22 vows. These statistics should be removed and placed in the article "Buddhism in India". If the followers of Dr. Ambedkar have internal numbers, they can be used.

" The Tamil Nadu and Gujarat governments passed new laws in 2003 to ban "forced" religious conversions which were later withdrawn due to heavy opposition[citation needed]." This statement needs to be sourced and placed in the controversies section. A clear, connection between these laws and the followers Dr. Ambedkar's followers needs to be explained. If there isn't one, the sentence needs to be removed.

"Buddhist Movement Crossing Hindu Caste Barriers" the text that follows this heading doesn't support the heading. Furthermore, the heading itself is not objective and should be scrapped altogether.

"Over the last 50 years several thousand people from different castes have converted to Buddhism." This statement must be sourced and placed in the "Buddhism in India after Ambedkar" segment.

"The conversion ceremony is done with Trisarana, PanchSheela and 22 vows." A definition of Trisarana and PanchSheela needs to be given. Ideally, this sentence would be placed in a segment entitled "Conversion, Theory, and Practice", along with the segment currently entitled "Distinctive interpretation".

"The Buddhist community is trying to create their own identity different from their Hindu couterparts." This sentence is an essay statement rather than a statement of fact and should be removed. It could be replaced with a quote that says the same thing from a prominent leader in this movement.

"Hundreds converted to Buddhism in ceremonies on October 2, 2006. Furthermore, on 14th October 2006 hundreds of people converted from Hinduism to Buddhism in Gulburga in Karnatak State." These statement needs to be sourced and placed in the 2006 Mass Conversion segment. "Gulburga in Karnatak State" should not link to an outside website.

"Visionaries of 'Post-Ambedkar' era" The word "visionaries" is not formal or factual and needs to be replaced with something else. As I am not sure what the thrust of this segment is, I couldn't recommend a substitute - perhaps "supporters"?

"Bhadant Nagarjun Surai Sasai" The entire passage is not encyclopedic in tone. It should also conform to Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons. This statement - "It is said that he claims to be a reincarnation of the Sinhalese Buddhist leader and champion of Bodh Gaya, Anagarika Dharmapala." is against the aforementioned policy and must be removed.

"S. N. Goenka" There seems to be no connection between this person and Dr. Abedkar or his followers. This passage should be removed and placed in Buddhism in India.

"Buddha not an Avatar of Vishnu communique" While this passage should be sourced, the Heading should not directly link to an outside website. The two people engaging in the dialogue that is described here don't appear to have anything to do with the Indian Buddhist Movement. I don't understand why this dialogue is in this article.

"Buddhists in India & International Audience" This entire segement needs to be moved to the "Buddhist in India" article. None of these groups appear to have any connection with the Indian Buddhist Movement as it is described in the first paragraphs of this article.

"Similar neo-Buddhism in Sri Lanka" This segment is unsourced, and the connection to the Indian Buddhist Movement is unclear. Unless a clear connection or comparison to the Indian Buddhist Movement can be made, it should be removed.

In conclusion, I find the title of this article problematic. While it's probably too late to turn back, who actually coined this phrase? I find it very general, when the article is essentially about one specific sect. Do the followers of Dr. Ambedkar not have a name for themselves? Is there not some kind of named organization for them?

I also have some questions which would ideally be answered in the previously proposed "Conversion, Theory, and Practice" segment. Do the followers of Dr. Adbedkar have a daily practice? Do they have a scripture or scriptures that they study? Are there faith meetings or gatherings? Are there objects of worship?

I also found a couple of things in my research that I would nominate for inclusion in the controversy section, but I'll leave that for now.

The entire article needs to be corrected for grammar and typos, but since I've written this lengthy and possibly controversial analysis, I've refrained from proofreading it myself. I've taken an additional 3 hours to write this, so I would ask that you please consider it thoughtfully and carefully, then act accordingly.

I hope to help in and see a great article soon!

Sincerely, NinzEliza 07:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, NinzEliza. I have read them over and have also made some edits to the article. A few comments. First of all, I wrote the original form of this article back in April, 2004. We had much laxer practical standards for sourcing information then; this should be remedied, but it doesn't necessarily require anything radical. The figure "380,000 followers" comes from Sangharakshita's Buddhism and Ambedkar, and I believe it's reliable. When I wrote the intro, originally, it said "nearly 400,000" followers, which is correct. Someone apparently changed it to 500,000, probably not for any good reason, either.
As for " Iyothee Thass, Brahmananda Reddy, and Dharmananda Kosambi", I think they were influential Indian writers, but I have to admit I'm not terribly sure any more. I don't see the point of removing them from the article unless somebody who knows about 19th/early 20th century Indian writers wants to do it.
As for the total number of Buddhists in India, part of the reason for including these numbers is to show revivalist Buddhism in the context of Indian Buddhism as a whole, and to show the impact of the former on the latter. I believe that virtually all of the Buddhists in Maharashtra are untouchable revivalists, although without a specific source for that opinion, you are right to treat it with skepticism.
Regarding Goenka, it's not clear to me that this article is supposed to be about the Ambedkarite movement specifically. Perhaps it should be about the general phenomenon of Indian people converting to Buddhism in the 20th century. Goenka is certainly relevant to that.
On the "International audience" section, you are right that the Japanese and Taiwanese connections don't seem to have anything to do with Ambedkar or the revival, except that the Taiwan-linked ordination ceremony for women involved some revivalist Buddhist nuns. The British, on the other hand, have always worked quite closely with the Ambedkarites.
You have made some very good points about some historical and practice-related information about Ambedkarite Buddhism that is missing from the article. The simple reason for this is that this information was not available to me when I wrote the article. My sources were numerous websites and one book I've read on the subject. I'm not saying this is the only book ever published about it, but lord knows there are not a whole lot of them. Looking at Amazon, it appears that Reconstructing the World: B. R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India (2004) is the big source we're missing. I would be very interested to read whatever further information anyone can find about this Buddhist tradition.
I'm glad you agree with me that Indian Buddhist Movement is not a good title for this article. It has now been moved to Indian Buddhist revival, which is better. I am not aware of any general term which Ambedkarites use for themselves. They are Buddhists and they are Dalits, so they are Dalit Buddhists, but I don't think this applies exclusively to the Ambedkarite movement.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Udit Raj, you wil see in his article that HAF has alleged that he is an anti-Hindu based on these activities.Plus, the-week article shows that his disparaging of Hindu beliefs earned him a hostile reaction at least once.Hkelkar 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your post, I have made some corrections per your suggestions.However, I point out that "The Week" fully satisfies WP:RS so it may be used as a secondary/tertiary source and so it is not necessary to state "According to The Week" in the article.07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
See the latest updates Mr. HKelkar. The Week link is 2001 year News .. see current and latest updates Dhammafriend 19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also give logical difiniton of a Hindu before branding somebody as anti-Hindu. You are claimed to be JEW and most of the articles attacking are Buddhist. Why? What problem do we have with Budhists? Dhammafriend 19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Indian Buddhist Movement about Kherlanji Buddhist family Massacred

HKelkar is reverting article using popups so have discussion before reverting SOURCED information. Kherlanji Buddhist family Massacred

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Dhammafriend 15:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend, I have read the article and it is truly a horrible, horrible event. Jews, Muslims, and Early Christians have also met with unspeakable violence for their religious beliefs. While this article describes a truly terrible crime, the murder of a four people is not the definition of, say, a holocaust.

In any event, I would really appreciate it if you addressed at least some of the issues I have raised in my above post. I was hoping I wouldn't have to come right out and say this, but the article is seriously flawed as it stands right now. You and HKelkar, who are the most active editors on this page, have not addressed this at all. This is an article on a new sect of Buddhism, and it needs have something in it about the beliefs of it's practitioners, their object or objects of worship, their scripture, and their daily practice. These are just some of the largest flaws in this article. Would you please address the issues I raised? Thank you! NinzEliza 04:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to do as you suggest, but Dhammafriend and his sockpuppets keep revert-warring and vandalizing.I am doing my level best to keep it neutral and unbiased. Please continue with your suggestions. I value them greatly.Hkelkar 05:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Response to the RfC as requested

I strongly believe in the destruction of this article. Its basis of existence was trampled on the moment it was renamed from Neo-Buddhism. As far as my knowledge goes the only Buddhist movements within in India are Ambedkarite. Ambedkarites form their own school of thought. They do not fit within the old schools. They are a 'New Vehicle'. They are Navayāna as Gail Omvedt and others have name them. At the moment I feel the article should be disintegrated and merged with Buddhism in India. I really do not have much to say, but I no longer want to be associated to this article as long as people who fit on to an extreme like Dhammafriend or Holybrahmin have access to it. Thegreyanomaly 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Response to the RfC for Indian Buddhist Movement

The article gives interesting and valuable information about Buddhists in India. Even tough Buddhism is from India we are surprised to know that the Buddhists are finished in India and only less than 1% are there. It is good to know that somebody is putting efforts for Buddhist Movement. The article is valuable and the people who are against Buddhists or Buddhist Movments can write comments with references. My Buddhist friends in different countries were surprised when I showed them this article. Be a positive contributor dont be a destructive. Anagarik Dhammapala is one of the key buddhist monk from Shrilanka who revived Buddhism. Shrilankabuddhist 15:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism by anti-Buddhist elements

Hello, Our shrilankan Buddhist Monks are playing a great role in reviving Buddhism in India. 2006 thousands of oppressed caste Hindus are converting to Buddhism. Don't revert sourced edits otherwise all anti-Buddhist will have to face action Shrilankabuddhist 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Shrilankbuddhist

If you scroll up on the talk page for Indian Buddhist Movement, you'll find that I have made a complete analysis of this article with several suggestions. Would you care to comment on them, or provide further information in response to my suggestions! Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I'm want to buy a book or two on this topic so that I can help improve this article. Are there any books that you would recommend on this [8]?

In the article that you are trying to include in the Indian Buddhist Movement article, it says 300,000 people. That is three hundred thousand, not three million. Furthermore, I have found no other article that makes the same assertion. In fact, the Times of India stated 30 people in it's article covering the same event.

I understand that number is probably wrong. Can you provide an article from a source that doesn't have "Buddhism" or "Buddha" in the title of the reporting organization? I think that would meet with less criticism.

It's an unfortunate reality that critics of this article will not let you move foward if you don't provide sources that are absolutely above reproach. I am no such critic. I genuinely wish to help you improve the information about this important and notable topic.

This article is related to Buddhist so information regarding Buddhist Activites is given. If you want to put non-Buddhist information then you can create new articles. Shrilankabuddhist 12:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he has trouble understanding the idea of non-partisan WP:Reliable Sources.Hkelkar 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
By Srilankabuddhist's logic I am allowed to cite this into the article as well. Hkelkar 12:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As a Buddhist I will accept unbiased views. You can add the above link in the Buddhist article Sri Lankan Buddhism. We are not like Hindus who belived in Caste System and try to potray their religion as best with Dalit problem and intruders like Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. These Hindus organizations have destroyed peace in our Nation. All Hindus here should not destroy Buddhist Articles. Londan, Berlin and even Indian many Buddhist Viharas are controlled by Shrilankan Buddhist Monks. You can write anything related to Buddhist and Buddhism all over world. We accept good and bad things you should also accept both things.Shrilankabuddhist 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
See WP:TROLL and Racism.Hkelkar 05:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC reply

This article has nothing to do with the religion of Buddhism. Its something to do with Indian politics and political events. This article can at best be deleted without further ado. Its a waste of server space. Its contents are not encyclopediac. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

wtf@? Even if this article is about Indian politics, why should it be deleted?&mdashNat Krause(Talk!)

I agree with Kris's proposal. The good stuff from this article should be merged with Buddhism in India (perhaps a short section there titled "Indian Buddhist revival") and this woeful article should be scrapped. Hkelkar 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "Response"

I was hoping to not have to say the following because I didn't want to offend any editor who happens to follow Buddhism, but I have to make this plain.

Whether it's a genuine religious movement or a socio-political protest using Buddhism in name only is immaterial.

If it's a genuine religious movement, I'm in favor of it being moved to Buddhism in India (though I think it should be named Buddhism in Contemporary India to make the subject clearer).

If it's a socio-political protest of the Indian caste system, then it's even more important that it be it's own article. If the article is deleted, then the information should be moved to Indian Caste System, at the very least. There's also an argument to be made for adding it to Hinduism, Dalit, etc.

It's definitely encyclopedic[[9]]. There's not a single book on this list in preceding link that's older than 1990. The most recent is 2005. Furthermore, this book doesn't include the one I found on the Border's website, or the book that's coming out (specifically about this phenomenon) in February of 2007. NinaEliza 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, madam, your amazon link does not seem to point to anything relevant. Are you sure it's a hardlink? In the absense of any reliable information to the contrary, the article is unencyclopedic.Hkelkar 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The link works just fine. I invite anyone to try it. For example, one of the five books listed is entitled "Revival of Buddhism in Modern India". It was first published in 1995, and it's ISBN number is 8170246806. That's one.

It's interesting to note that the date of this book actually implies that this revival/movement has been around for more than a decade. It's also interesting to note that another book ("Orient: Change in Asian Societies" by Aat Vervoorn) cites this book.

If anyone else has problems with this link, then I would be happy to type up the entire list with ISBN numbers, along with the introductions (well the ones that are printed on Amazon, anyway), on this page.NinaEliza 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do that. I can't see anything of note in the link. If you type in the book names, then I can look them up in the library and read them.Hkelkar 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, just becasue there are books with nice pretty ISBN numbers means little, particularly given that the guy who wrote the "Revival" book is some dude named L.Kenadi, a man with no scholastic background near as I can tell. Plus, the Neo-Buddhists cite him as a reference together with VT Rajshekhar [10]. Now Rajshekhar is regarded as an anti-semite by the following authoritative work:
last = Poliakov
first = Léon 
authorlink = Léon Poliakov
title = Histoire de l’antisémitisme 1945-93 (P.395)
publisher = Paris
date = 1994


Could you cite something a bit more authoritative than this "L.Kenadi" guy? Perhaps something from an academic paper like a peer-reviewed journal, or a text published by a reputable scholar. Thanks. Hkelkar 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - it turns out that the above link goes to the Amazon wish list of the user who clicks on it, and not my own. I'm removing the link to avoid confusion. I appreciate the correction and I'm sorry the misunderstanding. Here's the list:
  • Revival of Buddhism in Modern India (Hardcover)
    • Written by L Kanadi
    • Published by Ashish Publishing House,First Edition 1995
    • ISBN: 8170246806
  • Reconstructing the World: B. R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India (Hardcover)
    • by Surendra Jondhale (Editor), Johannes Beltz (Editor)
    • Published by Oxford University Press, USA (February 12, 2004)
    • ISBN: 0195665295
  • Ambedkar on Buddhist Conversion & Its Impact (Hardcover)
    • Written by Sanghasen Singh
    • Publisher: South Asia Books (December 1990)
    • ISBN: 0836428250
  • Dr. Ambedkar towards Buddhism(Unknown Binding)
    • Written by M. G Chitkara
    • Published by APH Pub. Corp (1997)
    • ISBN: 8170248574
  • Ambedkar and Buddhism (Paperback)
    • Written by S. Sangharakshita
    • Published by Motilal Banarsidass (2005)
    • ISBN: 8120830237

That's what I found - but I couldn't find the book I mention from Borders again. If I find it, I'll put it here or on your talk page. Whichever you prefer. The same goes for the ISBN number of the new book. The clerk told me that it's simply titled "Ambedkar", but I can't find it.

I sincerely hope this helps. NinaEliza 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this.Here's what I have uncovered:
  1. The Jondhane and Beltz book looks good. Bear in mind that they mention the term "Neo-Buddhist" frequently from what I can gett online.I'll try to get the book from the library
  2. Sanghasen Singh seems like a notable academic with publications in the Indo-Iranian journal.I don;t know if it's the same s singh or not right now, but will look it up
  3. There isn't a single peer reviewed publication by MG Chitkara, whoever he is. I'm disinclined to regard him as authoritative
  4. This Sangharakshita guy is completely immaterial. The only claim to fame on his part is that he "knew Ambedkar personally" (from the book jacket). Well, so did Ambedkar's wife. Big deal. He isn't authoritative except if qualified that he claims to speak for Ambedkar.

Anyhow it seems that I will have my work cut out for me next week when I get as many of these books as I can.Hkelkar 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can get the Beltz book in a couple of days. The Sanghasen book is checked out and it will take some time for me to get my hands on it.
What I want you to do is explain to me how these books indicate that the Neo-Buddhist movement merits it's own article (as opposed to an appropriately sized section of Buddhism in India). Hkelkar 03:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's Dr. Beltz[[11]], and I wasn't able to find the mention of the term "neo-buddhist". Could give me a link? I've got a couple more sources as well. I'll post them here in a minute.NinaEliza 03:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out that the book in question is a collection of fifteen essays edited by Mr. Johande and Dr. Beltz. One of them is entitled "The Navayana Creation of the Buddha Image", so perhaps that's what you're referring to. To view the rest of the titles, I think this link works:[[12]].

In response to your other question, I've thought about it, and considered the information that's currently available to me. I'm leaning heavily towards the idea that this is indeed a form of socio-political protest, and it should be more appropriately included in other articles related to India (such as Indian Caste System, Hinduism, Anti-Hindu [great job on that article, by the way:)], etc.). Perhaps WikiProject India could help out or weigh in. I would be happy to contact them, if you don't mind.

I appreciate your hard work in investigating these titles - good job! I would however, like to point out that the actual Wikipedia policy on sources for articles does not prohibit non-scholarly texts. In fact, they don't even have to be true, just verifiable.

Verifiablity is defined as something that is not self-published, or sources that don't have a good reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking. I think one would have to actually have the book and see it's references before doing that. If a non self-published book relates a first person experience, that would be valuable indeed to a scholar such as yourself, because it would be considered a primary source. Here's an example of one:

  • Jai Bhim!(Paperback)
    • Written by Pilchick, Terry
    • Published by Greensleeves Books, UK (1988[!])
    • ISBN: 0904766365

    • "Description: vg. 1988 240pp. The author lived & travelled with Ambedkar's followers, India's untouchables, who converted to Buddhism. He describes his experiences in this entertaining & colourful book."

Here's the link if anyone wants it:[[13]](The book isn't at Amazon, it's at Alibris. It's also at eCampus.com, so you that bodes well for you being able to find it at or near your school, Hkelkar.) In any event, you've been editing at Wikipedia a lot longer than I have Hkelkar, so I'm sure you already know these things. You were just stating your opinion of these sources, which I understand. You may very well have a higher standard for your own research, which is commendable.

I just wanted to point out to other editors who wish to help that these are suitable sources, should they want to include them in their additions. NinaEliza 05:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that editors argue the exact opposite of what you said whenever I cite references like yours in Hinduism related articles. I suggest you read WP:RS carefully. Peer-reviewed publications and academically notable publications are always preferable to others. A lot of "books" can be found that subscribe to partisan and often even extremist views (like David Duke's "My awakening", for instance, which is published widely and circulated widely). That doesn't mean it can be cited as factual truth (except when citing as Duke's opinions, of course).My contention is that those writers above who are declared Neo-Buddhists must be treated with extreme caution, given their partisan and often extremist views. However, those writers who are accredited scholars in the relevant disciplines are all right. We must avoid lazy intellectual relativism and avoid bigoted obscurantism masked as scholarly writings, such as the poisonous ramblings of Kancha Ilaiah, VT Rajshekhar and their likes whose delusional ravings are worshipped by Ambedkarites with glee. To that end, I propose that we only regard those references as reliable who meet a very strict litmus test for scholastic legitimacy.Only then can we build solid article or section that is free of political,ethnic or religious biases. This is something that some of the Neo-Buddhist whackos don't want done (of course, based on the equally demented ramblings of that Holybrahmin guy above, many Hindus don't seem to get it either). Hkelkar 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and also, WP:V says that self-published sources are not reliable as legit sources. That does not automatically imply that non-self published sources are all reliable. See the difference?Hkelkar 05:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and you are right about primary sources, but we also have to investigate as to whether the subject is notable enough to warrant a mention here. There are lots of Neo-Buddhists who have written lots of things (mostly gibberish). We have to choose the important ones that are less "gibberishy" than their usual polemic. Hkelkar 05:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Hkelkar. I guess we have some differences of opinion about verifiability, and we need to ask an admin to help us out. I'll try and find one. I didn't realize that all of the writers of these books were neo-buddhist, except for Reconstructing the World: B. R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India.

The other authors all have non-Western names, so perhaps they are indeed Neo-Buddhists. Is there some indicator in their names, like they sometimes do in Japan? Forgive my ignorance on this matter - I'm not as familiar with the language and culture of India as you are:).

I don't think Terry Pilchik (author of Jai Bhim!), is Neo-Buddhist, but again I could be wrong. Wouldn't he be notable for the fact that he wrote a book? I'll try to do some research on him if that's not satisfactory.

I'm again, I'm disappointed. I left a message on your talk page before I saw your response above. I hope when you read it, you'll see that I want to work with you, and not against you.

Well I don't know about this Pilchik guy so I'll have to look him up, of course. In the interests of good faith, I'll assume for now that he's alright. I never said that "all the writers were Neo-Buddhists". I showed evidence that some of them were (well, Sangharakshita anyways), and that we should take their writings with a grain of salt.This should be a test for any reference cited here. Anyone who claims to subscribe to Ambedkarite Neo-Buddhism (rather than just provide a dispassionate recounting of it) is suspect of partisanship and tomfoolery as far as I can see. Any accredited scholar with peer-reviewed publications, academic tenure, or whatever is legitimate, even if he's a Neo-Buddhist (fortunately the chances of both being true is highly unlikely).Hkelkar 06:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's unclear to me what point you're arguing here, Hkelkar. The Indian Buddhist revival is obviously of encyclopedic interest, and the existence NinaEliza's books demonstrates this. Whether the books provide accurate or impartial information about the Ambedkarite movement is a different subject. We have to deal with that on a case-by-case basis. Incidentally, I don't know about those other people, but Sangharakshita is not a "Neo-Buddhist", he's an Englishman who doesn't fit into the categories of modern Indian Buddhism. See Friends of the Western Buddhist Order.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
For us Buddhist is a Buddhist. The Hindu users should remember that Wikipedia is not a place only for Hindu views. It is for all. When a Hindu is converted to Islam he is not called as neo-Muslim. Neither people ask wheather he is Sunni or Shiya. Muslim is a Muslim and it is their internal problem of division. Even Buddhists are philosopically different but they are one. Hindu terrorists are killing innocent people not only on Sri Lanka but in India they are killing converted Buddhists. Khairlanji Buddhist Massacre is best example. So Hindu users are trying to destroy the valuable article related to Buddhists updates in India. There is a need to have positive contribution from all over the world. Britain, Japan, Sri Lanka OR India. Destructive mentality of Hindu Terrorists is absolute wrong Shrilankabuddhist 19:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This guy just doesn't seem to get WP:POINT. The American phrase "hooey-baloney" comes to mind here.Perhaps someone needs to tell him, preferably an admin. Hkelkar 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I removed sourced edit

ShrilankaBuddhist, I removed this section because Hkelkar created an article about it. [Kerlanji Massacre] is where you would want to put such things, if they're unbiased and the source is well-established. Please see the talk page first before adding anything. NinaEliza 18:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Khairlanji Buddhist Massacre is about a poor Buddhist family becaue 2006 many Dalits converted to Buddhism so Hindus are killing innocent masses. The issue has to be addressed in Hindu Criticism or Hindu Reaction to mass Buddhist conversions. Shrilankabuddhist 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No reliable source reflects any of this rubbish. Hkelkar 19:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ShrilankaBuddhist, please see [:Kerlanji Massacre]. I'm sorry about the link. If you ever have any problems with a link, you can put the phrase into the Wikipedia search window and find the article.

ShrilankaBuddhist, so far there is only one reliable news source that say the family who was murdered were Buddhists. The URL is:

http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=123634&category=India&catID=2

If you go to the Kherlanji Massacre article, you'll see that Hkelkar has used that link as a reference. So far, it's the only news source to make this claim. I'm afraid you're going to need to stop trying to add this information to Indian Buddhist Revival until there are more reliable sources that state that this family was Buddhist. NinaEliza 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

SriLanka Buddhist - please desist from using such inflammatory language as "terrorist" in articles, which does not conform to WP:NPOV - see Osama bin Laden article - he is classified as "militant" and/or "Islamist" - secondly, the lankaweb, while not as bad as some other partisan ethnic or religious sites, cannot be considered to be a reliable source as it appears to be openly partisan (Sinhalese). Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual Dishonesty

Thats what I'd call this article.

First of all "Indian" Buddhist "revival" is hardly a pan-Dalit movement, forget pan-Indian! Neo-Buddhism is more academically recognised term (Gail Omvedt doesnt count). This article sounds like a missionary flier straight out of Dalitstan.org . This glosses over many facts:

1.) This "sect" of Buddhism is more of a socio-political movement than a religious one. 2.) Neo-Buddhists keep many Hindu observances. 3.) Ambedkar rather than Buddha is central to Neo-Buddhism. Neo-Buddhism can be described as a Cult of Personality. 4.) This movement is basically based on (understandable) anti-Hindu (more precisely anti-Brahmin) stance. 5.) Dalits are not a homogenous community. 90% of Neo-Buddhists are from Mahar caste in Maharashtra, hardly a pan-Indian movement.

This article is full of Original research IMHO. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 05:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article as it stands decribes more of a socio-political movement/protest than a religious one. However, if the people who embrace this call themselves Buddhists, then Wikipedia should call them Buddhists, with the caveat that some outside the movement call it Neo-Buddhism.
I was involved in a (rather silly, IMHO) discussion about how a living person should be described racially in the article about them. Several sources make reference to the fact that this person has "white" mother and "black" father. Arguments were made - some highly intellectual, some rather tendentious - that this person should be referred to as mixed-race, though the subject himself self-identifies as African-American. Though the talk went on and on, in the end it was declared that referring to someone as they do not refer to themselves was a violation of Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons.
Beyond any discussion of Religious (or ethnic, or racial) tolerance and neutrality - which would certainly be germaine here - I submit that in the end this article contains a "biography", if you will. It's a biography not so much of a living person, but of many faceless, nameless, people who are trying to build something. What they are trying to build (a new religious sect a socio-political movement, or both) remains to be seen - perhaps even by they themselves.NinaEliza 06:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I submit that in the end this article contains a "biography" This article is certainly not a biography. It is about a socio-political movement that is academically and popularly identified as Neo-Buddhism. Self-identifications are a personal POV. Most Pakistanis i've come across you identify with Perso-Arabic culture rather than Indian; but that doesnt take away the truth does it? For months Pakistan article declared that Pakistan lies in Greater Middle East (a self identification nevertheless). Only now I notice that they've reverted to South Asia.
You see self-identifications are controversial! Neo-Buddhism has more academic acceptance. A simple google search reveals that [14] , [15] . Lastly to call this an Indian movement is nothing but far from truth. I will be moving this article to "Neo-Buddhism" unless someone provides me with sources that suggest otherwise.

अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 12:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 12:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this article certainly seems to generate strong feelings in some people. Instead of saying "this article is intellectual dishonesty", let's we say, "this article has been edited by some editors with strong points of view, and we need to make sure balance is maintained or restored where it's been compromised". So, feel free to add important facts if you have good sources for them. I have no trouble believing that most Neo-Buddhists are Mahars, altho' I have no idea whether it is 90% or some other large percentage.
On the other hand, I don't understand your objection to calling it "Indian". This is something that is happening in India, so it's Indian. Also, the current page title, Indian Buddhist revival is a description, not a name, so it doesn't matter very much if other people are using it. Your google searches do show that the term "Neo-Buddhism" is not very common. That said, I have no strong preference for what this article is called. When I wrote the original version of it, it was called Neo-Buddhism. In any event, you'll have some trouble executing a unilateral move to that title; it didn't work when I tried it a few months ago.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution and organisation

The whole page is really confusing to start with. I would rather suggest that the editors that are involved in editing this article – comment here and put forward their sources / internet weblinks so that a few mediators can decide which is in conformity with WP:V and WP:RS. Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be providing my sources shortly. Anwyays I have good reasons to believe that User:Holybrahmin is a "Straw man sock puppet". अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The term "Neo-Buddhists"

I launched into a soliloquoy that really didn't make my point. Forgive me, I was tired. Let me be a little more direct, Wikipedia doesn't label religous groups of any kind, ever. No matter what scholars, journalists, 99% percent of the population, or the pope himself have to say about the matter, Wikipedia simply does not do it.

Lets, hypothetically, assume the worst about this group. In short, that they're not a religious movement, or socio-political protest, but some kind of dangerous, evil cult. Now lets look at the Wikipedia articles on the Branch Davidians and the Unification Church. You can also look at Scientology or Jews for Jesus for good measure.

Take a look at these articles. You can read the whole thing, but really the first paragraph will do. While many, many people believe that these are dangerous cults, not once will Wikipedia call them cults. Wikipedia will report that many, many people call them cults, and that's the end of it. That is because Wikipedia refers to facts in their characterisations, not outside labels - no matter how lofty a place they come from. It is not Wikipedia's place or mission to label an entire group of people something that they do not call themselves.

It's a non-issue, and the discussion should end here. NinaEliza 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not implying Neo-Buddhism (or Navyana if you like) is a cult or anything. It is not a conventional Buddhist sect. Ambedkar rather than Buddha is central to this sect. It simply a socio-political movement.

It is not Wikipedia's place or mission to label an entire group of people something that they do not call themselves.

Do you have any sources to suggest what these Buddhist actually call themselves? They call themselves Dalits for all I know. It will take more than maudlin prose to satify me. Morevover I know my Wiki conventions far better than you. It is also not Wikipedia's mission to serve as a PR source. Calling it "Indian Buddhist revival" is misleading and revisionist. Firstly, Buddhism never died in India. Much of its philosophy was absorbed by Hinduism and Sufi Islam giving rise to sects like Bhakti movement and Baul. Neo-Buddhism is a political extension of Amberkite philosophy. Their religious practices are a fusion of modern Shaivite Hinduism than Buddhism.

Laslty lass,

It's a non-issue, and the discussion should end here. statements such as these show your unwillingness to debate and discuss the issue at hand. Anti-thetical to cardinal Wiki covention!

@Nat Krause: This is NOT a pan-Indian movement. It is limited to Eastern Maharashtra and parts of Uttar Pradesh. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Do you have any sources to suggest what these Buddhist actually call themselves? They call themselves Dalits for all I know".

I have the vociferous complaints of the editors on this very talk page who self-identify as Buddhist, for one. Please read the entire talk page, I'll be happy to provide as many diffs as you like if you choose not to. For more sources, there are several websites devoted to this. While they can't be used in the article, they certainly can be used to clear up this point.

"Moreover I know my Wiki conventions far better than you. It is also not Wikipedia's mission to serve as a PR source"

What I do and do not know is arguable, and remains to be seen. I'm certainly not advocating that Wikipedia or this article become a PR source, either for the movement itself or for those who oppose them.

"Firstly, Buddhism never died in India".

I quite agree with you, if the internet is any indication. I've found 45 different Buddhist groups of varying strength in a directory aimed at listing Buddhist groups throughout the world (on a side note, I plan to contact as many of these groups as I can, for a seperate matter). That was just a cursory bit of research, and not aimed at that particular assertion. I'm sure more energtic research will reveal more.

"It's a non-issue, and the discussion should end here. statements such as these show your unwillingness to debate and discuss the issue at hand. Anti-thetical to cardinal Wiki covention!'"

Since we have a difference of opinion, I suggest that we let an admin sort it out, and you're free to seek one of your own choosing if you so desire. However, I'd like to point out that an admin (Blnguyen) has asserted the exact same thing on this very talk page. Again, please read the entire talk page, it's much appreciated.NinaEliza 17:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


My eyes glaze whlist reading this rant repartee. Any pointers to sepcific diffs would be helpful. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for the move

As I said 'Indian Buddhist revival' is a farily non-standard name for the movement. Moreover it is pretty much an exclusivist Dalit sect. Hardly a pan-Indian revival movement as the title paint it out to be... अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am not a Hindu Dalit.Officially all Dalits (SC/ST) are Hindus. Please see Cencus India. We have a approx. 250 million population of SC/ST in India and officially the term Dalit do not have any recognition. It is widely used for Hindu Untouchable people. Who were mistreated under the Hindu Religious Laws.

We also support the Buddhist Activities in India. Buddhist Revival is a Non-Violent Conversion Movement. Most of the people from sevaral castes are converting to Buddhism. The minority Buddhist Population is scattered all over India. UP, Punjab, Arunachal, Tripura, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh many other states the Buddhist Population is scattered. Buddhists are hardly 0.8 % of whole India's population. Pkulkarni 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Again it takes more than maudlin prose to convince people. According to GoI there are 160 million SC/STs in India NOT 250 million.

It is widely used for Hindu Untouchable people. Who were mistreated under the Hindu Religious Laws.

Dalit is a relatively modern coinage. Dalits themselves prefer the word. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of Pkulkarni's little rant above, the Neo-Buddhist cult is exclusive to a small subset of the Dalit community (who were never the most oppressed group anyways, it was the Bhangis, OBC's etc) and is not only virulently anti-Hindu but also anti-O.B.C. There are not Neo-Buddhist Dalits in Gujarat, for instance. The Neo-Buddhists are "non violent"??? [16]. Sure, and I'm the resurrected ghost of Abraham. Hkelkar 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindu Mobs are killing innocent Buddhists. Shrilankabuddhist 15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Sinhala Fundamentalist Buddhist mass-murderers are killing innocent Hindus and here and hereHkelkar 03:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Darn you Kelkar wheres your sesitivty dude?? they were availing their democratic right to protest! 2006 Dalit protests in Maharashtra! Anyways lets not take potshots at anybody.

(who were never the most oppressed group anyways, it was the Bhangis, OBC's etc)

Actually Dalits WERE the most opressed of the lot. OBC is just an artificial classfication, OBCs were so-called savarna castes. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I won't argue on the point of who gets the most "oppression brownie points". My contention is not that the Dalits do not have the right to protest, they do. What they did not have the right to do was burn down trains and throw rocks at people. That may work in Saudi Arabia or wherever, but a democracy like ours need to have higher standards. Look at the Hispanics in the 2006_U.S._immigration_reform_protests in America. Hardly a single incidence of violence. Hkelkar 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You missed the sarcasm there.... Anyways I'm not Indian citizen, internal politcs of Maharashtra hardly concerns me. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

People involved in violence are Hindus Or low-caste-Hindus they are not BUDDHISTS. Read the news properly. For Hindu violence you can not blame minority Buddhists. Hindu Riots. If uncivilized Hindus are doing riots for that no one can blame Buddhists Pkulkarni 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Yeah right.. I believe you.... Isnt your Hinduphobia soo obvious? Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You are contradicting yourself. On one hand you claim that "millions" of Dalits have converted to Neo-Buddhism yet claim that the rioteers are Hindus! The riots have been sponsored by Republican Party of India, which was founded by Ambedkar. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I do understand what is WikiPedia. The riots in India are laid by low-caste-Hindus. Read all news papers well before commenting. Before founding Republican Party of India Dr. Ambedkar died on 6th Dec. 1956 if Hindus are misusing his party name then ite their problem. The Buddhists are not the supporter of one political party in India. You should not mix Religious Movement article with Political parties. Don't give warped reasong. Also change your BuddhistPhobia Pkulkarni 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War!

Pkulkarni desist from revert warring. This article is specifically about a Dalit Buddhist sect. Buddhism in India is perhaps the article you are looking for... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is HKelkar and अमेय आर्यन DaBrood are reverting the article without having proper dispute resolution. I am an Indian Buddhist and not from any Hindu Caste. Non-Hindu Wiki Administrators should look into it. Pkulkarni 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Indians are reverting article

This article is about Indian Buddhist revival but few users especially from USA and UK are destroying the article without proper understanding of the subject. They are mixing the Issue of minority Indian Buddhists with low-caste-Hindus. The Buddhist are less than 0.8% and since few years many Hindus are converting to Buddhism. But the anti-Buddhists people are vanadalizing the article again and again Pkulkarni 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/l/Talk%7EDalit_Buddhist_movement_Archive_1_d7c2.html"