Answers to the five questions raised by Hem Raj Timilsina

The secretary of Bhajan Sanatan Dharma Sabha (Society) and Bishwa Maitri Sangha (Union) Mr. Hem Raj Sharma Timilsina has published a booklet raising some questions about my book 'Whose religion is true.' In that booklet following names have been given as the framers of constitutions of Bhajan Sanatan Dharma Sabha and Bishwa Maitri Sangha.

President = Pandit Muralidhar Bhattarai

Education Section and far eastern

Terai – Shree 108 Swami Narayandanda Sarbadarshanacharya.

For Western Terai & India - Shree 108 Swami Tribeni Puri Ji Vedantacharya.

Canvassar for western Mountaineous Region – Pandit Shree Vadri Chandra Khanal.

Canvassat for Eastern Mountaineous Region – Shree Ganga Prasad Adhikari

for law = Shree Su, Pandit Lochannidhi Tiwari

Teacher of Yoga Practice Nijananda Brahmachari

Homeopathic- Shree Doctor Damodar Raj ji

Secretory - Hem Raj Sharma Timilsina

Shastra Nirnaya – Shree Krishna Mishra Nyaya Byakarnacharya

Accountant – Sardar Shom Prasad Sharma

Publicity : Among women – Gita Devi Bhatta Rai, Dibya Kumari Timilsina, Maiya Devi Shrestha ands others

Firstly Mr. Timilsina has charged me of repeating statements of foreigners who do not understand the meaning of Hindus and Buddhists which creates differences between Shaiva and Vedic Hindus and Buddhist Hindus.

In reply I have to say that if ones own view is called national. I have nothing to say but if it is not so, to use the word Hindus for Buddhist is to show utter ignorance because such a word has never been used as synonymous or parallel for Buddhists throughout the pages of Tripitaka (Complete Buddhist Scriptures).

Secondly Mr. Timilsina has charged me of using contemptuous words out of jelousy on the cleaning and repair of the Temple of Pasupatinath.

In reply, I have to say that for religious tolerance logically the sense of religious equality is required. So I have put forward my views before the public that the historic temple of Swayambhu which is visited and worshiped by the people of the whole world should also be kept clean. There is nothing behind my views. He has called my truthful and comparative statement drawing the attention of the Govt. and the patrons of religion for the fulfillment of my intention of keeping clean also the temple of Swayambhu a use of contemptuous words. It seems to me that his calling my statement as such is the representation of his trying to gain capacity and strength to keep alive his feeling of making differences openly.

Thirdly, Mr. Timilsina has objected to my statement regarding the suppression of Buddhism from the periods of Malla kings to the period of Shah Kings.

Be careful, By Malla period, it cannot be all Malla kingsand the same is clear from the history also. How has he included all kings of Shah periods while my published work is before the public. Perhaps out of anger, he has forgotton such a glorious performances as the bringing of the sacred relies of Sariputta Moggallana and the accomplishment of World Buddhist conference in Nepal under Shah kings. It is my opinion that we should always protest against the installation of Bhagavati in Buddhists palces and Biharas (Monasteries) and the obstacles and dangers created by the military shooting practices performed in the hill of Swayambhu, in taking round of the temple of Swayambhu by the devotees and tourists.

Fourthly, Mr. Timilsina has objected that I have viewed with anger the Brahmins who regard Buddha as one of the ten incarnation of God.

In this matter one should keep in mind that the Hindu theory of incarnation was profounded and promulgated only after Buddha. So it is baseless for the Hindus to consider Buddha as an incarnation. Not only this, there are many among Hindus who say Lord Bishnu took the incarnation of Buddha by trick to mislead the monsters. But it is not a right thing to say and think so. There is no necessity of viewing the Brahmins who regard Buddha as an incarnation with anger because one should not be jelous about the ignorant persons. Instead one should try to tell and make them understand real things sympathetically. But I am very sad to note that my effort to tell and make them understand real thing has been viewed with jelousy and anger.

Fifthly, Mr. Timilsina has charged me that I have abused Lord Krishna along with Christ and Mohammad.

Here there is no question of abuse. Buddha never preached the presence of soul and god. So he has termed such belief as false view. False view also is one of the ten bad things or one among sins. So I am in favour of always proceeding with the help of human rights in the propagation and publicity of it. In addition to make a comparative study about it also in within the scope of human rights itself. So if to accept and use human rights is itself an abuse then we shall have to abandon free thinking itself.

Free thinking is the basic right of human being. On the other hand where there is the question of morality and character not only Mohammad and Christ but the words of all should be considered.

The statements, given in the booklet 'Whose religion is True' is not against the teachings of Buddha so far as I understand.

At the end of the criticism Mr. Timilsina has stated that he is ready for a logical discourse (shastrartha) about the five questions raised by him with me and other persons who have the same view like me. He is quite liberal in this respect in comparison with the theory of some Hindus like 'Atheist Buddhist are hammerable not only by logical discourses but also hammerable with weapons. The meaning of logical discourse is debating and if one thinks at the end that one's own view only should be right there is no meaning of logical discourse. I am raising this matter because out of the five questions raised it is declared in the fifth and the last question that all those who speak against his views are all anti-nationalists. The meaning of saying so on the last question is that the supporting of his vies only is servicing the nation, that the gist of all thoughts are only in his brain and that he has got the only right to think about it, It seems to me that such a though itself is anti-human because such a thought not only checks the development of human knowledge but it exploits human power also.

At the end, I like to say something again about the five questions.

1. To create differences is vice and to create unity is virtue. All right but what about the Hindu caste-system and the Hindu-code 'Females, workers, (Vaishyas) and the low class peoples like sweepers and the like (Sudras) are all sinner's. The Hindu codes like 'Buddhists are thieves' and others are not only the seeds for differences in all country but also to the whole world.

2. All the kings from Malla period to shah, period have respected Buddhism very much. In this statement I would like to substitute the word most for all.

3. 'Buddha is our Lord' thank you. But in order to consider so one should also practice his teaching also. Buddha says 'When one discards the question of God, refutes, the presence of soul, rules out the caste discrimination and does not accept the things because it is stated in the scripture, he gets knowledge of Buddhism.'

4. So long as the words 'We are all Hindus' denotes the race and nation of Hindustan (India), how can one call Buddhists, Hindus Will all the Buddhists of Nepal, China, Japan, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, German, Ceylon, Russia, America and Europe want to be called Hindus. It is note worthy that the Buddhists from all these countries who attended the fourth world Buddhist conference in Nepal were debarred from the entry into Pashupatinath temple thinking that they are all untouchables. Are the Hindus ready to accept all of them as Hindus while they are regarding on the other hand woman, workers, and lower grade peoples as sinners and contempting them

5. I have said something about fifth question before. Now I want to say that Mr. Timilsina and others who hold the same views should abandon their habit of calling themselves the superior class who do not kill cows by framing the laws that make some countrymen untouchables and the other matwalas and all including Kshtriyas who are generally the rulers liable to be convicted to death while the Brahmins not to be so for any offence. Two different kinds of punishments for the same offence is not logical and cannot serve in the present day world, Logically, the punishment for the same offence should be the same.

If one rejects saying of Hindus like 'The Brahmins are born of Brahma's mouth, the Kshtriyas born of Brahma's breast, the vaishyas born of Brahma's feet'. "If the sudras hear Veda molten lead should be pored into the ear holes of them." If the sudras pronounce Veda, their toungs should be teared out", can be called anti religious.

Religion is for all the human beings. So I will not accept the religion which does not put to an end the importance of the one who is against human religion, which does not allow one to think freely and which discriminates the rights of man in conjuction with birth and race of the same.

State of Buddhism In Nepal, 9-19 Century A.D.

The decline of Buddhism in India has had a disastrous effect upon Nepal. Tradition has it that monastic institutions ceased to exis in Nepal in the 9th century A.D. after a visit by Sankaracharya, who, in his zeal to revive Hinduism, traveled all over the sub-continent and defeated the monks in debates. In the words of a historian, "Very rightly it has been remarked that Sankaracharya did for Buddhism in Nepal what the Buddha did in relation to Hinduism in India." The Shakyas have, however, continued to call themselves Shakya Bhikkhu and undergo an initiation for monkhood lasting for a few days in early manhood.

The Muslim conquest of India had more serious consequences. Refugees flocked to Nepal for safety and eventually Buddhism became weak in Nepal itself. then, for a long period, except for a link with Tibet, Nepal followed a policy of isolation. the first Eurpeans to arrive in India in the early 17th century A.D. first heard of Nepal when they went to Tibet via Bhutan.

By this time, Lumbini the birthplace of Lord Buddha, was lost in the forests and Buddhism has disappeared from Jumla and its vicinity. In the mountains elsewhere, a very few devoted Lamas managed to survive in their monasteries in isolated pockets. Most laymen were content on occasion to have a priest recite for them some sutra from Tibetan texts while they remained ignorant of the teachings of the Buddha.

In the Kathmandu Valley the great traditions of vajrayana and lost their meaning even to those who practiced them. Only a semblance of Buddhism had remained in rituals and prayers and recitations of great texts like the Pragyapatamita and Namasangiti.