I have known about the conflicts regarding temple management of Mahabodhi Vihara since the mid 1970’s from my first visits there in my early teen years with my father and family. We used to know the superintendent/chief monk Ven, Jnanajagat Bhikshu, by birth Brahmin but a highly learned and devoted Buddhist monk, unfortunately even he was not allowed to stay in BTMC.
I was surprised to see a shiva-linga placed at the center of the main shrine room of temple and several buddha statues defaced and somewhat hidden right outside main entrance gate of the temple (a hindu priest saying they are various Hindu gods including Rama of Ramayana). There is actually a seperate Hindu site in Gaya city for puja and funerals, but I heard it is nowhere as clean and majestic as Mahabodhi. The option to build something new and beautiful for Hindu pilgrims in Gaya city is there. Just a thought. I did sign the change org global Mahabodhi petition.
Because the fact is from starting buddhists doesnt care about their worldly rights , this is the way of life of buddhist being not greedy . Buddhists were taught and being encouraged to give up worldly things and not to attach to it as part of the practice . Therefore , as such the consequences should be expected .
In my view hunger strike is plain wrong, a petition with a few hundred thousand signatures would be much more fruitful, the more signatures the better.
A loss in tourism would be another step should a petition not work. Peace
Supreme Court Urged to Expedite Hearing on 13-Year-Old Bodh Gaya Temple Petition as Monks’ Hunger Strike Reaches Critical Stage
The intervenor Advocate Anand S. Jondhale has emphasized that the writ petition, filed in 2012, has not been listed for hearing for over a decade, and the ongoing hunger strike by the monks has created a life-threatening situation.
In India Buddhism and Hinduism (and Jainism) are legally not treated as separate religions - as there is no exclusivist conversion process identified or enforced. Indian Buddhists and Jains call themselves Hindus when it suits them, and vice versa Hindus claim to have become Buddhists but there is nothing to evidence such conversions. As Buddhism originally is a “giving-up” tradition where monks do not seek to “own” anything, so shrines of any kind were normally constructed and administered by the laity (Hindus). How to enforce the separation exactly has never been 100% clear in the legal sense as there are several overlapping interests and concerns. Also, over the centuries, different groups of Buddhists have claimed their right to the site, so currently (since at least Indian independence in 1947) it is administered by the state (as most Hindu/Buddhist temples in India are). It is litigated in courts as well, but occasionally they start agitating on the ground like this. Who has control and what rights, if any, that it confers, then becomes more a question of politics than about religion.
If Gautama Buddha were still around do you think He would approve of the Sangha starving themselves over this?
Considering this is where He attained Enlightenment and began to advocate for the Middle-Way as the Buddha, I think He would advocate for the reality that this hunger strike is not something that is leading to extinguishment or Enlightenment.
I respect the Buddhists who are attempting to get this Temple back, but is it really the right way? Not because it can or can’t be accomplished this way, but because of what heavy toll it can have on the emotions and on the body, and I personally, not being close to this situation in physical proximity, am still highly concerned with the wellbeing of the Buddhist Monks and Nuns who continue to starve themselves there.
I think moving towards attaining Enlightenment and this type of political fasting are on two different spectrums.
So anyway, I hope for the wellbeing of all involved, and that a healing connection can be bridged. There is no reason why the authorities shouldn’t give in and give the Temple to the Buddhists, and let them eat to preserve their lives. For religious harmony, and for the sake of human rights and humanity there should be peace amongst Buddhists and Hindus. Namaste.
They go by self declared identities I presume, there is no mutual exclusivity that is legally enforceable. This arises from Buddhism not claiming mutual exclusivity vis-a-vis Hinduism, and Hinduism on the other hand being a modern name for all the Indian religious traditions that are not one of the exclusivist Abrahamic religions (and which therefore includes within itself the Buddhist and Jain traditions in the eyes of the Indian law). All the -isms are basically defined and delimited in modern times. Nobody called themselves as Hindu or Buddhist in the Buddha’s time and for long thereafter.
Besides, most people who visit the shrine every year are those who identify as Hindu but still visit the temple to pay homage to the Buddha, people identifying as exclusively Buddhist visiting every year being a minority.
Trusolo, why do you keep on splitting the posts from here @trusolo, those 4 that you have moved there were on this topic of why many Hindus dont consider (Indian) Buddhism as independent of Hinduism.
