Buddhism - Socio Political Contributions

[member_19686]

Instead of jumping from one claim to another.

Why don't you enlighten us why the monk in his speech cites Bauddha principles for their capitulation & doesn't even say ONE word about any persecution by Dahir as alleged by you?

Being such a brave Bauddha, I do not know why you cannot liberate Tibet along with your fellow Bauddhas. You have already decided that Astikas are weak but is it not time for you Bauddhas to put your money where your mouth is?

Shouldn't the Dalai Lama be in Tibet or in some Bauddha country instead of among us weak Astikas who also supposedly viciously persecuted Buddhism. Why be among people who supposedly destroyed your religion?

[member_24042]

Instead of jumping from one claim to another.

Why don't you enlighten us why the monk in his speech cites Bauddha principles for their capitulation & doesn't even say ONE word about any persecution by Dahir as alleged by you?

Being such a brave Bauddha, I do not know why you cannot liberate Tibet along with your fellow Bauddhas. You have already decided that Astikas are weak but is it not time for you Bauddhas to put your money where your mouth is?

Shouldn't the Dalai Lama be in Tibet or in some Bauddha country instead of among us weak Astikas who also supposedly viciously persecuted Buddhism. Why be among people who supposedly destroyed your religion?

Lol how do you expect 500 million Buddhists (half being Han chinese, who are only Buddhist for selfish reasons) to reclaim Tibet? Not one Buddhist nation has nukes. India on the other hand has nukes and is even being bullied by little Buddhist Sri Lanka. Buddhists do well in their own countries against monotheists. Look at what has happened to EJ movement in Sri Lanka (among the Sinhalas), while Tamils are more than 40% xtian. Look at the successful resistance to Islamic atrocities in Burma. Thailand is also standing strong against religion of peace followers. All the while states in India like AP are well on their way to becoing "Christa Pradesh".

[member_19686]

But then get the nukes fellow.

Go build your Bauddha stronghold & show us how it is done.

There are many Bauddha countries, surely one can get nukes or they can unite against the CCP.

Ask your fellow Bauddhas to unite to liberate Tibet, at least ask them to show some generosity to their fellow Bauddhas from Tibet and take them in, surely they must be suffering badly being given refuge by the evil Hindus?

I notice you have no response to the monks speech citing Bauddha principles for their capitulation but are content to invent tales about Dahirs persecution driving them to it.

Why whine here instead of putting your money where your mouth is.

BTW I notice you conveniently left out the fate of Bauddhas in South Korea.

[member_24042]

But then get the nukes fellow.

Go build your Bauddha stronghold & show us how it is done.

There are many Bauddha countries, surely one can get nukes or they can unite against the CCP.

Ask your fellow Bauddhas to unite to liberate Tibet, at least ask them to show some generosity to their fellow Bauddhas from Tibet and take them in, surely they must be suffering badly being given refuge by the evil Hindus?

I notice you have no response to the monks speech citing Bauddha principles for their capitulation but are content to invent tales about Dahirs persecution driving them to it.

Why whine here instead of putting your money where your mouth is.

BTW I notice you conveniently left out the fate of Bauddhas in South Korea.

More useless diatribe. SK was never majority Buddhist but mainly non-religious/Confucian before the EJs came. Also could it be since Dahir and his father RENOVATED a Buddhist monastary in Damascus, that Buddhists thought that the Arabs would be tolerant. Also you yourself haven't replied to the umpteen other instances that the Hindus massacred Buddhists.

[member_19686]

I thought Dahir was viciously persecuting Bauddhas in your fantasy world.

Why would he renovate a Bauddha monastery in Damascus?

Even if this claim of yours is true, the brave Bauddhas of Sindh had never heard of what the Arabs had already done to the Zoroastrians & Buddhists in Iran being neighbors?

Any more fantastic claims you want to make?

These "umpteen other instances" must be part of the colorful neo-Bauddha historical fiction, quiet like the Dahir the buddha buster & the buddhist monastery renovator of your fantasies.

I guess Bauddha bravery is only good enough to stab those who gave you refuge in the back.

[member_24042]

I thought Dahir was viciously persecuting Bauddhas in your fantasy world.

Why would he renovate a Bauddha monastery in Damascus?

These "umpteen other instances" must be part of the colorful neo-Bauddha historical fiction, quiet like the Dahir the buddha buster & the buddhist monastery renovator of your fantasies.

I guess Bauddha bravery is only good enough to stab those who gave you refuge in the back.

Mohamad Bin Qasim and his father renovated a monastery in Syria.

Also Brahmins were cosy even with Mughals so what are you talking of back stabbing Buddhists? There were top Brahmins in many positions and they had no qualms about sleeping with the ******** that destroyed their temples. Why the double standards. Probably the Sindhi Buddhists thought that they could convert these mlecchas as they had did to the Greeks, Kushans, etc. and hence make then Arya.

[member_19686]

Mohamad Bin Qasim and his father renovated a monastery in Syria.

Here is what you claimed:

More useless diatribe. SK was never majority Buddhist but mainly non-religious/Confucian before the EJs came. Also could it be since Dahir and his father RENOVATED a Buddhist monastary in Damascus, that Buddhists thought that the Arabs would be tolerant. Also you yourself haven't replied to the umpteen other instances that the Hindus massacred Buddhists.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1480212

Now its Qasim.

And what about what happened in Persia?

So the Bauddhas never heard what happened in their neighboring land?

And why doesn't this heroic capitulating Bauddha monk mention anything about Dahirs alleged persecution, he only cites Bauddha principles for their submission.

[member_19686]

Also Brahmins were cosy even with Mughals so what are you talking of back stabbing Buddhists? There were top Brahmins in many positions and they had no qualms about sleeping with the ******** that destroyed their temples. Why the double standards. Probably the Sindhi Buddhists thought that they could convert these mlecchas as they had did to the Greeks, Kushans, etc. and hence make then Arya.

Why keep inventing excuses for their behavior?

Here is what the monk plainly said:

"According to our faith, fighting and slaughtering are not allowable. We will never be in favour of shedding blood."

But trust the neo-Bauddha hero Tony Soprano (is James Gandolfini back from the dead by any chance?) writing 1300 years later to know the real reasons for their abject surrender

[member_24042]

Mohamad Bin Qasim and his father renovated a monastery in Syria.

Here is what you claimed:

More useless diatribe. SK was never majority Buddhist but mainly non-religious/Confucian before the EJs came. Also could it be since Dahir and his father RENOVATED a Buddhist monastary in Damascus, that Buddhists thought that the Arabs would be tolerant. Also you yourself haven't replied to the umpteen other instances that the Hindus massacred Buddhists.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1480212

Now its Qasim.

And what about what happened in Persia?

So the Bauddhas never heard what happened in their neighboring land?

And why doesn't this heroic capitulating Bauddha monk mention anything about Dahirs alleged persecution, he only cites Bauddha principles for their submission.

That was a typo on my part.

[member_19686]

That was a typo on my part.

Typo's apart, give me a primary source for this claim about this alleged renovation (of course it still doesn't whitewash what the Bauddhas did even if true, because they surely would have heard what the Arabs had already done in Persia & elsewhere).

[member_24042]

Also Brahmins were cosy even with Mughals so what are you talking of back stabbing Buddhists? There were top Brahmins in many positions and they had no qualms about sleeping with the ******** that destroyed their temples. Why the double standards. Probably the Sindhi Buddhists thought that they could convert these mlecchas as they had did to the Greeks, Kushans, etc. and hence make then Arya.

Why keep inventing excuses for their behavior?

Here is what the monk plainly said:

"According to our faith, fighting and slaughtering are not allowable. We will never be in favour of shedding blood."

But trust the neo-Bauddha hero Tony Soprano (is James Gandolfini back from the dead by any chance?) writing 1300 years later to know the real reasons for their abject surrender

Why call us "neo-Bauddha"? That is an insult. Anybody who follows the Tathagatha, his Dhamma, and takes refuge in the Sangha is a Buddhist, no need for prefixes. Also it is much more apt to call you a neo-Hindu as "hinduism" is an invented religion that did not exist before British rule. The first person to coin "Hinduism" was deracinated Bhodroloka Ram Mohan Roy. Also don't give me that crap about "sanatana dharma", the term was invented by Dayananda Saraswati (who was heavily influenced by Islam).

[member_19686]

Why call us "neo-Bauddha"? That is an insult. Anybody who follows the Tathagatha, his Dhamma, and takes refuge in the Sangha is a Buddhist, no need for prefixes. Also it is much more apt to call you a neo-Hindu as "hinduism" is an invented religion that did not exist before British rule. The first person to coin "Hinduism" was deracinated Bhodroloka Ram Mohan Roy. Also don't give me that crap about "sanatana dharma", the term was invented by Dayananda Saraswati (who was heavily influenced by Islam).

We can discuss all about Dayananda & Sanatana Dharma in another thread.

Now a source for your claims would be good.

What is an insult is your invention of outlandish tales to excuse plain treason by Bauddha monks.

[member_24042]

Here is my source:

The Samanis being persuaded to submit and not take up arms because the majority of the population was Buddhist who were dissatisfied with their rulers, who were Hindu.

http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main ... 0%26ct%3D3

Also whatever the situation in Sindh may be, it doesn't hide the fact that Hindus did their fair part in exterminating Buddhists (and it was by no means peaceful). You have not provided evidences that suggests the contrary but constantly harping about one insignificant incident. Also, the Hindus also did their fair share of treason. Who were Jaichand, Man Singh, Akanna, Todarmal, etc? Why did the Rajputs pimp their women if they are such honorable patriots?

[member_19686]

But you haven't given what I asked for.

You made the claim that Qasim & his renovated some monastery in Damascus which led to Bauddhas thinking that Muslims were tolerant and thus capitulate.

A fanciful tale to be sure but I asked you for a citation & you have yet to provide it.

The above you highlighted is the translators opinion not fact.

Instead of providing a citation you jump from one claim to another.

So consider yourself to be on my ignore list until you can learn what primary sources are and how to cite them, and the difference between facts and opinions.

[Atri]

Buddhism is not a religion.. it is a moksha-maarga, just like sankhya, yoga, jaina, vedanta, vaishnava, shaiva etc... And it is wrong to expect a moksha-marga to solve the problems pertaining to dharma and artha aspects of individual, social and national life. Dharma is one. It is an all-encompasisng operating system developed by Indians for all humans. So, that is that..

Regarding Dharmiks not answering and paying back monotheists in their language, one should read about vijaynagar, marathas and sikhs. It is really embarrassing to see people attributing credit of India's liberation to some moksha-marga. It was swords of dharmiks who threw out abrahmics. I am sure certain people named Mr. S.S.Bhosle, Mr. P.S Sosodiya, Mr. R.S Sandhawaliya, Mr. V.B Bhat, Mr. K.D.Tuluvi along with millions others, would be most amused..

Plus, why is so much fascination about strong centralized nation-state, hain ji? Who said Maurya was centralized empire? How centralized is "centralized"? do you mean to say "polit-bureau" type strong centralization?

Buddhism, IMO, introduced the concept of sangha (proto-church, organized moksha-marga) in India. Pursuit of Moksha is supposed to be personal, not communal. No Sangha can grant Moksha or nirvana.

It worked for a while, but they started bringing in all sorts of nincompoops in sangha, that it became an orgy. What is the point of living in sangha (Muthh culture which crept in aastika people is similarly stupid) when the monk gets free food donated by some rich merchant OR king? The whole point in being a monk is to beg and live, thus overcoming the ego. What sort of 5-star monks do these muths and sangha churn out? Most of them are of no good.

Aastika schools defeated Bauddha school fair and square. In long series of debates. Aastikas themselves gained a lot, absorbed a lot from Buddhist ideas. The very concept of "temple", was popularized amongst aastikas as result of their debates with buddhists. So, modern aastikas are evolved after absorbing and digesting Bauddha school (plus many others). No need to cry foul. It was aastikas who preserved the bodhi-temple in first place. Buddha himself is revered as 9th avataara of Sri Vishnu himself. What more respect can an aastika offer to Siddhartha Gautama? So, please stop talking about cultural genocide. Dharmik ideas collided, churned, took new shape and enriched the dharma. Outsider Adharmik ideas had destructive effect on the same.

[brihaspati]

The Chandali woman burns with equity.
The Dombi' house is on fire.
We put the fire down with moon water.
When the straw burns smoke cannot be seen.
From the tip of the Sumeru mountain I have entered the sky.
Harihara, Brahma, Bhatta have all been burnt down.

Two things to note in the verse :

(1) the author is so much aware of the separate "jaati-varna" - when he refers to chandali and Dombi
(2) But more interestingly, it shows you do not know much about the society and times as well as any historical foundations : If "Harihara" (Vishnu+Shiva)+"Brahma"+"Bhatta"(almost always a reference to a Brahmin) were being burnt down - it meant "Brahminical Hinduism" was under attack.

It could simply mean a renewed period of lawlessness - which would be apt for the time when the older society and regime was being torn down through Islamism towards later, and the c. 850-950-1000 mega drought conditions earlier.

Or it could also imply attack by Islamists themselves who attack "chandala"+"dombi"+"bhatta" equally. The charyapada's are also known for their symbolical and encoded language/phraseology, heavily connected to the Tantrik and Bajrayani sects then dominating Bengal [including then Bihar and not yet a separate entity]. "Scholars" who seem to be lauded so much - are often a product of peculiar orientalist and pseudo-Marxian, politically correct mythology, in interpretations of older texts.

Regarding "casteism" : do you or do you not agree to three factoids:
(a) Brahmin and shramana are used equivalently in early Buddhist texts
(b) Buddha promises to Ananda to return to Maitreya as taking birth in a forward caste - Brahmin or Kshatryia, and also explains why that would be necessary
(c) It was Buddhist invention of gradation of "karma" as uttama and adhama and link it to future birth status - this linking is not obvious or directly traceable to the "Vedas".

You seem to jump on very simple transliterations without thinking through :
"not having pride in one's own caste" is not automatically denouncing "caste". In fact it would be closer to the early Vedic meme of easy interchangeability of "varna" by guna and practice. Birth and "varna" link was already rejected in the Upanishads long before any Buddhist misappropriation - for example, look up the story of Satyakama Jabali. In fact, its most difficult to extract a clear cut denunciation of caste in Buddhist literature in the sense of doing away completely with the "forward caste" categories. It might speak for greater tolerance and kindness to "lower orders", but the Buddhist authors - almost always coming from "forward caste" backgrounds which they trace out in their writings, showing they are aware and take pride in some hidden sense - are very very aware of "chandalas", "nishaads", and "domb"s as a separate social segment with a near patronizing tone.

[brihaspati]

1) Your link doesn't work.

2) There is nothing there to indicate any religious conflict as dynasties have been overthrowing one another.

You are not even sure what your own sources refer to.

Instead of jumping from one claim to another.

Why don't you enlighten us why the monk in his speech cites Bauddha principles for their capitulation & doesn't even say ONE word about any persecution by Dahir as alleged by you?

Sorry I don't know why link does not work. Don't worry my next post will quote Hindu sources to reveal mass persecution of Buddhists first by Brahmins then by Saivas.

Can you cite the narrative evidence for "massive" persecution by Dahir? Narrative could have been stretched to fit if this was claimed about his father - but with Dahir? There is onlee one text in connection with Dahir - and from the Islamic side!

[Shanmukh]

Hindu persecution of Buddhists was very intense. Here is some evidence I found in a history forum which I frequent:

"During the reign of Nara "thousands of monastries were burnt, and
thousands of villages that supported those monastries were given over to
the Brahmans." Brahmans having succeeded in establishing their supremacy
set themselves in right earnest in strengthening themselves and their
position. Many superstitious observances and practices were invented.
Thought and culture were denied to everybody excepting themselves and
the modern Hinduism in Kashmir began its growth. But this degraded the
Brahmans themselves. During Mihirkula's reign many shameless practices
are ascribed to them..." (Kilam, 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits, Chapter
1- 'A Survey of Ancient Hindu Rule', Page 5)

Can you please post the original evidence for the persecution of the Buddhists in Kashmir? I don't have Kilam's book, so I cannot evaluate the evidence. I suspect I know the exact incident this is referring to (I have read Kalhana's Rajatarangini). This should be interesting.

"Though there was no great persecution of Buddhists by the ruling families of Andhradesa, at least two pallava rulers,
Simhavarma and Trilochana were zealous in destroying the monasteries at
Sriparvata and Dhanyakataka.

Again, I can only find one unreferenced quote in the Wiki. I cannot even find any Trilochana Pallava in the list of Pallava rulers. Without a clear idea of who is being referred to, I cannot even begin looking for any clear evidence of the destruction of the said monasteries. There is one sentence about a Telugu tradition about a certain Trilochana being killed by a Chalukya ruler (KR Subramanyam). If this is during the conflict between the Pallavas and the Chalukyas, the rulers were Mahendravarman, and Narasimhavarman, for the most part. And Xuan Xang found Buddhism greatly supported by the Pallava rulers, and the Buddhists flourishing in their capital, when he visited during the Kanchi.

Radical Saivaite sects like Kalamukhis
initially and later, Veerashaivas conducted an aggressive campaign
condemning Buddhists as atheists.

This, I am sure, proves that Buddhism was persecuted. I can quote dozens of instances of Buddhists calling other sects even uglier names. I guess that will prove that Buddhists persecuted others?

Occupying Buddhists places, Shiva and Vishnu temples were built over Buddhists shrines.
The aggressive and often violent campaign is exemplified by the conduct
of the Veera Saiva proponent, Mallikarjuna Panditaradhya, who after
losing a debate to Buddhist monk in the court of chandole conspired and
got them, killed and destroyed their places of worship. Panditaradhya's
aggressive campaign almost wiped out Buddhism, in the Andhra country.
Earlier shankara who was known as Pracchana Buddha borrowed Madhyamaka
metaphysics and logic and modeled his mathas on Buddhist monasteries.
Kumarila and Shankara carried on virulent crusade against Buddhism."

Dude, do you ever post evidence for your claims at all? In particular, please post your evidence for Shankara carrying out a virulent crusade against the Buddhists.

[Shanmukh]

BTW I notice you conveniently left out the fate of Bauddhas in South Korea.

Perhaps he can also enlighten us about the fate of the Buddhists in Southern Thailand?

[member_24042]

Regarding Sankara:

"Sankara is known to have founded his Srngeri-Matha on the site of a Buddhist
Monastery. His anti-Buddhist activities may have been very terrible, and
according to the Tibetan tradition, at his approach " the Buddhist
monasteries began to tremble and the monks began to pell-mell.""
.
"Attention may be invited to a passage in the Bhasya of the Brahmasutra, in which
Sankara says: Buddha was an enemy of the people and taugh contradictory
and confusing things".

From "Studies of Buddhist Cultures in India"

"...The temple of Jagannatha is believed to have belonged to the Buddhist at one time and to have been converted into a Vishnu Temple at a later date. The image of Jagannatha is an ill-shaped log of wood with two big eyes marked on it rather prominently. Once in twelve years the log is renewed, the log being brought mysteriously from some unknown land. This is utilized for carving a new image of Jagannatha, in which some ancient relic is considered to be embedded. It is the insertion of this relic which sanctifies the new images. This relic is believed by some to be relic of Buddha..." [Gopinath Rao: 1985: 273]

This is what Swami Vivekananda had to say:

"Speaking of Buddhist ascetic ideals and institutions, Swami Vivekananda has said that the monastic vow and renunciation began to be preached all over India since the time of the Buddha, and Hinduism has absorbed into itself this Buddhist spirit of renunciation. The ochre robe found a lasting home in Hinduism also. The Hindu teacher not only accepted the Buddhist institution of monks. They occupied the Buddhist monasteries also. The many monasteries that you now see in India occupied by monks were once in the possession of Buddhism. The Hindus have only made them their own now by modifying them in their own fashion. Really speaking, the institution of Samnyasa originated with the Buddha. In conclusion the Swami has stated that Hinduism has become so great only by absorbing all the ideal of the Buddha. Swami Vivekananda has been a pivotal figure in modern Hinduism and his opinions are representative of the educated Hindus." [Ibid:348, emphasis ours]

Let us talk of Kashmir. Buddhism in Kashmir is very ancient and the Saiva Brahmins used the most ruthless methods to extirpate Buddhism.

1. Jalauka The first mention of the destruction of Buddhist shrines in Kashmir in Kalhana's Rajtarangini is in connection with Jalauka, who succeeded Ashoka (the Mauryan emperor) as the ruler of Kashmir. Jalauka's destruction of Buddhist shrines is mentioned in slokas 140 of the first Taranga (first book) of Kalhana's Rajtrangini. Kalhan tells the story of how Jalauka was put to a test by a Krtyadevi - a Buddhist sorceress, and then persuaded by her to repent and atone for his previous misdeeds of destroying Buddhist shrines and favouring the devotees of Shiva, by agreeing to build Buddhist viharas and chaityas, and repairing the ones already damaged by him (and so, we infer, follow the example set by his father, the Emperor Ashoka) (Page 25 in the R S Pandit translation published by Sahitya Akademi)


2. Abhimanyu I During the reign of Abimanyu I, Kalhana refers to conflicts between Buddhists and others. He says (in slokas 177-181 of the first Taranga) "During this era, the power of the Buddhists, whom the wise Bodhisattva Nagarjuna had protected predominated in the land. These disputants, who were opponents of the Vedas, having defeated all the learned men in open debate, had cut at the root of the religious rites prescribed in the Nilamatapurana. The country having drifted into confusion about the customary observances of the Nagas, whose sacrificial offerings had been cut off, caused loss of human life by heavy falls of snow. As heavy snow-falls occurred year after year, the king, during winter, resided for six months in Davabhisara and other places. During this period, due to some indescribable spiritual power, the Brahmans, who made votive offerings and sacrifices, were not destroyed, but the Buddhists perished." (R.S.Pandit translation, Book 1 Pgs. 29-30)

R. S. Pandit in his footnote to slokas 180-181, says "this (the snow storms that killed the Buddhists) is perhaps a poetical description of the persecution of Buddhists during this era"


3. Nara The second instance of the destruction of Buddhist shrines is mentioned in slokas 199 and 200 of the first Taranga, in the account of the reign of King Nara. Kalhana tells us about how a certain Buddhist monk had seduced the king's lover, and how, "enraged by this, he (King Nara) caused thousands of viharas to be burnt down and had their (the Buddhists) villages occupied by the Brahmans residing in Madhyama Matha." (Page 32 in the R S Pandit translation)



4. Mihirakula The third instance of the destruction of Buddhist shrines can be inferred in slokas 289 - 293 of the first Taranga, in the description of the terrible reign of the Ephthalite Hun King Mihirakula who ruled Kashmir. Here we enter the terrain of a strictly historical account of iconoclasm in Kashmir. Kalhana describes Mihirakula as a 'God of Destruction' and says 'his approach became known by the sights of vultures, crows and the like, eager to feed on those being massacred by his encircling army, to the population fleeing before him'. Kalhana, always mindful of being even handed, does mention that 'this foul minded man founded the temple of Mihiresvara', and that "when the country had lost religion, he had promulgated the observance of religious conduct by settling the people from the land of the Aryas...giving one thousand Agraharas in gift to the Brahmanas born in the Gandhara country at Vijayeswara' R S Pandit, in his footnote to sloka 289 of the first Taranga, gives us a brief account of Mihirakula, saying "Mihirakula, the king of the Ephtalite of White Huns, was the Indian Attila. The Huns carried out a terrible persecution of Buddhism, destroying Stupas and Viharas and massacring the monks...Although the Huns were hostile to Buddhism, they protected Savisim and their kings built temples in honour of Siva"

1. In the second act of the play, two dissident sadhus lament (in Prakrit, the language used for Buddhist and non Vedic characters in the play, and for women and lower caste characters) the fate of those who do not abide by the Vedas "because the king, shoulder to shoulder with his ‘rough’ (visama ) adviser, Jayanta, has ‘nabbed the mendicant Nılambaras, beat them to jelly, and expelled them from the kingdom, on the grounds that they were outside Vedic religion. And if any other mendicant is caught, who is outside Vedic religion, he’ll be beaten up, killed, thrown in jail, [or] slain. " 2. The beginning of the third act of the play has a royal herald decaliming - ye ’tranadijagatpravahapatita nanagamah sadhavas te tishthantu yathasthitah svasamayadisthas carantah kriyah ye tu prastutadharmaviplavakrtah papas tapopayinas te cedasu na yanti ghatayati ̄tan dasyun iva ksamapatih "Those virtuous people who have fallen into the beginningless stream of the world and belong to various religions—they should remain as they are, performing practices prescribed by their own religious discipline. Those criminal false ascetics, however, who devastate the established social and religious order—if they don’t leave immediately, the king will strike them like thieves. "

Remember, this is not a writer who seeks to belittle Sankaravarman, he is the King's contemporary, he actually approves of his patron's actions, he is describing events and processes he is involved in, and that occur in his lifetime. And the words that he puts in the mouths of his characters can be seen to be reasonably accurate reflections of his own opinions. We do not get closer than this when it comes to the historical record. If anything, this (taken together with the reading of Kalhana's Rajtarangini) conclusively demonstrates that Sankaravarman's reign was a time of violence and religious persecution aimed specifically at heterodox sects.

1. "During Abhimanyu's reign who succeeded Kanishka, Nagarjuna made converts to Buddhism and defeated the Brahmans in discussion and argument. Civil war soon followed and the Brahmans in alliance with a local tribe named Nagas inflicted death, disaster and other untold miseries upon the Buddhists..." (Kilam, 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits, Chapter 1- 'A Survey of Ancient Hindu Rule', Pgs 4 & 5)

2. "During the reign of Nara "thousands of monastries were burnt, and thousands of villages that supported those monastries were given over to the Brahmans." Brahmans having succeeded in establishing their supremacy set themselves in right earnest in strengthening themselves and their position. Many superstitious observances and practices were invented. Thought and culture were denied to everybody excepting themselves and the modern Hinduism in Kashmir began its growth. But this degraded the Brahmans themselves. During Mihirkula's reign many shameless practices are ascribed to them..." (Kilam, 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits, Chapter 1- 'A Survey of Ancient Hindu Rule', Page 5)


3. "During the reign of Raja-deva (1252-1273 A. D.) some Bhattas (Brahmans) who had helped in his investiture as king, having been insulted by him, conspired to install somebody from amongst Khashas on the throne of Kashmir. But their conspiracy did not long remain a secret and an orgy of destruction and plunder was let loose upon them. Some were killed and others suppressed with atrocious mercilessness, and to save themselves the cry was raised everywhere 'Na Batoham..' "I am not a Bhatta." This is the first onslaught recorded in history against the Brahmans of Kashmir..." (Kilam, 'A History of Kashmiri Pandits, Chapter 1- 'A Survey of Ancient Hindu Rule', Page 16)

[member_24042]

Why do Hindus blame ONLY Islamic invasions for Buddhist decimation? Look at Pakistan, there are still Hindus even by the Iranian border. Do you think the Muslims selectively persecuted Buddhists over Hindus? For them both were fair game and were kafirs. Even an 8 year old has enough sense to understand that in times of chaos like the Muslim invasions, and in a region as diverse as India, attributing the obliteration of Buddhism to Muslims alone is against common sense. Hindus in this thread are becoming very dishonest. I have posted abundant evidence already and I will post even more for each region as the thread goes. I am not new to this dishonesty of the Hindus as I have debated the same thing many times with them earlier as well. The only problem is that you are all ignoring each and every source that I put here. Anyway I am used to such intellectual dishonesty of the HIndus. The only reason why you can MAKE CLAIMS here is because the evidence is scattered,but it is too numerous for you to continue ignore it. My next post will be how King Bhudev of Uttaranchal killed off all the Bhikshus and took over their temples at the behest of the Brahmin Sankara.

This is what Ambedkar has to say:

TECHNIQUES IN CAUSING FALL OF BUDDHISM
Decline and fall of Buddhism

As Dr. Ambedkar has explained, the causes of fall and decline are different. Muslim invasion was the cause of fall of Buddhism, not only in India, but also all over the world. Before Islam, countries like Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkasthan, as well as whole of Asia were Buddhists. It had also spread to Europe and the Celts in Britain were Buddhists, according to Donald A. Mackenzie. [W&S, vol.3, p.230]

As The reasons why Buddhism was destroyed but Brahmanism survived the massacre by Muslims must be understood. There are three reasons enumerated by Ambedkar, (1) support of State to Brahmanism, (2) Buddhist Bhikkus, once perished had be created from scratch by rigorous training, while Brahmin priests are ready made by birth and (3) that Buddhist lay worshipers were driven to Islam by Brahmanic persecution. [W&S, vol.3, p.230]

Prof. Surendra Nath Sen very rightly observed, during the Indian History Congress held at Allahabad in 1938, that there were no satisfactory answers as yet to two problems concerning medieval history of India, one connected with origins of Rajputs and the other to the distribution of Muslim population in India. [W&S, vol.3, p.236]

The common belief that Islam followed the route of conquest forcing its faith over the subjugated people, Prof. Sen said, cannot explain Muslim conversion in eastern Bengal having no racial affinity with the conquerors, though it might explain conversions in western regions like Afganisthan and Punjab, which had some racial affinity since Kushana times. So the reasons are to be found elsewhere. That the reasons were persecution by Brahmins of the converted masses, who were predominantly Buddhists. Ambedkar thinks, Sen's following passage is very significant:
"It cannot be an accident that the Punjab, Kashmir, the district around Behar Sharif, North-East Bengal where Muslims now predominate, were all strong Buddhist centres in pre-Muslim days. It will not be fair to suggest that the Buddhists succumbed more easily to political temptations than the Hindus and change of religion was due to the prospects of the improvement of their political status." [W&S, vol.3, p.236]

That brings us to the real cause of the fall of Buddhism in India was persecution of the Buddhists, which went on for centuries causing gradual decline, and ultimately lead to its fall. Ambedkar gives examples of many kings persecuting Buddhists and concludes that the fall of Buddhism was due to the Buddhists becoming Muslims for escaping the tyranny of Brahmanism. "If it has been a disaster, it is a disaster for which Brahmanism must thank itself." [W&S, vol.3, p.238]

Also the person who posted a blog about Tirupati not being formerly a Buddhist temple needs to get reliable sources by trained historians and scholars of Indian history.

[member_24042]

BTW I notice you conveniently left out the fate of Bauddhas in South Korea.

Perhaps he can also enlighten us about the fate of the Buddhists in Southern Thailand?

TIME's cover story touches on the violence towards the Muslims by the Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Southern Thailand.

http://www.maungzarni.com/2013/06/times ... error.html

[Shanmukh]

Jalauka The first mention of the destruction of Buddhist shrines in Kashmir in Kalhana's Rajtarangini is in connection with Jalauka, who succeeded Ashoka (the Mauryan emperor) as the ruler of Kashmir. Jalauka's destruction of Buddhist shrines is mentioned in slokas 140 of the first Taranga (first book) of Kalhana's Rajtrangini. Kalhan tells the story of how Jalauka was put to a test by a Krtyadevi - a Buddhist sorceress, and then persuaded by her to repent and atone for his previous misdeeds of destroying Buddhist shrines and favouring the devotees of Shiva, by agreeing to build Buddhist viharas and chaityas, and repairing the ones already damaged by him (and so, we infer, follow the example set by his father, the Emperor Ashoka) (Page 25 in the R S Pandit translation published by Sahitya Akademi)

Dude - instead of posting the actual evidence, you keep scribbling rubbish, leaving us to find out what you actually mean. This is getting tiresome fast.

I have the actual Rajatarangini here in front of me, and this is what the actual stanzas say. I leave it to any scholar of Sanskrit to check my translation. In brackets are my comments

One day, when he (the king) was going to the temple of Vijayeshvara, he met a woman on the road who asked him for food. When he promised her her desired food, she changed herself into some strange form and asked for human flesh. Unwilling to kill a person to satisfy her cannibalistic appetite, he permilted her to take what meat she needed from his own body. This self sacrifice seemed to melt her heart, and she bowed to him and said that for his tender regard for the life of other men, she considered him a second Buddha. The king, being a follower of Shiva, did not know Buddha (so much for hating Buddhism), and asked her who Buddha was. She then exposed her mission and told him that on the other side of the hill, where the sun never shone, there lived a tribe, all followers of Buddha. This tribe was never angry even with those who did great harm to them, even forgave thorns that pierced their feet, and did good even unto them. They taught truth and wisdom to all, and were willing to dispel the darkness of ignorance that covered the earth. The king had injured this people, she averred. There existed a monastery belonging to the girl's tribe, in which the beating of drums once disturbed the king's sleep, and, urged by wicked men (interesting how wicked men always transform into Brahmins and Shaivites, no?), he had sent people to harm the monastery. The angry Buddhists had sent her to assassinate the king (Isn't this lovely? Especially coming from a bunch of loving Buddhists who forgive even thorns that prick their feet?) However, the High Priest of the Buddhists had intervened and told her that the Buddhists would not be able to cope up with the king, since he was very powerful (Quite the calculative creatures, these loving Buddhists, what? They have no compunctions in murdering a king, but are only worried about the repercussions of regicide). She proposes the compromise suggested by the Head Priest - that he build a monastery with his gold to atone for his sin, to which he readily agrees, and she goes away. He causes a monastery to be built at the very spot of their meeting.

2. Abhimanyu I During the reign of Abimanyu I, Kalhana refers to conflicts between Buddhists and others. He says (in slokas 177-181 of the first Taranga) "During this era, the power of the Buddhists, whom the wise Bodhisattva Nagarjuna had protected predominated in the land. These disputants, who were opponents of the Vedas, having defeated all the learned men in open debate, had cut at the root of the religious rites prescribed in the Nilamatapurana. The country having drifted into confusion about the customary observances of the Nagas, whose sacrificial offerings had been cut off, caused loss of human life by heavy falls of snow. As heavy snow-falls occurred year after year, the king, during winter, resided for six months in Davabhisara and other places. During this period, due to some indescribable spiritual power, the Brahmans, who made votive offerings and sacrifices, were not destroyed, but the Buddhists perished." (R.S.Pandit translation, Book 1 Pgs. 29-30)

R. S. Pandit in his footnote to slokas 180-181, says "this (the snow storms that killed the Buddhists) is perhaps a poetical description of the persecution of Buddhists during this era"

This is your evidence for persecution? We are asked to answer for the actions of a bunch of fictional demi-gods who `rolled down ice from the mountains' every winter, because their offerings had been cut off, and who were finally pacified when a Kashyapa descendant got Lord Shiva to appear before him and stop the Nagas? And Brahmins (note the word used in the verse is `Budhaha - which literally means `wise men', not `Brahmins') protected themselves using magic, which was denied the others? Are you in your sense or senses? I think we can safely consign this `persecution' into the realm of pious fiction.

[Shanmukh]

Perhaps he can also enlighten us about the fate of the Buddhists in Southern Thailand?

TIME's cover story touches on the violence towards the Muslims by the Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Southern Thailand.

http://www.maungzarni.com/2013/06/times ... error.html

This is your answer? Violence towards the Muslims? Not only are you a bigot, you are violent bigot. I hope for the sake of the Muslims, and whatever other religions you happen to loathe in your mind, your neighbours are watching you like hawks. It is fanatical nutcases like you that give religions bad names.

[member_24042]

This is your answer? Violence towards the Muslims? Not only are you a bigot, you are violent bigot. I hope for the sake of the Muslims, and whatever other religions you happen to loathe in your mind, your neighbours are watching you like hawks. It is fanatical nutcases like you that give religions bad names.

Lol I'm not condoning anything, but just saying that Buddhists are fighting back unlike weak Hindus who are too divided and localized to do anything. Let me ask you something btw. Do you condemn the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If not were not innocents murdered to death there?

[member_24042]

Jalauka The first mention of the destruction of Buddhist shrines in Kashmir in Kalhana's Rajtarangini is in connection with Jalauka, who succeeded Ashoka (the Mauryan emperor) as the ruler of Kashmir. Jalauka's destruction of Buddhist shrines is mentioned in slokas 140 of the first Taranga (first book) of Kalhana's Rajtrangini. Kalhan tells the story of how Jalauka was put to a test by a Krtyadevi - a Buddhist sorceress, and then persuaded by her to repent and atone for his previous misdeeds of destroying Buddhist shrines and favouring the devotees of Shiva, by agreeing to build Buddhist viharas and chaityas, and repairing the ones already damaged by him (and so, we infer, follow the example set by his father, the Emperor Ashoka) (Page 25 in the R S Pandit translation published by Sahitya Akademi)

Dude - instead of posting the actual evidence, you keep scribbling rubbish, leaving us to find out what you actually mean. This is getting tiresome fast.

I have the actual Rajatarangini here in front of me, and this is what the actual stanzas say. I leave it to any scholar of Sanskrit to check my translation. In brackets are my comments

One day, when he (the king) was going to the temple of Vijayeshvara, he met a woman on the road who asked him for food. When he promised her her desired food, she changed herself into some strange form and asked for human flesh. Unwilling to kill a person to satisfy her cannibalistic appetite, he permilted her to take what meat she needed from his own body. This self sacrifice seemed to melt her heart, and she bowed to him and said that for his tender regard for the life of other men, she considered him a second Buddha. The king, being a follower of Shiva, did not know Buddha (so much for hating Buddhism), and asked her who Buddha was. She then exposed her mission and told him that on the other side of the hill, where the sun never shone, there lived a tribe, all followers of Buddha. This tribe was never angry even with those who did great harm to them, even forgave thorns that pierced their feet, and did good even unto them. They taught truth and wisdom to all, and were willing to dispel the darkness of ignorance that covered the earth. The king had injured this people, she averred. There existed a monastery belonging to the girl's tribe, in which the beating of drums once disturbed the king's sleep, and, urged by wicked men (interesting how wicked men always transform into Brahmins and Shaivites, no?), he had sent people to harm the monastery. The angry Buddhists had sent her to assassinate the king (Isn't this lovely? Especially coming from a bunch of loving Buddhists who forgive even thorns that prick their feet?) However, the High Priest of the Buddhists had intervened and told her that the Buddhists would not be able to cope up with the king, since he was very powerful (Quite the calculative creatures, these loving Buddhists, what? They have no compunctions in murdering a king, but are only worried about the repercussions of regicide). She proposes the compromise suggested by the Head Priest - that he build a monastery with his gold to atone for his sin, to which he readily agrees, and she goes away. He causes a monastery to be built at the very spot of their meeting.

2. Abhimanyu I During the reign of Abimanyu I, Kalhana refers to conflicts between Buddhists and others. He says (in slokas 177-181 of the first Taranga) "During this era, the power of the Buddhists, whom the wise Bodhisattva Nagarjuna had protected predominated in the land. These disputants, who were opponents of the Vedas, having defeated all the learned men in open debate, had cut at the root of the religious rites prescribed in the Nilamatapurana. The country having drifted into confusion about the customary observances of the Nagas, whose sacrificial offerings had been cut off, caused loss of human life by heavy falls of snow. As heavy snow-falls occurred year after year, the king, during winter, resided for six months in Davabhisara and other places. During this period, due to some indescribable spiritual power, the Brahmans, who made votive offerings and sacrifices, were not destroyed, but the Buddhists perished." (R.S.Pandit translation, Book 1 Pgs. 29-30)

R. S. Pandit in his footnote to slokas 180-181, says "this (the snow storms that killed the Buddhists) is perhaps a poetical description of the persecution of Buddhists during this era"

This is your evidence for persecution? We are asked to answer for the actions of a bunch of fictional demi-gods who `rolled down ice from the mountains' every winter, because their offerings had been cut off, and who were finally pacified when a Kashyapa descendant got Lord Shiva to appear before him and stop the Nagas? And Brahmins (note the word used in the verse is `Budhaha - which literally means `wise men', not `Brahmins') protected themselves using magic, which was denied the others? Are you in your sense or senses? I think we can safely consign this `persecution' into the realm of pious fiction.

I noticed how you only cherry picked some episodes so you can give your opinion after all the massive evidence I have posted. Note that Pandit is a Hindu Brahmin, and an established historian. Are you trying to say you are that much more wiser than him and the other scholars I quoted? How about Ambedkar? You also are more knowledgeable than him?

[Atri]

I noticed how you only cherry picked some episodes so you can give your opinion after all the massive evidence I have posted. Note that Pandit is a Hindu Brahmin, and an established historian. Are you trying to say you are that much more wiser than him and the other scholars I quoted? How about Ambedkar? You also are more knowledgeable than him?

I have seen this idol-worship of Ambedkar amongst all ambedkaraite Buddhists. The "Bheema-Yaana" sect of Buddhism..

Who knows, may be Nagesh ji is wiser than Ambedkar.. He may be wiser than Krishna himself.. This is common argument put forth by Bheema-Yaana guys - the infallibility of Ambedkar - Exactly the statement you made - "Do you think you are wiser than Ambedkar".. This is not the way to discuss, Tony ji..

I appreciate your view and am sympathetic towards some of your views and your general direction of thought process. Such arguments brings the level of debate an inch below.

Nagesh ji has quoted Rajtarangini which is a primary source. The opinions of Ambedkar are "opinions" and not the primary source. Please rebutt his argument as it is.

I have written a post addressed to you earlier. I am following this discussion with great interest. Please make it more interesting..

[member_24042]

I noticed how you only cherry picked some episodes so you can give your opinion after all the massive evidence I have posted. Note that Pandit is a Hindu Brahmin, and an established historian. Are you trying to say you are that much more wiser than him and the other scholars I quoted? How about Ambedkar? You also are more knowledgeable than him?

I have seen this idol-worship of Ambedkar amongst all ambedkaraite Buddhists. The "Bheema-Yaana" sect of Buddhism..

Who knows, may be Nagesh ji is wiser than Ambedkar.. He may be wiser than Krishna himself.. This is common argument put forth by Bheema-Yaana guys - the infallibility of Ambedkar - Exactly the statement you made - "Do you think you are wiser than Ambedkar".. This is not the way to discuss, Tony ji..

I appreciate your view and am sympathetic towards some of your views and your general direction of thought process. Such arguments brings the level of debate an inch below.

Nagesh ji has quoted Rajtarangini which is a primary source. The opinions of Ambedkar are "opinions" and not the primary source. Please rebutt his argument as it is.

I have written a post addressed to you earlier. I am following this discussion with great interest. Please make it more interesting..

Firstly I do not follow Navyayana but Pure Land Buddhism though I am also interested in Theravadina and Ch'an.

Secondly Ambedkar was a trained scholar as was Pandit, don't you think its highly arrogant on nagesh ji's part to assume he is more knowledgeable than them?

Thirdly where were you when nageshji called me a violent bigot whose neighbors "need to watch out for" when i was merely giving a reply to his question that Thai Buddhists are not doing anything to oppose Islamic terror (is nageshji aware that the situation is like Kashmir, the Malays want to secede).

[member_24042]

I am from the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand, of which I have done a great deal of historical study, so I will begin with the state of Uttaranchal. According to history, Buddhism was already eliminated out from Uttarakhand even before a Muslim set foot there, and the credit goes to the infamous Brahmin called Shankaracharya, who is also credited with reviving Hinduism (and plagiarising from Buddhism).

Bhudev succeeded Lalitasura Dev as the eighth ruler in line to the throne in AD 955. He reigned until c. AD 970 . Despite the anti-Buddhist campaign of Shankaracharya and his followers, the Buddhism continued to survive in Uttarakhand until Bhu Dev came to power. He is known to have wiped out the extant evidences of Buddhism in his kingdom. The Bageshwar stone inscription records him as brahman-prayana and param buddha shramana rupa, i.e an ardent follower of the Brahmans and the enemy of the Buddhist Bhikshus.

"History of Uttaranchal", O.C. Handa (Pg. 31)

Atkinson is of the view that the form of Buddhism prevailing in this region was also suffering from the ailments that assailed Brahmanism at this period - a decadence associated with Tantric practices - and Shankaracharya, in his great reformist zeal, eliminated one and cleansed the other. In order to revive orthodox Hinduism in Kumaon and Nepal, Shankaracharya began by dispersing the Buddhist monks and nuns. He then established the worship of Siva at Kedarnath and Vishnu at Badrinath. In place of old Baudhmargi priests, who were disbanded came priests from Kerala who manage these two temples even today.

"Mountain of the Gods", Gulia (Pg. 149)

As I have visited both Badrinath and Kedarnath, I can confirm all the priests are Malyali and speak the language. So it was the Hindu fanatic Bhudev guided by Sankaracharya that wiped out Buddhism from Uttarakhand.

In neighboring Nepal, the Buddhists were also persecuted under the Hindu Rana rulers.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BH/bh117536.htm

[Agnimitra]

TonySoprano ji - I agree with Atri ji. I am reading the posts here with interest, but at times find myself cringing at the bellicose generalizations ("dishonest Hindus", etc.). Reason I say this is that BR Admins have a reputation of entering the scene and sending posters packing with one flying savate kick...and I don't wish to see it end like that. Please continue a civil and informative discussion.

[Agnimitra]

Were Buddhists Persecuted By Hindus?

An excerpt from “History Of Magadha” by L.L.S. Omalley; J.F.W. James (Veena Publication, Delhi, 2005, pp. 35: “ The Buddhism of Magadha was finally swept away by the Muhammadan invasion under Bakhtiyar Khilji, In 1197 the capital, Bihar, was seized by a small party of two hundred horsemen, who rushed the postern gate, and sacked the town. The slaughter of the “shaven-headed Brahmans,” as the Muslim chronicler calls the Buddhist monks, was so complete that when the victor searched for someone capable of explaining the contents of the monastic libraries, not a living man could be found who was able to do so. “It was discovered,” it was said, “that the whole fort and city was a place of study.” A similar fate befell the other Buddhist institutions, against which the combined intolerance and rapacity of the invaders was directed. The monasteries were sacked and the monks slain, many of the temples were ruthlessly destroyed or desecrated, and countless idols were broken and trodden under foot. Those monks who escaped the sword flied to Tibet, Nepal and southern India; and Buddhism as a popular religion in Bihar, its last abode in Northern India, was finally destroyed. Then forward Patna passed under Muhammadan rule.”

And what did the Hindus that were fighting the Muhammadan invaders do for Buddhism during the invasions? Here are some excerpts from Alexander Berzin’s “The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the Mongol Empire”:

- Although the Mithila rulers were Shaivite Hindus, they continued the Pala patronage of Buddhism and offered strong resistance against the Ghurids. They stopped, for example, an attempted drive to take Tibet in 1206.

- The Sena king (Hindu) installed defensive garrisons at Odantapuri and Vikramashila Monasteries, which were imposing walled citadels directly on the Ghurids’ line of advance.

- A Tibetan monk called Dharmaswamin visited Nalanda in 1235, nearly forty years after its sack, and found a small class still conducted in the ruins by a ninety-year old monk, Rahul Sribhadra. Weak and old, the teacher was kept fed and alive by a local Brahmin, Jayadeva. Warned of a roving band of 300 Turks, the class dispersed, with Dharmaswamin carrying his nonagenarian teacher on his back into hiding. Only the two of them came back, and after the last lesson (it was Sanskrit grammar) Rahul Sribhadra told his Tibetan student that he had taught him all he knew and in spite of his entreaties asked him to go home. Packing a raggedy bundle of surviving manuscripts under his robe, Dharmaswamin left the old monk sitting calmly amidst the ruins. And both he and the Dharma of Sakyamuni made their exit from India.

Dr.Ambedkar’s take on the topic:

“There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans,” writes the author. “Islam came out as the enemy of the ‘But’. The word ‘But,’ as everybody knows, is an Arabic word and means an idol. Not many people, however, know that the derivation of the word ‘But’ is the Arabic corruption of Buddha. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Moslem mind idol worship had come to be identified with the Religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia….”

Dr.Ambedkar also laments the nature of priesthood and the practices of the communities (Buddhism and Hinduism) that enabled Hinduism to survive, while, Buddhism was not so lucky, against the brutal assaults by Muhammadans. “Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India….” He continues elsewhere “…and the difference is so great that it contains the whole reason why Brahmanism survived the attack of Islam and why Buddhism did not.”

The lists of similar instances are available across the books that have been quoted above. But the biased historians of our land willfully follow an ostrich like approach and keep repeating the lie that Hindus uprooted Buddhism from India, violently. May truth prevail.

[member_24042]

TonySoprano ji - I agree with Atri ji. I am reading the posts here with interest, but at times find myself cringing at the bellicose generalizations ("dishonest Hindus", etc.). Reason I say this is that BR Admins have a reputation of entering the scene and sending posters packing with one flying savate kick...and I don't wish to see it end like that. Please continue a civil and informative discussion.

Sorry to all Hindus who were offended. It was not my intention. I myself come from a Hindu family, and bear no grudge against Hindus. I just want to set the historical record straight. If you see my other posts, I always stick up for Hindu interests. I am concerned as many Hindus are about the EJ's and rapid population explosion due to illegal migration from Bangladesh of Muslims.

[Agnimitra]

^^ Yes, I know that is not your intention.
I also have nothing against Buddhists, and may even join you in pointing out any dishonest arguments supporting casteism (varna-jati interpretation), as I did here: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1480081

[member_24042]

Were Buddhists Persecuted By Hindus?

An excerpt from “History Of Magadha” by L.L.S. Omalley; J.F.W. James (Veena Publication, Delhi, 2005, pp. 35: “ The Buddhism of Magadha was finally swept away by the Muhammadan invasion under Bakhtiyar Khilji, In 1197 the capital, Bihar, was seized by a small party of two hundred horsemen, who rushed the postern gate, and sacked the town. The slaughter of the “shaven-headed Brahmans,” as the Muslim chronicler calls the Buddhist monks, was so complete that when the victor searched for someone capable of explaining the contents of the monastic libraries, not a living man could be found who was able to do so. “It was discovered,” it was said, “that the whole fort and city was a place of study.” A similar fate befell the other Buddhist institutions, against which the combined intolerance and rapacity of the invaders was directed. The monasteries were sacked and the monks slain, many of the temples were ruthlessly destroyed or desecrated, and countless idols were broken and trodden under foot. Those monks who escaped the sword flied to Tibet, Nepal and southern India; and Buddhism as a popular religion in Bihar, its last abode in Northern India, was finally destroyed. Then forward Patna passed under Muhammadan rule.”

- A Tibetan monk called Dharmaswamin visited Nalanda in 1235, nearly forty years after its sack, and found a small class still conducted in the ruins by a ninety-year old monk, Rahul Sribhadra. Weak and old, the teacher was kept fed and alive by a local Brahmin, Jayadeva. Warned of a roving band of 300 Turks, the class dispersed, with Dharmaswamin carrying his nonagenarian teacher on his back into hiding. Only the two of them came back, and after the last lesson (it was Sanskrit grammar) Rahul Sribhadra told his Tibetan student that he had taught him all he knew and in spite of his entreaties asked him to go home. Packing a raggedy bundle of surviving manuscripts under his robe, Dharmaswamin left the old monk sitting calmly amidst the ruins. And both he and the Dharma of Sakyamuni made their exit from India.

Do you know also that Dharmaswamin said the Buddhists in Magadha had to put an idol of Shiva next to Buddha's idol? Why did they have to take this precaution if all is well regarding the Sena rulers attitude towards Buddhism. Sena rulers fortified the mahaviharas due to them being such formidable structures that served as excellent fortified points. If you take that reasoning, did the Delhi Sultanate "protect" the Hindus from the Mongols?!?

Regarding Ambedkar, of course Islam was the death blow to Buddhists. If it wasn't for the Muslims the Buddhists would be a microscopic minority like the Jains, but still existing. What we have to ask is how did they reach this pitiful state. This was the dharma that was India's most potent export. India was regarded as the center of civilization during Buddhism's heydey. Asoka, Gautamiputra Satakarni, Harshavardhan, Pala rulers (who invaded Afghanistan) were Buddhists and there were even Buddhists in the Hindu Gupta dynasty.

[member_24042]

I will now postpone giving more evidences of Hinduism's role in Buddhism's annhiliation but first let me quote a few Hindu texts that reveal just how much enmity existed between the two groups.

Kalki purana:

"In Kali-yuga, when there is a terrible and extensive rise of irreligion leading to an ever-increasing defilement of society, the demigods will take shelter of Lord Vishnu. Understanding the desires of the demigods, the Lord will perform the pastime of appearing in the previously described village of Sambhala and will accept Vishnu Yasa and his wife Sumati as His parents. He will appear on the 12th day of the waxing moon in the month of Vaisakha (April-May). Reaching adulthood, He will annihilate all the mlecchas of the dwelling place of Buddhists, as well as Kuthodevi, the wife of the Rakshasas of Kalkanja, and all other mlecchas. He will even destroy Kali and re-establish dharma. "

Sri Kalki-Avatara


"Having cleared the feminine obstruction Lord Kalki performed the terrible deed of getting rid of the Buddhist and Mleccha forces."

Kalki Purana - B.K. Chaturvedi - Google Books

Puranas were sensationalized accounts of actual historical events. For example they lament how Kali Yuga is approaching (which reflects India during the early middle ages with decline in centralized rule --mainly Buddhist--into decentralized feudalism that led to economic disaster and triumph of Brahmanism). This means that the persecution of Buddhists or Mlecchas that the Kalki purana talks about actually was based on fact. Kalki was basically a future avatar that will kill all the mleccha Buddhists when he takes birth.

It was a two way street. Enmity ran both ways. Here is a Tibetan painting of the buffalo headed god Yamantaka trampling upon Hindu gods such as Brahma and Vishnu. This can also be seen how the Hindu god Yamaraja is riding a buffalo to signify Brahmanism's triumph over mleccha Buddhists.



"Their animosity may be further illustrated by the following features of the sadhanas. The four Hindu gods Brahma, Visnu, Siva and Indra have been designated uniformly as the four Maras or wicked beings, and several Buddhist gods have been described as trampling them under their feet".

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=DbxE ... ds&f=false

Some Vaishnava schools considered Buddha as avatar of Vishnu who was misguiding the Asuras and rakshasas away from the Vedas. This means Buddhists were considered demons.

The Hindu rulers at the behest of the Brahmin elite also viciously persecuted the Jains also. I have remarked about the Tamil Saivas massacring Jainas and recording with glee on the Meenaksi temple.

Early evidence of Brāhmanical
hostility towards Jainism, for example, comes from its canonical
text, the Ayarangasuttam, according to which monks hid themselves
in the day and travelled by night lest they be suspected of being
spies.156


156 Āyāranagasuttam, tr. H. Jacobi, SBE, XXII, II.3.1.10, cited by A.K.
Narain, “Religious Policy and Toleration in Ancient India with Particular
Reference to the Gupta Period”, in Bardwell L. Smith, ed., Essays on Gupta
Culture, Delhi, 1983, p.22.

Similarly,Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, the sixteenth-century Bengali commentator
on the Bhagvadgītā, holding that the teachings of materialists,Buddhists and others are like those of the mlecchas, excludes them
from his consideration.
Jha, Hindu Identiy, pg. 32

See how virulent the hatred is to the mlecchas? Even after several centuries of Buddhism's extermination from Bengal?

The attitude of the orthodox philosophers found an echo in the
Purānic texts as well. The Saurapurāa, for example, says that the
Cārvākas, Buddhists and Jains should not be allowed to settle in a
kingdom.166 Similarly, the early medieval literary texts provide
highly pejorative portrayals of the Buddhists and the Jains. The
Mattavilāsa Prahsana, a farce written by the Pallava ruler Mahen-
dravarman (seventh century), depicts Buddhists as morally
depraved, dishonest and the scum of the earth; a corrupt Buddhist
monk is made to ask “...why did [the Buddha] not think of
sanctioning the possession of women and the drinking of surā
(kinnukhalu strīparigraha surāpānavidhānam ca na d am)?”167
The Prabodhacandrodaya, a drama written by K a Miśra (eleventh
century), describes both Buddhism and Jainism as tāmasika (arising
out of darkness), depicts a Buddhist monk as indulging in worldly
pleasures168 and a Jain monk as naked, devoid of manliness
(nivīrya), the hair of his head plucked out and carrying a peacock
feather in his hand.169


166 Saurapurā a, 64.44; 38.54.
167 Mattavilāsa Prahasana of Mahendravikramavarman, ed. and tr. N.P.
Uni, Trivandrum, 1973, p.49. Cf. Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, “The Origin of
Heresy in Hindu Mythology”, p.276.
168 Prabodhacandrodaya of K a Miśra, ed. and tr. Sita Nambiar, Delhi,
1998, Act III, verse 9.
169 Ibid., pp.44–45.

In Uttar Pradesh, we are told, forty-seven
deserted sites of fortified towns in Sultanpur district are the ruins of
Buddhist cities which were destroyed by fire when Brāhmanism
won its final victory over Buddhism.182 Some inscriptions from
northern India, as well as Purānic passages, also provide evidence of
the persecution of Buddhists.



"An interesting example of antagonism towards
Buddhists comes from south India. The Vaishnava poet-saint
Tirumankai, according to a thirteenth-century Ālvār text, stole a
large gold image of the Buddha from a stūpa at Nagapattinam and
had it melted down for reuse in the temple which he was commis-
sioned by the god Vishnu himself to build.184"

184 Richard H. Davis, Lives of Indian Images, first Indian edition, Delhi,
1999, p.83.

[Agnimitra]

Do you know also that Dharmaswamin said the Buddhists in Magadha had to put an idol of Shiva next to Buddha's idol? Why did they have to take this precaution if all is well regarding the Sena rulers attitude towards Buddhism. Sena rulers fortified the mahaviharas due to them being such formidable structures that served as excellent fortified points. If you take that reasoning, did the Delhi Sultanate "protect" the Hindus from the Mongols?!?

Which temple or Hindu/Buddhist university did the Delhi sultanate fortify and patronize? Especially in ratio to their destructive acts on Hindu/Buddhist educational networks and institutions... I think that comparison is a rhetorical stretch. The ratio of helpful versus harmful acts is the real barometer of administrative principles. Not merely anecdotal incidents of help or harm without big-picture context.

Here is my speculation regarding the reason the Senas may have asked the Buddhists to also put a Shaiva image next to the Buddhist icon. It reminds me of a contemporary anecdote: Visiting Odisha, I saw that a hospital run by Christian missionary nuns also had displayed a image of Vivekananda with a quote to the effect that all religions are paths to God. Clearly, that was put up not because of their deep conviction or respect for Vivekananda, but because they wanted to be no the good side of the Hindutva forces in an area that was practically at civil war between the Hindutva and the Maoist/Christian forces. Now why did the Hindutva forces want them to display that? Clearly, because these missionaries have a very prominent exclusivist dogma, plus a hammering, provocative, anti-Hindu rhetoric that they have made their bread and butter. Perhaps the organized Bauddha church also made the subversion of all pre-existing traditions a main focus of their 'good work', and may have also turned the figure of the Buddha into an exclusive mercy for mankind. In order to 'contain' this sort of meme, which can easily metastasize, the Sena administrators may have required a demonstration of ecumenical pluralism on their part in return for protection and patronage. Personally, as a philosophical and social measure, I think it is OK and even desirable to have contrarian and challenging voices like the Bauddha orientation...but for administrative purposes they must have to demonstrate that ecumenical decorum.

Regarding Ambedkar, of course Islam was the death blow to Buddhists. If it wasn't for the Muslims the Buddhists would be a microscopic minority like the Jains, but still existing.

No, again I think your comparison is a stretch, IMHO. Without the blows of Islamist invasion, Bauddha tradition could have been as significant as, say, Islam is in India (or even the subcontinent) today. Even if the actual Bauddha "tradition" was smaller, the Bauddha as a philosophical/cultural "orientation" would have been quite large, as is the "Leftist"/"Progressive" type section in modern India. I think this is a more realistic estimate.

[member_24042]

Now why did the Hindutva forces want them to display that? Clearly, because these missionaries have a very prominent exclusivist dogma, plus a hammering, provocative, anti-Hindu rhetoric that they have made their bread and butter. Perhaps the organized Bauddha church also made the subversion of all pre-existing traditions a main focus of their 'good work', and may have also turned the figure of the Buddha into an exclusive mercy for mankind. In order to 'contain' this sort of meme, which can easily metastasize, the Sena administrators may have required a demonstration of ecumenical pluralism on their part in return for protection and patronage

After all these mental gymnastics, you conclude that Buddhists were an exclusivist creed like the Christians? Are you serious? In Theravada, there are many previous Buddha. In Mahayana and Vajrayana, there are a multitude of different Buddhas that have existed and are yet to be incarnate, Shakyamuni Buddha is not the last Buddha (unlike last prophet of Islam). The very exclusivism of Xtianity is that "Christ is the savior and only path to heaven", which is totally against anything what Buddhism preaches.

[devesh]

the rise and fall of Buddhism coincides precisely with the rise and ultimate fall of North Indian Empires.

it was the imperial ambitions of the Maurya era which fueled the rise of Buddhism from an obscure sect into a nationwide following.

the destruction of Indo-Gangetic plains-based empires by Islam was ultimately the death-blow.

Shankara began the intellectual unraveling of Bauddha-mata's attraction for common civilians.

but the imperial needs still held onto Bauddha-vada simply b/c it served a useful tool in pan-subcontinental ventures, especially those leading to the far-West.

what is perhaps very true is that: Bauddha-mata as a way of life for the commoners was long dead by the time Islam finally obliterated the remnant intellectual/urban class that clung onto it.

how did Eastern Andhra first become totally Buddhist? and then equally stunningly, completely abandoned it and "returned" to Sanatana-Dharma? even among the avid "brahminism"-hating crowd of Andhra, nobody has ever argued that "brahmins" or "brahminists" persecuted Bauddha-vadins in Andhra. the spectacular rise, and equally stunning reversal of Bauddha-vada in Andhra region is peculiar. we don't have enough records to tie the rise and fall to exact dates. it probably would have yielded significant connections between the imperial ebbs-and-flows and similar movements within the socio-cultural fabric of the nation.

[brihaspati]

TonySoprano ji,

The common belief that Islam followed the route of conquest forcing its faith over the subjugated people, Prof. Sen said, cannot explain Muslim conversion in eastern Bengal having no racial affinity with the conquerors, though it might explain conversions in western regions like Afganisthan and Punjab, which had some racial affinity since Kushana times. So the reasons are to be found elsewhere. That the reasons were persecution by Brahmins of the converted masses, who were predominantly Buddhists. Ambedkar thinks, Sen's following passage is very significant:

A very strange and actually false logic : "race" itself is vague and undefined concept. The "racial affinity" stuff was a fallout of the orientalist historiography within which Babasaheb and Vivekananda - both roamed. More modern assessments based on genetics - shows little contiguity "racially" with Arabs or "Persians". The current big Muslim landlords of Sindh are even narrative source wise traceable to Buddhist Rai regime or the brief "brahmin" regime period landlords. "racially" - in genetic terms - little distinguishes the "western" end from the "eastern" end.

The jump from absence of reason to speculation is guided by prejudices and no firm evidence, and a large measure of orientalist logic. Which is manifest in the next passage:

"It cannot be an accident that the Punjab, Kashmir, the district around Behar Sharif, North-East Bengal where Muslims now predominate, were all strong Buddhist centres in pre-Muslim days. It will not be fair to suggest that the Buddhists succumbed more easily to political temptations than the Hindus and change of religion was due to the prospects of the improvement of their political status." [W&S, vol.3, p.236]

But neither Sen nor Babasaheb actually gives any concrete evidence as to why this could not be "fair". That Buddhists often sided with a willing emperor to spread their sangha with imperial patronage is evidenced right from the beginning of Buddhist lore. One of the earliest extant - and "scholarly opinion favoured authentic" Sinhala Pali Canon's indicate clearly the trajectory of Buddhist proselytization preferring the route of first the "conquest" of the ruling king/emperor, and then using that patronage to extend sway over indigenous or pre-existing popular religions. Since royal patronage would be seen as imposing a foreign/external import using local taxes - both competitive resistance from pre-existing religions as well as people's resentment at use of their taxes to pay for elaborate viharas and monk's maintenance - is likely. Buddha himself took the route of getting Bimbisara and the powers of an expanding and ambitious Magadha to spread his views. Kushana Kanishka was used by the likes of Nagarjuna to try and impose his version of buddhism on the pre-existing Naga-Shaiva cultuer of Kashmir. Since you are so much aware of "persecutions" only on Buddhists - you must also be aware of persecution by Buddhist-affiliates on non-buddhists - especially since you are aware so much of Kashmir history!

Buddhist sangha had from its beginnings shown an obvious proximity to court politics and the other aspect rarely mentioned - a firm connection with finance capital and mercantile networks. Look at archeological evidence of minting of money within viharas, and coin hoards. Wherever there is connection to mercantile capital, long-distance foreign trade, banking facilities within the walls of the monastery, there are well-known historical precedences of corruption and popular anger against the "church".

Chachnama - itself indicates the lavish lifestyle of "samanis" [sramans who explicitly indicate that they are Buddhists an dnot the other "samani" of central Asia] in the urban centres, who are engaged as merchants trading with the western reaches of the Gulf. If we follow chachnama - it is clear that the Buddhist elite of Nirun went secretly to the Caliphate and secretly offered money/tribute even while under another state formally. That they were not the "masses" is shown by them being refused in their efforts to persuade another town's "masses" to become collaborators of the invader. If Muslims are not lying when they supposedly refer to "Hindu" hatred of "buddhists" - then they are surely not also lying about the Buddhist elite of Sindh - and that here is evidence of how quickly the urban, mercantile - and pretending-sanctity Buddhist elite switched sides for political prospects.

There is another thing : the orientalist penchant for assuming that every rhetorical cursing against an ideological opponent in a narrative text, is indicative of actual bloodshed. This comes from the European conditioning in terms of Abrahamic religions, where a verbal opposition or critique is to be translated into actual physical violence or liquidation.

Before we jump into such conclusions - let us think about the basis for speculation by "scholars". There is nothing in their hands to actually link actual physical violence or persecution to the vituperations in "debates" noted in texts in pre-Islamic periods, often written down obviously after the actual debate has taken place or an imagined debate, more written down as a rhetorical propaganda. So they carry forward the Biblical experience and graft it to the pre-Islamic Indian context too.

[brihaspati]

Secondly Ambedkar was a trained scholar as was Pandit, don't you think its highly arrogant on nagesh ji's part to assume he is more knowledgeable than them?

Thirdly where were you when nageshji called me a violent bigot whose neighbors "need to watch out for" when i was merely giving a reply to his question that Thai Buddhists are not doing anything to oppose Islamic terror (is nageshji aware that the situation is like Kashmir, the Malays want to secede).

I don't understand why you are placing such a high regard on their "scholarship" as being sufficient to push through their opinions or speculations - simply based on formal educational authority. They were talking and writing about history, which is largely based on interpretations of scant pieces of information. This is why historical narratives get repeatedly analyzed and seen in new lights - because, the analyzing mind itself evolves societally over time.

Both had their biases - for example Ambedkar never mentions buddhist inspired violence - apparently claimed in the texts. Pandit - I think, was a relative of JLN [BIL?] and his translation was forewarded by JLN himself. Something that JLN approves - again if I follow your line of claiming historical authenticity of someone's opinion by the opinion-holder's educational qualifications, is likely to be trash historically. So, no I don't think all of Pandit's translation is erroneous - but his conclusions or interpretations could be guided by the peculiar orientalist-pro-Budhhist milieu that his circle moved around.