Bharat Rakshak

I have grave doubts about the Rao speculation on Puri-jagannath idol. Don't know where he got this peculation off! The onlee tenuous argument that I have heard from a "professional" historian is that the "whole" area was once under "Buddhism", and hence the site must have been originally a "Buddhist site" which Brahminical's took over. The use of wooden or log idols - is indicative of a period much older than Buddhism, and the origins myth itself indicate a possible old tribal totemic foundation of older Vedic/pre-Vedic phases.

If "once it was all under" argument is claimed - then if we at least agree that Mahabharata appeared before Buddhism - then, the whole area was very "Vedic", with Krishna's son Shamba being sent to the zone to cure his curse-related leprosy problem. So by this sort of argument, it must have been a Vedic site which the Buddhists took over - especially after Asoka had his conscience problems and built on a spree to atone for bloodshed.

TonySoprano wrote: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)

I think you do have a problem with words : even if Handa is doing this, surely you being a local and so much knowledgeable about Buddhism [therefore bits and pieces of Sanskrit and Pali at the least] should see that "param buddha shramana rupa" means "in the image of/likeness of param buddha shramana". It does in no way translates as "enemy of". Possibly an inscription that shows syncretic tendency and tolerance or diplomatic winning over rather than aggressive enmity.

Before we know what they really did - is it fair to add on such adjectives as "infamous" or "Hindu fanatic Bhudev"?!!!

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.

Again Atkinson speculates. That whole order of "scholars" always let slip their moralistic and Biblical undercurrents in analysis that might not actually fit the context of their prejudices. Tantrik practices are assumed to be "decadent", and tantra of that period is assumed to have been a copy of what the puritan Victorians saw in India as claimed to be "Tantrik" when they arrived. We simply do not know what was the nature of the "degradation" or if it was a degradation at all. Whether the practices became unsatisfactory - or climatic conditions worsened and the important social role of religion as protector of common people's lives was seen as failing [an indication in "snowfall in Kashmir"], we have little actual concrete evidence. Maybe Buddhism was already failing to attract new enthusiasts and with weakening of central patronage - monk recruitment on knowledge of at least food security - was lagging. Maybe Sankara or Bhudev simply reclaimed original Vedic sites that Buddhists had taken over but now had abandoned, or much weakened as communities. Maybe - following the modern "professional historian" method - Sankara brought along in his train a new reworking of old trade routes to the heartland of India, re-establishment of pilgrimage and therefore developmentof the local economy - and that was the key to his success [in being accepted]. This can go on and on.

Speculation so far has tended to run along certain channels - and without any firm logic behind it. We can speculate in other directions too.

The other thing to note - is something I noted and wrote about in a publication, while I was still a student : the Buddhist literature always appears to show a ruler/king/emperor is the most "cruel/horrid/repressive" phase in earlier part of life/career when he had not allied with the sangha, or professed a non-buddhist religion. But the same ruler is shown as diametrically opposite, "kind/patronizing/liberal" after touched by a Buddhist miracle and deciding to become a Buddhist. The "chanda->dharma" meme is so persistent and repetitive in Buddhist allegory, that it becomes a device of religious propaganda. A motif.

In the process, it might have led to extreme exaggeration - and deviation from historical reality. We have no way of confirming in the absence of parallel histories.

In that speculative order, since we do have evidence from Taranath and others - of Buddhist iconoclasm, is it possible that the singular lack of older non-Buddhist texts and non-Buddhist artefacts of a religious nature from before the post Buddhist phase of middle 400's-500's - are archeologically practically absent, because early Buddhists systematically destroyed them?

I will wait for TonySoprano ji's response if he thinks - such iconoclasm and destruction or removal of texts from public access was not undertaken by Buddhists as per their own narrative claims.

TonySoprano wrote:

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.

Well - yes and no. Gautama/Sakyamuni is not claimed to be the last - and there is of course Maitreya. Who was supposed to arrive in 5000 years from maha-parinirvana, but this might be halved if "women" act too "liberated". But how is multiple manifestations [the Buddhist idea of transmigration of soul is slightly different from the Upanishadic one, and there are other differences which makes it difficult to see why Advaitins are claimed to have been plagiarizers of Buddhism !] of the same "soul-principle" proof of non-exlcusivism?

Taranath cites the case of Sindhi Buddhist activists setting fire on Buddhist idols in Pataliputra. If one sect could not tolerate another sects interpretations - and there is no acceptance or respectful mention of non-Buddhist deities/divinities/principles in Buddhist literature - there is no pluralism.

TonySoprano wrote: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.""

This is a claim for which you have adduced no primary evidence. I am afraid I don't have every book you quote. Maybe, if you have the books actually, you could quote the relevant PRIMARY evidence, so we can have an informed discussion?
.

"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".

Considering that `enemy of the people' is a classic Marxist phrase, I am very skeptical about the translation. Can you post the actual Sanskrit sentence said by Shankara in his Brahmasutrabhashya? Without the actual original sentence, I cannot wade through 1000 pages of Shankarabhashya for a sentence that MAY resemble what you (or your heroes) have just translated it into?

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)

First a word about the scholar you keep harping on. R S Pandit (the husband of Vijayalakshmi Pandit) is a Marxist, who has a natural interest in using everything to make Hindus look bad. He and Kosambi were the originators of the Marxist history tradition in India. I don't put a penny worth of credence on his translation, so I am doing my own translations. As I happen to be a native speaker of Sanskrit, I am reasonably qualified to make my own translations.

Now to the verses.
The translation you have given is wholly misleading. First, the actual verses say that the Buddhist monk seduced the king's queen by magic (such a sterling character, this Buddhist monk, what?). Secondly, he says that the king destroyed several viharas and took away their agraharas, but nowhere does it say that the deed was done at the behest of the Brahmins or that they had any part to play in any of the king's rage - his wife was stolen by the Buddhist monk and he went after them all. It also says that the king used the money taken from the viharas in enriching his city. And finally, I cannot see any Brahmins of the Madhyama Matha anywhere who were rewarded. Where did they come from?

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"

Dude - the actual translation runs like this. As usual, my comments are in brackets.

Then, his (Toramana's) son Mihirakula, perpetrating violent deeds, was terrible as Death and ruled in the northern lands of the barbarians (Mlecchas). In him, there exists a northern God of Death as terrible as the one in the south (this is a reference to Yama, who is said to rule the south). His approach was heralded to the people by the vultures, crows and other birds of prey, who were eager to feast on those his army slew. This royal Devil is surrounded, night and day, by thousands of killed people, even in his inner apartments. This terrible enemy of humans is without pity for women or children, nor possesses any reverence for the aged. This is what the verses say.

There is zero reference to his persecution of the Buddhists in Rajatarangini. Zilch. I went through every stanza that has anything to with Mihirakula, but I found nothing at all to say that he targeted Buddhists specifically in any way. No mention of vihara, stupa, or any prominent (or non prominent even) Buddhist being killed. There is nothing in Rajatarangini to say that he destroyed Buddhist holy places or killed Buddhists specifically.

On the other hand, it does mention that he awarded his Brahmin followers from Gandhara with one thousand agraharas. Kalhana, himself a Brahmin, looks down on them. He says `These Brahmins (of Gandhara), who resemble him (Mihirakula) in their habits, and are the lowliest of the twice born, shamelessly accepted agraharas from him (Mihirakula).' It also mentions that he raised a temple Mihireshwara (named after himself - note the megalomania) and a town named Mihirapura. From the reading, it seems to me that he despoiled Kashmir and enriched his followers, and indulged his own megalomania, at the expense of Kashmir. There is no mention of anything having to do with Buddhists at all, in connexion with Mihirakula.

The whole episode seems to be either a figment of the author's fancy, or is a reference to the episode reported by Xuen Xang. Take a look at page 457-458 of the book `Hindu Temples of India - what happened to them' by Sita Ram Goel (a historian, since you seem to have a great reverence for authority). He has refuted Romila Thapar (who raised the same canard) far more effectively than I can.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10120488/Hind ... a-Ram-Goel

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. "

Dude - which play? Can you be more specific so I can actually go through the text? And in any case, since when did fictional plays become evidence of persecution?

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.

I went through what Kalhana has to say about Shankaravarman. This is what I found in Rajatarangini. The translation runs thus.

This king, of low character, had his people carry off whatever was of any value in Parihasapura, to increase the fame of his own city.

Note, again, no mention of any persecution of Buddhists. The question to ask, then, is - did Parihasapura contain only Buddhist structures? Parihasapura, the name, derives from Parihasakeshava (a reference to Lord Vishnu). I did a quick search of Parihasapura - unfortunately, too many verses refer to this city. From a quick reading, I was able to find only the Brihadbuddha of the Buddhist structures (there may certainly have been others, and may be even found in the Rajatarangini, but I was able to find only this in a quick search). On the other hand, I found several references to temples to Vishnu (in various forms), and also a temple to Saraswati. Kalhana has a lot of fondness for this city and compares it to Amaravati (the city of the Gods). Again, given Kalhana's fondness for this city, I am inclined to believe that he would have mentioned any specific destruction by Shankaravarman. He does not mention any destruction of Parihasapura in the context of Shankaravarman. He only says that Shankaravarman stole everything of worth (does not say only Buddhist) from Parihasapura.

There are other references to Shankaravarman, that he looted the treasures of the temples (not just Buddhist viharas) and had officers who would appropriate the wealth of the holy. There are simply no references anywhere, direct or indirect, to the destruction of Buddhist structures or persecution of the Buddhists, or any religious bigotry. The picture one gets from Kalhana is that this Shankaravarman simply appropriated all the wealth of the holy places and despoiled temples of their treasure without any bias. No persecution, no religious motive, nor even any specific religious inclincation. Just plain greed gone wild in a king.

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)

I already dealt with this episode before by translating Kalhana. This is the episode of nagas rolling ice down the mountains and then being pacified by a descendant of Kashyapa, who made Lord Shiva appear before him and pacify the nagas. The whole `Nagas are a tribe, and they, in alliance with Brahmins, attacked Buddhists' is an imaginary construct of Marxist professors, who not finding evidence of Hindu iconoclasm of Buddhist structures, have been reduced to such depths of shamelessness and imaginary constructs.

TonySoprano wrote:

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?

Uhh - yes - well, we weak Hindus have been keeping our country and have fought off umpteen invaders and will fight off anyone else that dare to come. And we, in our magnanimity, have even often offered refuge to the weaker Buddhists of Tibet, who could not keep their country. Maybe you, the strong Buddhist, can show us weak Hindus how Tibet - the home of Vajrayana Buddhism - can be restored?

Atri wrote:

TonySoprano wrote: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..

Atri-ji, you shame me. I make no pretences towards any wisdom, great or small. I only have a bit of knowledge of Sanskrit, because it is my mother tongue.

TonySoprano wrote: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.

I'm sure you're aware that several Buddhist schools have borrowed wholesale and customized ideas and practices from pre-existing Shaiva and Vaishnava cults and their tantras. So then, why should they feel bad about honoring an image of Shiva? It is rank sectarianism, politics, priestcraft, and nothing else. I think all of that can have its legitimate place, but it is the duty of an administrator to enforce ecumenical decorum.

My friend, Buddhism is exclusivist in a different way - but exclusivist it is - especially when combined with a prominent anti-Other polemic, in this case the 'Other' being all pre-existing Hindu traditions. Brahminical cults can also be exclusivist, be it Shaiva, Vaishnava, Advaitist, etc. They all have their favourite ideological fetish, favourite enemy, etc. In that vein, I'm sure you're aware that Theravadins can't stand Mahayana schools and the contempt is mutual - another sign of sectarian politics and competition for mindshare.

Over several years i have pointed that differentiating Hindu/ Buddhist etc in terms of political/ military/ strategic reactions is a self defeating argument. The religious climate in India was not completely sampradayic ever. Apart from those that chose specific sampradaya's the largest number of people never belonged to any specific one. They were fluidic and would consider Buddha as much an avatar as they would Ram or Krishna. Many would not follow even that and just went about their ways. It were outsiders who called a whole bunch of people Hindu's, then took the trouble of saying every one not a Xtian/ Muslim is a Hindu. The reasons for the present state of differentiation is neti neti assumption that smaller groups started identifying with. The Sikhs went first, then Buddhists, then Jains. The Hare Krishna and Vaishnavite groups are next to disassociate with the larger Hindu identity. The Sampradayic solidification of people around differentiated identities is what caused polarization. This is something similar to the polarization of Jati or Varna that codification and attribution causes. We should always have remained Dharmic first and Sampradayically loyal next. We did not. We fell prey to excluvist categorization and many times at our own behest.

nageshks wrote:Atri-ji, you shame me. I make no pretences towards any wisdom, great or small. I only have a bit of knowledge of Sanskrit, because it is my mother tongue.

You miss the point, Nagesh ji.. Internet provides anonymity. One does not know who is writing stuff. Hence it is always wise to respond to arguments and not speculate about the intellectual prowess of debator outside the scope of argument. It is fine to say one is stupid because one says x, y and z and since saying x, y,z is stupid due to the reasons a,b,c, hence person saying x.y.z is stupid.

It is unfair to judge whether person is intelligent of wise than some other person. Just as calling someone bigot. Now, I am not an admin hence I was imploring Tony to answer arguments only and not speculate about your's or anybody else's intelligence. idol-worship takes one nowhere. Hence Gautama said , "Aatma deepo bhava" (become your own light).

Atri wrote: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.

please let me know your thoughts on this post of mine, Tony ji..

devesh wrote: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.

Actually Maurya empire was very much designed by Chanakya and was running on arthashastriya tenets. Even after ashoka's adoption of buddhism. The rebellion at ujjain was ruthlessly quelled by the "pacifist" ashoka with same fervor as he had quelled the rebellion of takshila in his early "chanda-Ashoka" days..

Actually, most of the Mauryan expansion happened in the reign of CG and Bindusara. The great master himself oversaw the pan-subcontinental expansion. Kalinga was humbled by Bindusara in his deccan conquest, although not annexed. None of the Indic kings sought to "annex" kingdoms. All the vast empires like maurya, gupta, pratihara, rashtrakuta, paala, sunga and very recently marathas remained federations. So the Arthashastriya centralization has to be taken with pinch of salt.

The polity of Mauryas (at least in first three emperors) remained arthashastriya. Now, I refuse to call Arthashastra based maurya empire as vedic empire - because Moksha preference of the king has nothing to do with Dharma and artha of nation. At the most what his adhyatmik preferences affect (or should affect) is the daana-pattern. Ashoka showed more inclination towards donations to sangha, but he continued donating money to aastika sects. Same goes with Aastika Guptas who continued donating sangha.

So, it is folly to see our empires and previous incarnations of India as vedik or buddhist. In India, dharma-artha-kaama-moksha is inherently separate (connected yes but in the core) and run in parallel. It is mischief of English to note that maurya was a buddhist empire and gupta was brahminical vedic empire. it is deracination. Our system and our people do not look at things this way.

Maurya and gupta were kings coronated as per indra-abhisheka rituals and were performing their Dharmaarthika rajdharma. The moksha preference of individual king does not really matter. Jaina CG had ajivika bindusara who had budhhist ashoka who's grandson was, I guess vedic and his son was buddhist again. same goes with guptas and Sungas.

So, it is folly to see our empires and previous incarnations of India as vedik or buddhist. In India, dharma-artha-kaama-moksha is inherently separate (connected yes but in the core) and run in parallel. It is mischief of English to note that maurya was a buddhist empire and gupta was brahminical vedic empire. it is deracination. Our system and our people do not look at things this way.

Very true Atri Ji, i have tried looking through this prism for long. Buddhism is a Moksha Marg that has a sampradayic following. THere have been thousands of Saints/ Rishi's/ Muni's who have tread the path of Moksha, attained enlightenment. Some went onto promote Sampradaya's, some remained in the forests and mountains. In the BG itself several paths to moksha have been elucidated, yet Arjuna was told to do his Arthic Dharma as a warrior too. Arjuna can't just walk off to a forest seeking Moksha when he is a General in the midst of the start of Battle. Krishna sort of chides him and goads him to complete his Arthic Dharma as a warrior.

Atri wrote:

nageshks wrote:Atri-ji, you shame me. I make no pretences towards any wisdom, great or small. I only have a bit of knowledge of Sanskrit, because it is my mother tongue.

You miss the point, Nagesh ji.. Internet provides anonymity. One does not know who is writing stuff. Hence it is always wise to respond to arguments and not speculate about the intellectual prowess of debator outside the scope of argument. It is fine to say one is stupid because one says x, y and z and since saying x, y,z is stupid due to the reasons a,b,c, hence person saying x.y.z is stupid.

It is unfair to judge whether person is intelligent of wise than some other person. Just as calling someone bigot. Now, I am not an admin hence I was imploring Tony to answer arguments only and not speculate about your's or anybody else's intelligence. idol-worship takes one nowhere. Hence Gautama said , "Aatma deepo bhava" (become your own light).

You are absolutely right, Atri-ji, and I am sorry about it. I guess I was more than a touch irritated to see a link to an article which discusses Buddhists using gratuitous violence towards Muslims, and Tony-ji suggesting it as an answer about what can be done with regard to Islamic violence. I am not in favour of anyone descending to vigilantism. In fact, it is this vigilantism that allows Islamists to get away unrebuked for their behaviour.

Atri wrote:

devesh wrote: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.

Actually Maurya empire was very much designed by Chanakya and was running on arthashastriya tenets. Even after ashoka's adoption of buddhism. The rebellion at ujjain was ruthlessly quelled by the "pacifist" ashoka with same fervor as he had quelled the rebellion of takshila in his early "chanda-Ashoka" days..

Actually, most of the Mauryan expansion happened in the reign of CG and Bindusara. The great master himself oversaw the pan-subcontinental expansion. Kalinga was humbled by Bindusara in his deccan conquest, although not annexed. None of the Indic kings sought to "annex" kingdoms. All the vast empires like maurya, gupta, pratihara, rashtrakuta, paala, sunga and very recently marathas remained federations. So the Arthashastriya centralization has to be taken with pinch of salt.

The polity of Mauryas (at least in first three emperors) remained arthashastriya. Now, I refuse to call Arthashastra based maurya empire as vedic empire - because Moksha preference of the king has nothing to do with Dharma and artha of nation. At the most what his adhyatmik preferences affect (or should affect) is the daana-pattern. Ashoka showed more inclination towards donations to sangha, but he continued donating money to aastika sects. Same goes with Aastika Guptas who continued donating sangha.

So, it is folly to see our empires and previous incarnations of India as vedik or buddhist. In India, dharma-artha-kaama-moksha is inherently separate (connected yes but in the core) and run in parallel. It is mischief of English to note that maurya was a buddhist empire and gupta was brahminical vedic empire. it is deracination. Our system and our people do not look at things this way.

Maurya and gupta were kings coronated as per indra-abhisheka rituals and were performing their Dharmaarthika rajdharma. The moksha preference of individual king does not really matter. Jaina CG had ajivika bindusara who had budhhist ashoka who's grandson was, I guess vedic and his son was buddhist again. same goes with guptas and Sungas.

This is a gem of a post, Atri-ji, and coincides perfectly with what I have read myself. I am not even sure that people identified themselves as Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/whatever in the ancient days. The Abrahamic concept of `Thou shalt have no one before me' God is not a common feature of Hindus.

Uhh - yes - well, we weak Hindus have been keeping our country and have fought off umpteen invaders and will fight off anyone else that dare to come. And we, in our magnanimity, have even often offered refuge to the weaker Buddhists of Tibet, who could not keep their country. Maybe you, the strong Buddhist, can show us weak Hindus how Tibet - the home of Vajrayana Buddhism - can be restored?

Tibetan Buddhism adopted a strange practice where the role of the emperor was replaced by a monk. This is quite unique in the Buddhist world and might have made Tibet easy prey. Otherwise as long as there is strong centralized rule, the Arahat-Chakravartin concept really complements a strong state. Take for example the successful resistance to Malaccha Sultanate by the Thai kingdom I think. And you decry the vigilantism recently against Muslims in SL, Myanmar, and S. Thailand?!? Answer me please, do you condemn also the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I hope you understand where I am going with this inquiry. I also do not want to be misunderstood, I always regret when any innocent life is lost (the average Muslim is no better or worse than the average Buddhist). And as to your question about why the Buddhists don't liberate Tibet, let me ask you a counter question. Why don't the Hindus liberate Pakistani Hindus? I am sure you are aware of their decreasing percentages? Where were the Hindus when in West Pakistan at least 1.5 million were murdered to death by Paki army? Please let us refrain from such taunts. i don't expect a reply, as the questions I just asked were ridiculous, and I also don't think you should expect an answer from me on why Buddhists don't liberate Tibet.

harbans wrote:Over several years i have pointed that differentiating Hindu/ Buddhist etc in terms of political/ military/ strategic reactions is a self defeating argument. The religious climate in India was not completely sampradayic ever. Apart from those that chose specific sampradaya's the largest number of people never belonged to any specific one. They were fluidic and would consider Buddha as much an avatar as they would Ram or Krishna. Many would not follow even that and just went about their ways. It were outsiders who called a whole bunch of people Hindu's, then took the trouble of saying every one not a Xtian/ Muslim is a Hindu. The reasons for the present state of differentiation is neti neti assumption that smaller groups started identifying with. The Sikhs went first, then Buddhists, then Jains. The Hare Krishna and Vaishnavite groups are next to disassociate with the larger Hindu identity. The Sampradayic solidification of people around differentiated identities is what caused polarization. This is something similar to the polarization of Jati or Varna that codification and attribution causes. We should always have remained Dharmic first and Sampradayically loyal next. We did not. We fell prey to excluvist categorization and many times at our own behest.

Harbansji,

What "Hindu" identity? Are you aware the Jains were always independent of Vedic Brahmanism. Heck they probably even predate "Hinduism" since IVC shows strong Jaina connection. Also when were Buddhists ever astikas? They were always Samanas, hence non-Vedic hence non-Hindu.

Atri wrote:

Atri wrote: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.

please let me know your thoughts on this post of mine, Tony ji..

Great now the astika Hindus wouldn't mind that Christianity is digesting Hinduism. Look at the images below:





And Buddhists don't believe in "moksha", nirvana is not the same as moksha. Nirvana (Nibbana) means cessation of desire, nothing less, nothing more. What equivalent is there of this among the Hindus? Moksha means you get to be an eternal servant in Vaikuntha or Mt. Kailash serving the respective gods or merging with super atma (Brahman) which is totally against the message of Buddhism.

nageshks wrote:This is a gem of a post, Atri-ji, and coincides perfectly with what I have read myself. I am not even sure that people identified themselves as Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/whatever in the ancient days. The Abrahamic concept of `Thou shalt have no one before me' God is not a common feature of Hindus.

Really? Does it not say in Bhagavad gita that one should only worship Krishna and abandoning all other dharmas? Have you even talked to an ISKCON follower? They are so rabidly dismissive of other hindu gods and consider Shiva a demigod. And what about the frequent clashes between Vaishnav and Saiva sadhus in Kumbh Mela for example? Why do Naga sadhus carry weapons? Saivism is probably the most intolerant creed among Indic religions. Look at the record of Tamil Saivas who in historical times persecuted Sinhala Buddhists, Hindu Vaishnavs, and Jainas. There is no doubt denying their bigotry and intolerance. Which kind of people gleefully record their kind impaling thousands of defenceless Jaina monks?

Agnimitra wrote:

TonySoprano wrote: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.

I'm sure you're aware that several Buddhist schools have borrowed wholesale and customized ideas and practices from pre-existing Shaiva and Vaishnava cults and their tantras. So then, why should they feel bad about honoring an image of Shiva? It is rank sectarianism, politics, priestcraft, and nothing else. I think all of that can have its legitimate place, but it is the duty of an administrator to enforce ecumenical decorum.

My friend, Buddhism is exclusivist in a different way - but exclusivist it is - especially when combined with a prominent anti-Other polemic, in this case the 'Other' being all pre-existing Hindu traditions. Brahminical cults can also be exclusivist, be it Shaiva, Vaishnava, Advaitist, etc. They all have their favourite ideological fetish, favourite enemy, etc. In that vein, I'm sure you're aware that Theravadins can't stand Mahayana schools and the contempt is mutual - another sign of sectarian politics and competition for mindshare.

I got your point. But I have to say that exclusivism is not that ingrained in Buddhism when compared to Hinduism. The reason I am saying this is there are obviously many monotheists in the Hindu camp. Monotheism breeds intolerance. Zorastrianism was intolerent which was inherited by Judaism and the religions it spawned. Therefore I hinted at this earlier, the Vaishnavas are really polytheists in the garb of monotheism so they are generally more tolerant. Now the Saivas are pretty exclusive and make no apologies for it.

brihaspati wrote: Well - yes and no. Gautama/Sakyamuni is not claimed to be the last - and there is of course Maitreya. Who was supposed to arrive in 5000 years from maha-parinirvana, but this might be halved if "women" act too "liberated". But how is multiple manifestations [the Buddhist idea of transmigration of soul is slightly different from the Upanishadic one, and there are other differences which makes it difficult to see why Advaitins are claimed to have been plagiarizers of Buddhism !] of the same "soul-principle" proof of non-exlcusivism?

Taranath cites the case of Sindhi Buddhist activists setting fire on Buddhist idols in Pataliputra. If one sect could not tolerate another sects interpretations - and there is no acceptance or respectful mention of non-Buddhist deities/divinities/principles in Buddhist literature - there is no pluralism.

There is no "soul" concept in Buddhism. Buddha was quite explicit of the concept of anatta.

https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawha ... of-no-soul

Great, now we have a buddhist Paki from UK derailing the thread. TS kindly see the heading of the thread and contribute something meaningful. But I got a clear picture of why the Muslim invasions of present day Pak succeeded. Also use proper references and citations to further your argument. Or else get banned.

Supratik wrote:Great, now we have a buddhist Paki from UK derailing the thread. TS kindly see the heading of the thread and contribute something meaningful. But I got a clear picture of why the Muslim invasions of present day Pak succeeded. Also use proper references and citations to further your argument. Or else get banned.

Tell me what offensive "Paki-like" statement have I made? I already apologized to the Hindus if they had gotten offended. Have you even seen my other posts in other threads? I am very against Pakistan and pan-Islamism.

TonySoprano wrote:Take for example the successful resistance to Malaccha Sultanate by the Thai kingdom I think.

Dude, you are once more living in a fantasy world. The first state in South East Asia to succumb to the Muslims was the Buddhist state of Samudra Pasai (a remnant Sri Vijayan state) in what is today's Aceh. Interesting to note that they were also heavily into trading networks. I think B-ji is onto something vital in the decline of Buddhism. Then the motley Hindu Buddhist Malaya was conquered and crushed. Sumatra was fully Buddhist - Jambi, in the south of Sumatra was next, was also Buddhist, and no trace of the Buddhism there remains. On the other hand, the Hindus of Java still remain in some degree, and the island of Bali (to which many Hindus migrated when Java was overrun by Muslims) is almost wholly Hindu. It was the Hindus of Brahmavana (Prambanan) who put up the resistance to the Muslim sultanate of Demak (again established in Central Java, a traditional stronghold of Buddhists), and the Hindu kingdom of Sunda was the last to succumb to the Muslims. The reason for this is not hard to seek. These regions were vitally dependent on trade, and Muslims controlled all trade (this is the true tragedy of south India post Muhammad bin Tughlaq - the old trade network never returned to the hands of the Hindus, and even Vijayanagar does not seem to have succeeded in taking back the trade routes from the Arabs), On the other hand, Sri Lanka was never damaged by Muslim invasions, so why did your strong Lankan Buddhists not rescue the Buddhists of Samudra or Jambi or innumerable other places in Malaysia and Indonesia? Remember Borobudur? Where did all those Buddhists go?

As for the Thai kingdom, it is very likely that it too would have succumbed to the Malacca sultanate (which was properly established only around 1430), except for one factor - the Portuguese. The Portuguese dealt a crippling blow to the Malayan Muslims by taking away Malacca, and bringing the sultanate of Johar under their influence in 1511. Otherwise, we would be seeing a fully Islamic south east Asia, except for maybe Vietnam (who, while Buddhist, are strongly influenced by the Confucians of China).

And you decry the vigilantism recently against Muslims in SL, Myanmar, and S. Thailand?!?

You support vigilantism? Interesting!

Answer me please, do you condemn also the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Of course I do. It was a useless waste of life, particularly when Japan was willing to surrender even without them.

I hope you understand where I am going with this inquiry. I also do not want to be misunderstood, I always regret when any innocent life is lost (the average Muslim is no better or worse than the average Buddhist). And as to your question about why the Buddhists don't liberate Tibet, let me ask you a counter question. Why don't the Hindus liberate Pakistani Hindus? I am sure you are aware of their decreasing percentages? Where were the Hindus when in West Pakistan at least 1.5 million were murdered to death by Paki army? Please let us refrain from such taunts. i don't expect a reply, as the questions I just asked were ridiculous, and I also don't think you should expect an answer from me on why Buddhists don't liberate Tibet.

We weak Hindus make no claim to such strength. You, the strong Buddhist, are. Show us what your strong Buddhism can do.

By the way, Tony, I noticed that you did not answer a single one of my refutations, nor have you posted any PRIMARY sources for any of your claims. Nor have you answered any of my remarks, including which play your heroes are talking about.

TonySoprano wrote:Tell me what offensive "Paki-like" statement have I made? I already apologized to the Hindus if they had gotten offended. Have you even seen my other posts in other threads? I am very against Pakistan and pan-Islamism.

Tony, there are several (at least after Rajiv Malhotra's recent book) who have started buying into the theory of Indic religions including Buddhism as treasures of Indian civilization that we as a people need to reclaim. Unfortunately, if you think you are advancing the agenda of a common cause between the Indic religions- you are obviously doing an extremely poor job of it.

You claim you have no grudge against Hindus - and yet spend all your time in trying to 'prove' some imaginary violent animus Hindus had for Buddhists. Can you try and think clearly and spell out what your objective is ? If you are interested in Buddhism as a cause - historical victimhood is not necessarily the best way to propagate it.

TS, the thread is not meant to be a Hindu-Buddhist cat-fight. You are most likely picking up a lot of garbage from the internet like Paki or even some khalistani sites have. If you have scholarly articles that will contribute to the thread then contribute. If you have a diatribe join a Paki forum. As suggested before there were multiple reasons for decline of Buddhism in the sub-continent. By the time of Islamic invasions Buddhism was in decline except in modern Afghn, parts of Pak and Bd. The Islamic invasions decapitated Buddhism. There were no Brahmins in central asia or Afghn where Buddhism was wiped out. The buddhist strongholds in Western Pak, eastern Bengal, Afghn, Baltistan, etc did not survive. You are taking incidences from different centuries to build a theory. I have seen such theories on neo-Buddhist, Paki and Marxist sites. If you have something solid prove your point with proper references.

^^Where do you get the information that Japan was willing to surrender to the Allies? I will give a fitting reply to you later on but first please take a look at the summary of this new book that dispels many myths of non-persecution of Buddhists by Brahmans.

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse. ... Ii/ASANIqA

Title: Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India
Author: Giovanni Verardi
ISBN: 9788173049286
List Price: Rs 1,295.00
First Published: 2011
Pages: 523p.
Edition: Hardbound
URL: http://www.manoharbooks.com/Search.asp? ... 8173049286

Book description

Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India examines the reasons of
the structural subalternity of Indian Buddhism to Brahmanism, and the
mechanisms, characterized by intimidation and violence, which led to
its downfall in India. The analysis focuses on some crucial historical
junctions. The first is the policy of the Guptas, still mistakenly
perceived as favourable, or at least not hostile to the religion of
the Buddhist Dharma. Instead, it is in Gupta times that we witness,
among other things, the destruction of Nagarjunakonda and the
emergence of a married clergy as an alternative to the ancient
renunciate celibate model based on the Vinaya.

The focus then moves on the legal fallout of the doctrinal debates
that, especially after the death of Harṣavardhana, took place between
the Buddhists and the Brahmans. The debates, increasingly conditioned
by the prejudicial theistic stance of Pāśupatas and Bhāgavatas, became
occasions to get rid of the monastic elite. The scenario in which the
repression of the Buddhists and of the social sectors to which they
gave representation took place, is the gradual taking possession by
the Brahmans of the entire agrarian horizon. With the Vajrayāna, seen
as the theoretical and operational answer to the attacks on the
religion, a strict relationship was created between Buddhists, natives
and outcastes, which led to a long, fierce war that characterized the
period from the eighth to the twelfth century. This is most clearly
observable along the fault line, passing approximately along the
Vindhyas, which divided the Brahmanic kingdoms of the Deccan and the
territories controlled by the Buddhists (Magadha, Bengal and upper
Orissa).

Finally, the discussion moves on the game of three that was played
when the Muslims broke onto the scene. When the orthodox realized that
they would have never been able to defeat the invaders and that the
welding between Muslims and Buddhists, already successfully tested in
eighth-century Sind, was resurfacing in the Gangetic India of the
twelfth century, they accepted Muslim rule in exchange for the
extirpation of Buddhism and the repression of the social sectors in
revolt. Contrary to what is usually believed, the great monasteries of
Gangetic India, from Sarnath to Vikramaśīla, from Odantapurī to
Nālandā, were not destroyed by the Muslims, but appropriated and
transformed by the Brahmans with only the occasional intervention of
the Muslim forces.

Sources

The sources resorted to are mostly Brahmanical, and include the
allegorical narrations of the Purāṇas, the poems of the Tamil saints
and other hagiographic material. Medieval iconographies provide us
with a large amount of evidence that only rarely has been evaluated in
its historical and social impact. Relevant archaeological evidence on
the sites of Bodhgaya and Sarnath is discussed in the two appendices.

nageshks wrote:By the way, Tony, I noticed that you did not answer a single one of my refutations, nor have you posted any PRIMARY sources for any of your claims. Nor have you answered any of my remarks, including which play your heroes are talking about.

Look I am not a Sanskrit scholar, I rely on scholars to give translations and I value their opinions more than mine. I am not starting a Hindu-Buddhist catfight. I will stop posting now, as you have only nitpicked a few incidences while ignoring the rest.

Supratik wrote:TS, the thread is not meant to be a Hindu-Buddhist cat-fight. You are most likely picking up a lot of garbage from the internet like Paki or even some khalistani sites have. If you have scholarly articles that will contribute to the thread then contribute. If you have a diatribe join a Paki forum. As suggested before there were multiple reasons for decline of Buddhism in the sub-continent. By the time of Islamic invasions Buddhism was in decline except in modern Afghn, parts of Pak and Bd. The Islamic invasions decapitated Buddhism. There were no Brahmins in central asia or Afghn where Buddhism was wiped out. The buddhist strongholds in Western Pak, eastern Bengal, Afghn, Baltistan, etc did not survive. You are taking incidences from different centuries to build a theory. I have seen such theories on neo-Buddhist, Paki and Marxist sites. If you have something solid prove your point with proper references.

My last post on this matter, as I see the hatred brewing against me and I wish not to get banned from such a intellectually stimulating forum. Who said there were no Brahmins in Afghanistan? Afghanistan was ruled by Hindu Saiva kings and infact one tribe of Afghans call themselves "Durrani" and they claim they are descendents of converted brahmins. I have seen a Kashmiri Pandit with Durani last name too. Buddhism was in terminal decline in the NorthWest even before Xuanzang visited it due to no royal patronage and the Saiva Hunas genociding them.

Where do you get the information that Japan was willing to surrender to the Allies?

Why did Japan surrender?

TonySoprano wrote:
My last post on this matter, as I see the hatred brewing against me and I wish not to get banned from such a intellectually stimulating forum. Who said there were no Brahmins in Afghanistan? Afghanistan was ruled by Hindu Saiva kings and infact one tribe of Afghans call themselves "Durrani" and they claim they are descendents of converted brahmins. I have seen a Kashmiri Pandit with Durani last name too. Buddhism was in terminal decline in the NorthWest even before Xuanzang visited it due to no royal patronage and the Saiva Hunas genociding them.

Again I see a lot of garbage. Yes, the Hindu Shahis may have Brahmin origin but the latter Shahis are said to be Janjua Rajputs. So there is some confusion. However, the presence of Brahmins in Afghn during that period is likely to be miniscule. Mihirakula was a Huna and Saiva and he persecuted Buddhists. There are other examples e.g. Pushyamitra Sunga. There is no doubt that Brahminical Hinduism and Buddhism were in contest for domination of the subcontinent sometimes leading to violence. There was much violence between different sects of Hindus as well. But to extrapolate that to some kind of genocide or extermination is fallacious.

From a blog esamskriti.org

Why did Buddhism decline in India?

Why Did Buddhism Vanish From India

By Sanjeev Nayyar, July 2003 [[email protected]]
1Chapter :I have listed down six reasons why Buddhism vanished from India. It is followed by the words of Swami Vivekananda & Dr B R Ambedkar.

1. The main cause was the neglect by the monks of this life and its values. While the Buddhist monks realized that everyone was not fit or could not become a monk or nun, they paid attention only to the life of a monk and not to the life of a householder. Which meant that they focused on the life of a monk, which is a life of inwardness as compared to that of a householder, which is one of outwardness. Now, both these aspects need examination, study, guidance and control. It is not enough to tell a householder that this existing life is only a stepping-stone to the life of a monk. Why and how is it so and what relation it bears to realities has to be explained. Instead Buddhist philosophers began to teach that this life was nothing but a value of tears and misery. While some forms of Vedanta taught the same philosophy, the attitude of Mimamsa (philosophy of action) and the Epics saved Hinduism from the fate that overtook Buddhism in India. Many great Indians were impacted by spiritual teachings but “unless there were some codes extolling the values of the world, they tended to become one-sidedly inwardly”.

2. Another reason was the admission of women into monasteries and the more or less indiscriminate conversion of men, women into monks and nuns. While true renunciation and celibacy were appreciated, people wanted to see them well practiced. When people supported these monasteries with their hard-earned money, they did not want its residents to live in luxury and enjoyment, virtues, which were condemned. If monks and nuns had lived by the rules that they were taught, people would have supported them inspite of any hardship that they had to face.

3. The next reason was the deterioration in the political and economic life of the country. Monasteries were supported by the people and the Kings e.g. Ashoka. Now, when a dynasty fell or a king died, the next in line might not give the same degree of support. The king’s thinkers realized that their defeat was due to the loss of their best fighters, leaders, who had become monks. This made the country an easy prey to the foreign invader. Coincidence or otherwise, India’s first foreign invasion by the Greeks took place in 327 B.C. a couple of centuries after Emperor Asoka’s peace movement. {He means Gautama Buddha and not Emperor Ashoka for he was latter than Alexander. Or he means the Indo-Greeks who invaded North India much later.}


4. Buddhism existed in the monasteries and unlike the dharmaasutras (ethical codes) lacked a moral code. So when monasteries disappeared, Buddhism disappeared. The invasion of the Muslims and the ruthless destruction of Buddhist monasteries extinguished the lamp of Buddhism in North India. The wanton destruction of the great monastery of Uddandapura (Bihar) and the wholesale massacre of its monks might make us visualize how the great monasteries of Nalanda, Vikramasila and others met with a tragic end.

5. The extreme asceticism practiced and popularized by both Buddhism and Jainism disturbed the social life of India. Magadha, the seat of many imperial dynasties, became Bihar, the land of monasteries (viharas). There was nothing in these religions to emphasize the importance of life in this world and its values. These causes led to a bloodless revolt by the orthodox in the eight-century a.d. The revolt was staged from two sides, the Brahmanic and the Upanisadic. Kumarila was the leader of the former and Sankara of the latter. Kumarila succeeded in reviving a strong positive attitude towards the world and its values and all that could be called human and activistic. On the other hand, Sankara said that everything that was good in Buddhism already existed in the Upanishads. In fact, Gaudapada, the grand teacher of Sankara, unified the current spanda (vibration) doctrine of Saivism, the vijnana (mind) doctrine of the Buddhists and the Atman doctrine of the Upanishads in his Mandukyakarikas and made the way easy for Sankara to assimilate and absorb Buddhism. Thus, there remained no justification for its separate existence in India; it had no social ethics and consequently, no hold over society. It could not stand alone as a spiritual discipline as it was shown to be part of the Upanishads.

6. Quoting Swami Vivekananda “ Thus, inspite of preaching mercy to animals, inspite of the sublime ethical religion, inspite of the discussions about the existence or non-existence of a permanent soul, the whole building of Buddhism tumbled down piece-meal and the ruin was simply hideous. The most hideous ceremonies, the most obscene books that human hands ever wrote or the human brain ever conceived, have all been the creation of the degraded Buddhism. The Tartars and the Baluchis and all the hideous races of mankind that came to India, became Buddhists and assimilated with us, brought their national customs and the whole of our national life became a huge page of the most horrible, bestial customs. Sankara came and showed that the real essence of Buddhism and that of Vedanta are not very different but that the disciples did not understand the master and have degraded themselves, denied the existence of soul and one God and have become atheists. That was what Sankara showed and all the Buddhists began to come back to their old religion”.

7. Buddhism adopted various thoughts and beliefs between the first century B.C. and the sixth century a.d. Some Buddhists adopted the tantric sadhanas and distorted them for the sake of enjoyment and comfort. The highly advanced philosophy of tantric sadhana is difficult to understand without the guidance of a proper teacher. This undigested knowledge of tantra, including the use of wine, meat, fish, gestures and physical union led these Buddhist followers to their downfall. Also, the distortions of Buddhism produced a variety of schools, which were not pure Buddhist schools but contained a variety of practices. To give you an idea of the syntheses between Vedanta and Buddhism, the concept of Maya in Vedanta in borrowed from Buddhism. Sankara accepted the logical connotation of Maya just as it was given by the Buddhists. Jainism was saved by tacitly allowing its members to become part of the Hindu fold by adopting rules of conduct of the third caste, namely Vaisyas or traders.

8. Quoted from ‘Dr Ambedkar Life & Mission by Dhananjay Keer’. Dr B R Ambedkar addressed delegates of Young Men’s Buddhist Association in May 1950 at Colombo on ‘Rise & fall of Buddhism in India’ - ‘Buddhism in its material force had disappeared. But as a spiritual force it still exists’. As regards Hinduism he said it went through three phases, Vedic religion, Brahmanism and Hinduism. It was during the Brahmanism period that Buddhism was born. It was not true that after the days of Shankaracharya Buddhism was dead in India. It was going on for years together. In fact Shankaracharya and his teacher were both Buddhists he added. While he was digging material on the subject for the decline/vanish of Buddhism from India the reasons were – adoption of some rituals & practices from Buddhism by the Vaishnava & Shaiva cults, which were vociferous in their propaganda against Buddhism. During the invasion by Allauddin Khilji thousands of priests in Bihar were massacred and consequently some of them fled for their lives to Tibet, China & Nepal. In the meanwhile, the majority of Buddhists went over to Hinduism. The third cause was that Buddhism was difficult to practice while Hinduism was not. Reason four was that the political atmosphere in India had been unfavorable to the advancement of Buddhism he concluded.

But according to Hindu scholars the fall of Buddhism was due to many reasons. Owing to universalistic ambition its spread was everywhere but it had geographical center nowhere. It discarded all national gods & godmen & proclaimed Buddha the greatest of all gods. As long as it reacted as a reformative flank in India, Buddhism gained ground but when it began to act against the Vedic religion, which was the national religion of the majority, Buddhism lost sympathy in India. The Vedic Hindus fought the Muslims bravely and did not flee to any other country. But the Buddhists when attacked, having a center nowhere, fled to different countries and even it is said acclaimed the invasion of India by non-Hindus with the ringing of bells. Besides its godlessness, its over-emphasis on redemption, its sad tone, its unconcern with the world & neglect of family checked rather than fostered enterprise. Quote ends.

Books referred to 1. Introduction to Comparative Philosophy by P T Raju. 2. History & Culture of Indian People by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan.

The Christian Reformation and transformation discarded the spirtual world (unlike Buddhism) for the benefits of this world and launched Colonialism and expanded.

X-posting from off-topic thread: Link to original post
---------------

RamaY wrote:^ ayyo. I am nothing sir.

RajeshAji

RajeshA wrote:johneeG ji,

as of now I see two original Mathas in favor of 507 BCE date, so I'll go with them. If anything changes on that front, may be I could revise my thoughts on it.

I just think that if Buddha's age was 1887 BCE - 1807 BCE, then 2675 years till Adi Shankara was born (789 CE) is too long a time for Buddhism to go unchallenged. 1380 years seem more like it.

This thread is however not the right place to have a detailed discussion on the subject. Perhaps the subject can be discussed elsewhere.

It is possible that Buddhism went unchallenged till 8th century AD. One reason is the existence of Buddhist kings (Satavahanas) in Andhra area between 230bc - 200ad.

Adi Samkara removed Buddhism completely from entire India.

Perhaps the lack of data on kings meeting Samkara can be attributed to the chaos persisted in his time which resulted in Islamic invasions?

Whether right or wrong, the Buddhist kings and populate had an understanding till that time. But when Adi Samkara pulled the public plug from the buddhist kings, their legitimacy was gone?

Just a thought. Perhaps members with better historical knowledge can throw some light..

Saar,
According to Chandrashekarendra Saraswati of Kanchi:

Many believe that Buddhism ceased to have a large following in India because it came under the attack of Sankara. This is not true. There are very few passages in the Acarya's commentaries critical of that religion, a religion that was opposed to the Vedas. Far more forcefully has he criticised the doctrines of Sankhya and Mimamsa that respect the Vedic tradition. He demolishes their view that Isvara is not the creator of the world and that it is not he who dispenses the fruits of our actions. He also maintains that Isvara possesses the laksanas or characteristics attributed to him by the Vedas and the Brahmasutra and argues that there can be no world without Isvara and that it is wrong to maintain that our works yield fruits on their own. It is Isvara, his resolve, that has created this world, and it is he who awards us the fruits of our actions. We cannot find support in his commentaries for the view that he was responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.

Then how did Buddhism cease to have a considerable following in out country? Somebody must have subjected it to such rigorous attack as to have brought about its decline in this land. Who performed this task? The answer is the mimamsakas and the tarkikas. Those who are adept in the Tarka-sastra(logic) are called tarkikas. The Tarka is the part of Nyaya which is one of the fourteen branches of Vedic learning and which comes next to Mimamsa. People proficient in Nyaya are naiyayikas; those well versed in grammar are "vaiyakaranis"; and those proficient in the Puranas are "pauranikas".

Udayanacarya, the tarkika, and Kumarilabhatta, the mimamsaka, opposed Buddhism for different reasons. The former severely criticised that religion for its denial of Isvara. To mimamsakas, as I have said earlier, Vedic rituals are of the utmost importance. Even though they don't believe that it is Isvara who awards us the fruit of our actions, they believe that the rituals we perform yield their own fruits and that the injunctions of the dharmasastras must be carried out faithfully. They attacked Buddhism for its refusal to accept Vedic rituals. Kumarilabhatta has written profusely in criticism of that religion. He and Udayanacarya were chiefly responsible for the failure of Buddhism to acquire a large following in this country. Our Acarya came later and there was no need for him to make a special assault on that religion on his own. On the contrary, his chief task was to expose the flaws in the systems upheld by the very opponents of Buddhism, Kumarilabhatta and Udayanacarya. He established that Isvara is the creator of the universe and that it is he who awards the fruits of our actions.

I am mentioning this fact so as to disabuse you of the wrong notions you must have formed with regard to Sankara's role in the decline of Buddhism. There is a special chapter in one of Kumarilabhatta's works called "Tarkapadam" in which he has made an extensive refutation of Buddhism. So too has Udayanacarya in his Bauddhadhikaram. These two acaryas were mainly responsible for the decline of Buddhism in our land and not Sankara Bhagavatpada. What we are taught on the subject in our textbooks of history is not true.

In my opinion at no time in our history did Buddhism in the fullest sense of that religion have a large following in India. Today a number of Hindus, who are members of the Theosophical Society, celebrate our festivals like other Hindus and conduct marriages in the Hindu way. There are many devotees of Sri Ramakrsna Parmahamsa practising our traditional customs. Sri C. Ramanujacariyar, "Anna" (Sri N. Subramanya Ayyar) and some others are intimately associated with the Ramakrsna Mission but they still adhere to our traditional beliefs.

When great men make their appearance people are drawn to them for their qualities of compassion and wisdom. In the organisations established after them our sanatana dharma is followed with some changes. But a large number of the devotees of these men still follow the old customs and traditions in their homes.

Many regard Gandhiji as the founder almost of a new religion (Gandhism), and look upon him as one greater than avataras like Rama and Krsna. But in their private lives few of them practise what he preached- for instance, widow marriage, mixing with members of other castes, and so on. People developed esteem for Gandhiji for his personal life of self-sacrifice, truthfulness, devotion and service to mankind. But applying his ideas in actual life was another matter.

It was in the same way that the Buddha had earned wide respect for his lofty character and exemplary personal life. "A prince renounces his wife and child in the prime of his youth to free the world from sorrow": the story of Siddhartha, including such accounts, made an impact on people. They were moved by his compassion, sense of detachment and self-sacrifice. But it did not mean that they were ready to follow his teachings. They admired the Buddha for his personal qualities but they continued to subscribe to the varnasrama system and the ancient way of religious life with its sacrifice and other rites. Contrary to what he wished, people did not come forward in large numbers to become monks but continued to remain householders adhering to Vedic practices.

Emperor Asoka did much to propagate Buddhism; but in society in general the Vedic dharma did not undergo any change. Besides, the emperor himself supported the varnasrama dharma as is evident from his famous edicts. But for the Buddhist bhiksus(monks), all householders followed the Vedic path. Though they were silent on the question of Isvara and other deities, some book written by great Buddhist monks open with hymns to Sarasvati. They also worshipped a number of gods. It is from Tibet that we have obtained many Tantrik works relating to the worship of various deities. If you read the works of Sriharsa, Bilhana and so on in Sanskrit, and Tamil poetical works like that of Ilango Adigal, you will realise that even during times when Buddhism wielded influence in society, Vedic customs and varnasrama were followed by the generality of people.

Reformists today speak in glowing terms about Vyasa, Sankaracarya, Ramanujacarya and others. But they do not accept the customs and traditions I ask people to follow. Some of them, however, come to see me. Is it not because they feel that there is something good about me, because they have personal regard for me, even though they do not accept my ideas? Similarly, great men have been respected in this country for their personal qualities and blameless life notwithstanding the fact they advocated views that differed slightly from the Vedic tradition or were radically opposed to it. Our people any way had long been steeped in the ancient Vedic religion and its firmly established practices and, until the turn of the century, were reluctant to discard the religion of their forefathers and the vocations followed by them. Such was our people's attitude during the time of the Buddha also. When his doctrines came under attack from Udayanacarya and Kumarilabhatta even the few who had first accepted them returned to the Vedic religion.

Link

People, at large, did not formally convert to Buddhism nor did they completely follow the Vedic religion(or Hinduism). For eg: today, many Hindus follow secularism(christianity without church) or sarva-dharma-samabhava(all religions equal equal). That means, they go to temples, churches, masjids, dargahs, ...etc. They celebrate new year day and valentines' day with great gusto. Yet, they have not completely abandoned the Hinduism. They follow it but customize it to suit their convenience and sensitivities. Similarly, at that time, people were enamored by Buddhism. People acknowledged the validity and superiority of Buddhism. But, that does not mean they completely abandoned the Hinduism and formally converted to Buddhism. It just means that they now made variations in their Hindu rituals and started praying to Buddha's image also(as if they were praying to Rama or Krishna). The ordinary people never understood the intricate philosophies of various Buddhist schools. But, they understood that the elites and the intellectuals had accepted the Buddhist views as a superior to Vedic ones. So, the masses followed the lead of elites and intellectuals.

The courts and assemblies of Kings(and other cultural venues) were dominated by the intellectuals who were ardent votaries of one or the other Buddhist philosophies. Therefore, invariably, the political power was wielded by the Buddhism. This phenomenon is very similar to how 'eminent' historians wield power in India. Yatha raja, thatha praja. The major educational centers were also under the grip of Buddhists. For eg: Takshashila and Nalanda were Buddhist centers as much as they were great educational centers. This is similar to how JNU or OU are under the grip of commies today.

All this control on various choke points of society allowed various Buddhist schools to disseminate their views into public effectively. Since all the intellectuals, elites and power were already wedded to Buddhism, there was no major coherent intellectual opposition to their views. These views were considered to be 'scientific' and those who disagreed were seen as 'superstitious'.

The major thrust of all these philosophies was against Vedas. Vedas were specifically chosen as special targets. Vedas were, rightly, understood to be the fundamentals of Hinduism. So, invalidating the Vedas was seen as the best and most effective way of countering Hinduism. The version of Buddhism that was practiced by the general masses(who were still nominally Hindus), was more or less similar to Hinduism(with some variations). The various schools of Buddhism differed from each other as much as they differed from Hinduism. The one thing that united all Buddhists was 'Buddha', while the one thing that united all Hindus was Vedas. While, the one thing that differentiated the Buddhists from Hindus was(and is) Vedas. So, it was only natural that Vedas were the target of Buddhists. This is similar to how the christians criticize the belief in Mohammad, but not other aspects of Islam.

So, the Buddhists attacked Vedas. Given their social, political and economical power, their arguments easily prevailed. These attacks were also quite intellectual and intelligent. So, the common masses had no counter to them but to accept them. At one point, Vedas were so maligned that they virtually became a word to be abused. Sri Bharathi Theertha of Sringeri once said that things had come to such a pass at that time that if anyone uttered the word Veda, then others would remark, 'chi, chi'...

Such attitudes can be seen today also. Some people are so taken in by AIT, commies, secularism, or something else and hate Vedas, even though they are still nominally Hindus. At that time, this attitude was more widely spread.

There is one more point. Buddhists studied the Hinduism and were aware of Hindu beliefs and views. Even otherwise, everyone and his aunt knew about elementary Hinduism. This allowed them to make arguments against Hindu beliefs and views. Ridicule these beliefs/views and malign them. On the other hand, Hindus(masses and intellectuals) were not aware of the intricacies of various Buddhist schools and their exact views on various topics. This lack of knowledge was a serious impediment in forming a coherent retort to the Buddhist attack on Hinduism.

This lack of knowledge was not necessarily the fault of Hindus. This was a Buddhist strategy. Buddhist schools believed that all the masses were not equiped to understand the high philosophical points. So, they had to be told what they could grasp. If they could be made to believe in Buddha, that was enough for them. Only those who had the intellectual capacity to understand the philosophy should be given the philosophical details, that too only after checking that he will not divulge these secrets to general masses. So, there were two versions that were pouted by Buddhists: one version was for the consumption of gullible general masses and another version was the actual philosophy. The version for the general masses was varied to suit the tastes of listening audience. The primary point was to create faith in Buddha. How that was achieved was beside the point. The actual philosophy was only told to those who had proven their 'loyalty'.

Saddharma-Pundarika Sutram(or Lotus Sutra), a buddhist missionary manual(considered to be written before 200 AD), lays down these points for the buddhist missionaries. This method was used to devastating effect by the buddhist missionaries to spread buddhism far and wide throughout the world in various disguises. At each place(or time-period), it was customized to suit the audience. I think Europe could not have stayed out of the radar of the Buddhist missionaries. Particularly Greece may have been the prime target where Buddhism could be mixed with the prevailing Hellenism for wide dissemination.

Christian Lindtner showcases this behaviour and connects it with the Jesus NT tales and says that like many other tales, Jesus tale is also a crypto-Buddhist missionary tale where Jesus ids the Buddha in disguise.

Thus, it was a well-thought out strategy of the Buddhists to keep their real philosophy secret while using all tricks to lure the people into keeping faith in Buddha. So, it was very difficult to form actual refutation of Buddhists philosophies which held sway in intellectual assemblies and royal courts while the masses were in the kept in thrall of Buddha.

The masses indulged in the ritualistic worship of images of Buddha which were made of costly metals and materials. This worship was carried out in great pomp and splendour. In many ways, it was nothing more than a corrupted form of Vedic rituals where Buddha was given a pre-eminent position. Huge, I mean really huge images of Buddha were installed. Here is a good article on image worship of Buddha. Link

Viharas started springing up all over the place. They were also built in gigantic proportions in a very rich manner. Buddhist Viharas, which were supposed to be residence for 'beggar' monks, became centers with great economic and political power apart from social influence. Very much similar to the modern day Sanyasis and their 'ashrams'.

The elites who supported Buddhism, lived a luxurious life in their mansions with several slaves.

There was urgent need for a Hindu revival lest the Hinduism be digested by Buddhism.

At such a time, Kumarilla Bhatta and Udayanacharya appeared. They presented arguments refuting the Buddhist arguments and supporting the Vedas and Hindu beliefs. Kumarilla even studied in Nalanda specifically to learn about actual position of Buddhist philosophies, so that he could counter them. Armed with this knowledge, Kumarilla demolished the Buddhist philosophies and reasserted the Hindu position about pre-eminence of Vedas. Thanks to these efforts, masses reverted to Hindu rituals and abandoned their infatuation of Buddha along with Buddhist philosophies.

But, that does not mean, the Buddhists stopped existing. They continued to have pockets of control(just as today). But, they lost their absolute dominance. Moreover, Vedas regained respect in the eyes of the ordinary people.

However, there was a side-effect to this. After the decline(not elimination) of Buddhism, Hinduism saw an explosion in newer sects. Each sect holding that its own view was correct and backed by Vedas. Another effect was that Hinduism became dogmatic with excessive emphasis on rituals(to the extent that some schools denied the existence of God). Soon, there were sectarian divisions. The Vedantic portion of Vedas was ignored and only the Purva Mimamsa was given importance.

It is at such a time that Adi Shankara appeared and reasserted the Vedanta without undermining the Purva Mimamsa. He also emphasized on all the Shan Matas(6 paths) of Hinduism that are agreed by Vedas. They are: Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Ganapati Skandha and Surya. These 6 can be worshiped as the ultimate God/Goddess(Eshwara) according to the Hinduism. Any other figure is not suitable. Disparaging any of these 6 is prohibited. He toured entire India thrice on foot and restored the right practiced in several temples apart from refuting all kinds of sects and sub-sects(Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina). He wrote commentaries on Brahma Sutras, Upanishad, Bhagavad Gita and Vishnu Sahasranama. He authored Shiva Ananda Lahari and Soundarya Lahari. He wrote many long and short Vedantic works for various audience. He established 4 monastries in 4 directions of India(which proves beyond doubt that India was considered a single country long before the advent of muslims or british). These monastries became important centers to protect the Hinduism during long foreign invasions by the muslims and british.

It seems to me that only after Adi Shankara wrote commentaries, some of these scriptures became popular(or re-popular after the long Buddhist interval). Perhaps, that was one reason to write commentaries on these scriptures. After Him, all sorts of people(specially would be philosophies) wrote commentaries on these scriptures.

But, the buddhists continued to survive with some of the followers being elite and powerful. Hoever, the masses were now firmly established in Hinduism(with both Purva and Uttara Mimamsa). It seems to me that even the Kings were not pro-buddhists as in the past. So, Buddhists were relegated to their Viharas. At this time, the muslims started their invasions.

The idol destroying Ghazis were attracted to the rich Viharas and huge images of Buddha. This was the last nail in the coffin for Buddhism in India.

----
There is a misconception that Buddhism is against caste. It does not seem to be true. I don't know how to say this, but it seems that the stress of caste/Kula was so much that they were prepared to commit incest rather than marry outside Kula(more specifically Kshatriya).

In several places in the Pāli Canon, including the Ambaṭṭha Sutta (D.i.92), the progenitors of the Śākyas are related to King Okkāka. Pāli Okkāka is identified with the Sanskrit Ikṣvāku, who is known from Purāṇic stories, and in Jainism he is an ancestor to all of the Tirthaṅkaras. The king banishes his elder brothers from his kingdom and they make their home on the slopes of the Himalayas. But they can find no one suitable to marry, so they take their own sisters as wives, and these incestuous relationships give birth to the Śākyas. Given the prejudice against incest in India society generally it is remarkable that this detail was preserved, and this suggests that it might have a grain of truth. If so it points to Iran "there is good evidence for this practice called xᵛaētuuadaθa, so-called next-of-kin or close-kin marriage."

Wiki Link

As you can see, they believed incest was better than marriage outside caste. In fact, they continued to believe that they were progeny of pure castes.

This incest in Buddhism had curious effect. They justified it through their theology by ascribing this behaviour to many other figures in their theology. But, most of the figures in Buddhism were borrowed from Hinduism. So, essentially, Buddhism redefined these figures and some of them were ascribed incest to justify their own incestous behaviour.

For ex:

In the Udaya Jataka the Bodhisattva is a prince who is compelled to marry his half-sister. Although the two sleep in the same room for many years they remain celibate (Ja.IV,105). In the Dasaratha Jataka the princes Rama and Lakkhana marry their sister (Ja.IV,130). As with many ancient peoples the Sakyans, the tribe the Buddha belonged to, had a myth about their origins which included brother-sister incest. When the Koliyans were involved in a dispute with the Sakyans they taunted them by sayings that they ‘cohabite with their sisters like dogs, jackals and other animals’ (Ja.V,413). During the Buddha’s life there was an incident where a nun became infatuated with her son who was a monk and had sex with him, an offence entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Vin.III,35). When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention he said, ‘Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?’

Link

So, Buddhists created a version of Ramayana where Sita is both the sister and wife of Rama. All this for what?! Caste! It is ironic since, according to Valmiki Ramayana, Rama killed Vali for committing incest with his sister-in-law. Rama explains that a sister-in-law is equivalent to one's daughter and should never be thought of as wife material. And the only punishment for such incest is death. If incest with sister-in-law in punishable by death, then what is the punishment for incest with sister?

But, all that is irrelevant when one has an agenda. So, Buddhists tarnish Rama to justify their incest.

There is another example: Brahma and Saraswathi relationship is presented as incest in Buddhism. Abraham and Sarah are most probably derived from this presentation of Buddhists. Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah

Without knowing this, some anti-Hindu morons latch on to this Buddhist presentation.

AFAIK, Hinduism does not agree with this portrayal of these figures(Rama, Sita, Brahma, Saraswathi,... etc). One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.

Thats why one must not try to think that all 'dharmas'(indic or foreign) are same.

OT:
JohneeG garu,

Why should Sri Sankara oppose Udayanacarya when he himself argues for the existence of Ishvara? I can understand his "punga" with Mimamsakas like Kumarila Bhatta, but with Udayanacarya? why?

venug wrote:OT:
JohneeG garu,

Why should Sri Sankara oppose Udayanacarya when he himself argues for the existence of Ishvara? I can understand his "punga" with Mimamsakas like Kumarila Bhatta, but with Udayanacarya? why?

OT:
But I have talked to a self proclaimed Advaita Vedantin and he says that one can be an atheist and still follow advaita. The above statement invalidates this claim.

TonySoprano wrote:
Really? Does it not say in Bhagavad gita that one should only worship Krishna and abandoning all other dharmas? Have you even talked to an ISKCON follower? They are so rabidly dismissive of other hindu gods and consider Shiva a demigod. And what about the frequent clashes between Vaishnav and Saiva sadhus in Kumbh Mela for example? Why do Naga sadhus carry weapons? Saivism is probably the most intolerant creed among Indic religions. Look at the record of Tamil Saivas who in historical times persecuted Sinhala Buddhists, Hindu Vaishnavs, and Jainas. There is no doubt denying their bigotry and intolerance. Which kind of people gleefully record their kind impaling thousands of defenceless Jaina monks?

are you serious? what translation are you reading? Krishna never says "ONE SHOULD ONLY" worship so-and-so person.

I will reproduce the sanskrit sloka here:

sarva dharman parityajya mamekam sharanam vraja
aham tva sarva papebhyo mokshayishyami masuchaha!

abandoning all other "dharmas", take refuge in me
I will remove all your sins and gift you moksha!

no where is there an "only". Krishna, after saying so many things, finally decides to give Arjuna one final message. he tells him to abandon all other thoughts and take refuge in him. it is a reassuring message that he (krishna) will take care of Arjuna no matter what.

only a truly twisted mind would take it as an injunction of "only".

repeatedly Krishna reaffirms in the BG that there are many paths and all paths lead to him.
he never, repeat, NEVER, says that "one should only submit to Krishna".

I don't know what translations you are reading, but you are seriously off. I am no expert in Sanskrit, and even I can tell that some of what you are saying is total BS. some sentences in sanskrit slokas are so self-explanatory to any speaker of Indian languages....stop relying on so called "expert" translations so much. use common sense. and the innate sense of understanding that we have based on the sanskrit words and language that is so widely dispersed in our local languages, whatever they might be.

^^ And that statement of Krishna is far, far less fetishized and institutionalized than "Buddham sharanam gacchaami, sangham sharanam gacchaami, dharmam sharanam gacchaami." Dharma is made synonymous with a particular personality, and even with a particular organized sectarian sangha.

Still, I am not saying that exclusivism is not there in any and all forms of Hinduism. It is there, no doubt, and is a fundamental part of dharma itself. But its the philosophical context and social application of exclusivist meme that makes all the difference between dharmic and adharmic.

Agnimitra wrote:^^ And that statement of Krishna is far, far less fetishized and institutionalized than "Buddham sharanam gacchaami, sangham sharanam gacchaami, dharmam sharanam gacchaami." Dharma is made synonymous with a particular personality, and even with a particular organized sectarian sangha.

Still, I am not saying that exclusivism is not there in any and all forms of Hinduism. It is there, no doubt, and is a fundamental part of dharma itself. But its the philosophical context and social application of exclusivist meme that makes all the difference between dharmic and adharmic.

Why did only Buddhist Dhamma spread out of India? I will tell you why. It is because Buddhism is the only true religion of this world. Most other religions are influenced by it in one form or another including the Abrahamic religions (DD Kosambi I think said Hinduism is 70% Buddhism).

Brahmanism was merely a cult of the Brahmins. It was not a religion per say. You could never convert into a Brahmin - neither in past nor now. You could only take services of a Brahmin.

Err, what is Brahminism?