Bharat Rakshak

SwamyG wrote:Buddhism is good on paper, like libertarianism.

The goal is no different than the other dharmic traditions. Shed the ego and attain moksha. Buddhist countries are doing just fine.

RajeshA wrote:Historically

1. Buddhist clergy in the Subcontinent was antagonistic to the Brahmanical fold, because of severe losses to them in followership in the Subcontinent due to Brahman-led Sanatan Dharmic resurgence. They had legitimate organizational angst.

A major portion of the Buddhist clergy and elites were caste-Brahmin converts who defected to the sangha when it was the intellectual fashion and had political ascendency. One major concern of caste-Brahminism during those times was that they were losing some of their best and brightest to Buddhism. A modern analogy is how people from certain elite castes are also the most prominent and copious converts to the intellectual elite of Pinko Leftism in India. Thus, on both sides of the Buddhist-Brahminism divide, one had people from the same caste who were adept at playing similar games.

That was under a feudal social setup where casteism was a primary building block and it thrived and spawned its typical patterns, including such inter-priesthood rivalry. Going forward, the influence of the feudal-caste matrix will be suitably undermined - ideologically - hand in hand with the natural undermining of that system with new economic and educational systems. By undermining that old era system, the basic root of some of those harmful dynamics is cut. A new civil society is taking shape, wherein the natural umbrella definition of "Dharmic schools" can have the space to form.

The other factor is that the external interests that have done their best to create and accentuate faultlines (north-south, brahmin-dalit, hindu-buddhist, etc) must not be allowed to loom over and cast a long shadow on India - culturally or economically. Instead, hopefully our development will replace them with a native resurgence, with a lot of political and cultural resurgence to go with it. The long shadow of the external interest is what nourishes those faultlines, whereas removing that restimulative influence gives space and time to heal.

Buddhism did not reject "caste" entirely. I have given examples of this before. The early texts use "Brahman" and "sraman" equivalently. Moreover, when it comes to discussing next birth of "Buddha" [manifestation in strict Buddhist sense of the essence - not in mundane current prevalent unique soul sense], the texts clearly claim that he will take birth in the "brahmin/kshatryia" "caste". The reason is stated clearly as that he needs to be born into a "dominant" category. So even they did not foresee the abolition of teh caste and they explicitly linked "caste" in the hierarchy/power interpretation.

At what point of Indian "feudalism", "casteism" became paramount has been a matter of agenda driven reconstructions. If one goes through the material - it becomes curiously clear that the times and societies in which there is claimed to be a "revival" of the "castesims" are exactly those ruled by Jaina and Buddhist elite - not the so-called "Brahminical" ones.

So, my hunch has been that it was the Buddhist emphasis on uttama/adhama karma which in turn determines future births in privilege or penalty, that turned Vedic "varna-guna" into profession/karma related current twist of privileged birth or otherwise. In this sense all thsoe Thaparites and their foreign affiliates - who find shades of "Buddhist" influence in "Hindu" doctrinal texts that emphasize karma-dependent-birth, could after all be sensing something real.

But of course this hypothesis is released into the market, they will hastily try to delink the Hindu texts from "Buddhism".

In its turn - it was the Buddhist philosophical underpinnings that could have combined with a structured imperialist society that reconstructed karma based hierarchical class/caste as a justification of its social ordering. It was so entrenched and under state patronage, that the "Brahmins" who struggled against this from within the system, had to compromise and build upon the hierarchy - or found it was useful as a meme. This is typical of all intra-elite struggles -where one faction of the elite which feels marginalized from power, uses a doctrinal opposition that they hope will concentrate forces against the ruling regime - but who do not really aim for the overthrow of the repressive system. They - like communists - simply want the repressive powers fro themselves.

Another difference I notice between Vedic (rather than "Hindu") and non-Vedic Dharmics is in terms of the relationship between fundamentalism and balance (versus radicalization).

I assume that "radicalism" can be in terms of revolutionary violence to change society (e.g. Islamism), or it can be a "revolutionary" abnegation of societal norms and a drop-out of it by the individual (e.g., Jainism, Buddhism and other non-Vedic sects).

I say this because although both these kinds of radicalism are found in the Vedas, they are restricted to very specific conditions and are clearly differentiated from the "mainstream". the goalposts are clear. If I understand correctly, the alternative cult dropouts were called vratyas in Veda, and sometimes they are considered as admirable curiosities, at other times with some disdain. At any rate they were considered marginal to Vedic mainstream. Compulsively violent cults that seek to impose their view on society via violence are, of course, treated as inimical to Vedic society - the Elites-Faithfools Dasyu-Dasa combine.

In that sense, IMHO there is an inherent sense of Balance to Vedic fundamentalism - and it can be quite revolutionary when it comes to restoring balance. Whereas there is an inherent sense of Radicalism in non-Vedic faith cultures, and they themselves usually fail to preserve their own equilibrium or dynamism except in opposition to the Other. JMT.

So in engaging with Buddhism and creating a Dharmic cultural condominium, we have to provide them with the Other. that Other should no longer be Hinduism, but it should be non-Dharmic cultural products such as Communism and Islamism.

From 'Triangulating Hindutva: The Fundamentalist, Reformist & Traditionalist'

Notice that the reverse is true in the context of non-Dharmic societies. E.g., in Abrahamic cultures, it is in the interest of sanity that the 'fundamentalists' are marginalized and not allowed to dominate the mainstream discourse or establish a rule by religious law. Because that will read to violent radicalization. (To some extent that is true of non-Vedic Dharmic religions also, such as Jainism, Buddhism, etc., though here the radicalization is non-violent and of abnegation.) In such cases, the 'reformists' or so-called 'moderates' must be helped to hold that fort, and the 'traditionalists' may be corralled into religious institutions that serve society. 'Secularism' may be encouraged as a temporary bridge to moving away from a deracinated, exclusivist cultism and discovering Dharma (via any of the 3 co-ordinates).

Excerpts from Sri Prof.P.Y.Bapat's 2500 Years of Buddhism

In the life of the Buddha, there are two sides, individual and social.

The familiar Buddha-image is of a meditating sage, yogin, absorbed and withdrawn, lost in the joy of his inner meditation. This is the tradition associated with the Theravada Buddhism and Asoka's missions. For these the Buddha is a man, not God, a teacher and not a saviour.

There is the other side of the Buddha's life, when he is concerned with the sorrows of men, eager to enter their lives, heal thier troubles and spread his message for the good of the many: bahu-jana-hitaya. Based on this compassion for humanity, a second tradition matured in North India under the Kusanas (70-480 AD) and the Guptas (320-650 AD). It developed the ideal of salvation for all, the descipline of devotion and the way of universal service.

While the former tradition prevails in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Burma (Myanmar) and Thailand;
the latter is found in Nepal, Tibet, Korea, China and Japan.

Excerpts from Sri Prof.P.Y.Bapat's 2500 Years of Buddhism

The sight of the holy man, healthy in body, cheerful in mind, without any of the comforts of life, impressed the Buddha strongly with the conviction that the pursuit of religion was the only goal worthy of man. It makes man independent of the temporary trials and fleeting pleasures of the world. The buddha decided to renounce the world and devote himself to a religious life. He left his home, wife and child, put on the garb and habits of a mendicant, and fled into the forest in order to meditate on human suffering, its causes and the means by which it could be overcome. He spent six years in the study of the most abstruse doctrines of religion, suffered the severest austerities, reduced himself to the verge of starvation in the hope that by mortifying the flesh, he should surely attain to the knowledge of truth. But he came very near death without having attained the wisdom that he sought.

He gave up ascetic practices, resumed normal life, refreshed himself in the waters of the river Nairanjana, accepted the milk pudding offered by Sujata: nayam atma balahinena labhyah. After he gained bodily health and mental vigor he spent seven weeks under the shade of the Bodhi tree, sitting in a state of the deepest and most profound meditation. One night towards the dawn his understanding opened and he attawined enlightenment.

After the enlightenment the Buddha refers to himself in the third person as the Tathagata: he who has arrived at the truth. He wished to preach the knowledge he gained and so said: "I shall go to Banaras where I will light the lamp that will bring ligh into the world. I will go to Banaras and beat the drums that will awaken mankind. I shall go to Banaras and there I Shall teach the Law". "Give ear, O mendicants! The Deathless (Amrta, eternal life) has been found by me. I will now insruct. I will preach the Dharma." He travelled from place to place, touched the lives of hundreds, high and low, princes and peasants. They all came under the spell of his great personality. He taught for forty-five years the beauty of charity and the joy of renunciation, the need for simplicity and equality.

At the age of eighty he was on his way to Kusinagara,the town in which he passed into parinirvana. Taking leave of the pleasant city of Vaisalf with his favourite disciple, Ananda, he rested on one of the eighbouring hills and looking at the pleasant scenery with its many shrines and sanctuaries, he said to Ananda, citram jambudvipam, manoramam jlvitam manusvanam. "Colourful and rich is India, lovable and charming is the life of men." {Repeatedly proves the continuation of Bharat as a single, unified federal entity much much before the advent of Islalmic and Christian colonizers into Bharat}

...
Our subjection to time, to samsara, is due to avidyd, unawareness, leading to infatuation, depravity, asava. Ignor- ance and craving are the substratum of the empirical life. From avidya we must rise to vidya, bodhi, enlightenment. When we have vipassanu, knowledge by seeing, clear perception, we will acquire samata unshakable calm. In all this, the Buddha adopts the Vedic criterion of certainty which is rooted in actual knowledge which is attained by immediate experience, direct intellectual intuition of reality: vathu- bhiita-nana-dassana.

My summary:

Buddha started his search towards enlightenment and he correctly found religion to be the only path to that. All his journey and goal are Vedic/Hindu in nature, he didn't find/follow any path that was different from Vedic/Hindu tradition.

Like everyone he confused the journey with the goal and practiced extreme penance, which almost killed him. But that journey gave him "anta:karana suddhi". Then he separated his journey from the goal and regained physical and mental strength. When he achieved realization it was done thru jnana (awareness) as Vedic/Hindu marga dictates.

Once he achieved realization he went on to teach the same to the society.

I think by Buddha's time most likely the society left the Vedic/Hindu path and became charvaka (materialistic). Even the religious schools spent their time in acquisition of knowledge but not practicing what they learned. Most likely people stopped practicing the last two legs of ashrama-dharma (Vanaprastha and Samnyasa). That is why there was so much surprise and ananda/joy when they came across a self-realized person.

Buddha re-introduced Samnyasa ashrama-dharma to Bharat. He told/encouraged people to practice this aspect of Ashrama Dharma with the same rigor they were practicing Grihastha asrama. He told them that this is the only way they can get rid of all the sorrows/strings they accumulated during their Grihastha ashrama.

Buddha also removed the 'Social' condition/privilege to Samnyasa ashrama that allowed only Brahmana-varna to take up this Ashrama. He told (correctly IMO) that all varnas have equal right to follow all ashramas including Samnyasa.

In summary, Buddha re-introduced Vedic/Hindu Ashrama-Dharma to Bharat, that became obsessed with Varna-Dharma alone, through his teachings.

Looks like I posted this even before I read the author saying the obvious

The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up, and died a Hindu. He was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo- Aryan civilization.

"Even so have I, monks, seen an ancient way, an ancient road followed by the wholly awakened ones of olden times . . . Along that have I gone, and the matters that I have come to know fully as I was going along it, I have told to the monks, nuns, men and women lay-followers, even, monks, this Brahma-faring, brahmacarya that is prosperous and flourishing, widespread and widely known, become popular—in short, well made manifest for gods and men."

Buddha seems easier to follow then his followers.

Today I was watching the 'Bharat ek khoj' episode on Prince Ashok (chronologically narrated below):

1) Quelling of revolt at Taksashila by Prince Ashok,

2) Land grants and protection to Buddhists supported by rich merchants

3) Prince Ashok marrying the daughter of a rich merchant from Ujjain. Also seeking support from the merchants of Ujjain and bearing kids with his non-kashtriya wife, who actually raises her objection to accompanying Prince Ashok to Patliputra as she cannot be the Patrani (the consort). Coincidently her father has also voiced apprehensions on these grounds earlier prior to marriage.

4) One of the arrangements at the time of marriage is that the merchants would help Prince Ashok raise an army.

5) Manifest destiny (all other brothers being bhog-vilasi dolts) being raised by Prince Ashok to justify his claim to the throne. On first watching a few years back I remember getting impressed with such clear headedness. The brothers - Tissa and Sushima indeed appear fickle minded. Others I do not know of.

6) The merchant father and the daughter time and again raise their concern at the violence involved in Raajniti but Ashok is always able to convince them of the righteousness of his conduct. And they do easily get convinced.

7) Prince Ashok with the help of a Mantri Radhagupt moves into Patliputra when infact his father wants to anoint the eldest brother Sushima (who is in the midst of another revolt in Takshashila) and comes in late into the capital. When infact he alongwith his is army is stopped at the gates of Patliputra by Ashok (who has already appointed himself as Regent when his father died in the absence of Sushima). Radhagupt has send for Prince Ashok when infact the dying king had specifically asked for the eldest son to be brought back to the capital for hand over take over business.

8.) Regent Ashok goes on to kill all his brother except Tissa. The dying father had already accused Prince Ashok of vidroh and of betrayal/greed.


Coincidence is some years back I had watched on Doordarshan a rendition of a katha involving a repenting Ashok asking the son of one of the slain brothers as to why he does not bear any rancor against Ashok even though Ashok clearly says that he killed the boys father. The boy replied that he has take the sharanam of buddha and does not feel any need for revenge. The boy forgives Ashok.


..............

People and Politics never really changed.

As luck would have it brihaspati ji has already posted the below:

brihaspati wrote: There is indeed not much narrative record of Buddhist violence comparable to the Islamic record. But the line or thread about violence is easily seen by those who have cared to study Buddhist texts. Its subtle, and not always so obvious. The legends attributed to Gautama - can be a starting point in the various retellings of his lives. Tiger, lion, and other "violent" animals are associated with him or his manifestations - they in turn do the violent bits, not "him", when needed. Or natural forces are harnessed to "destroy" evil. Its there - but one has to shed the lens of reconstructed posturings about ahimsa - that is more a result of a certain late 19th century orientalist European approach, than a reality of interpretations from actual texts.

Also the comparative historical record of the regions where Buddhism entered - needs to be taken into account. How peaceful really these societies became?

The hints of iconoclastic violence and intolerance - the introduction of proto-Christo-Islamo moral authoritarianism into public life of ordinary humans, the dress-codes, the penalties for deviations from "moral behaviour" as approved by the "sangha", all show a certain hard authoritarianism and social engineering that could not have been enforced without state coercion and violence.

There could be a link between the archeological absence of "Hindu/Vedic" symbols/icons from the periods before the advent of Mahayana compromise with "idolatry", simply because of the possible early and violent intolerance/iconoclasm of the early Buddhist phase. Note that the schism was quite "violent" and needed the mediation of emperors - who sided with the "compromisers", which meant the latter were the weaker party - and therefore shrewdly supported by the imperial mind - as has been the practice of all empires.

Buddhist iconoclasm or violence based on puritan moral authoritarianism is well traceable. We should not simply trust the convenient ideological packages that have been gifted to us by interested imperialists or their colonial/post-colonial servants.

This is no way diminishes the philosophical effort evident in Buddhist canons, but we should read it as it is - not in a reverse projection of Gandhian posturings [posturings because in him too - violence was not always an anathema, it was merely the conditional use of it - and the approved of targets, that was the issue].

Mera naman swikaarya ho gurudev.

ravi_g ji,
please do not embarrass me! I have simply given a short gist of what my overall assessment of Buddha and his successors/sects have left as "evidence". I have always been a skeptic, and hence also a skeptic about the way the "Buddha" and his constructed religion - has been represented. Once I learned to deconstruct texts - with authors/context/propaganda/ideology/intent/social-engineering/falsification-with-agenda in mind, it was a disturbing pattern that emerged from the successive Buddhist texts.

I think they have had a solid connection/contribution towards
(1) absence of pre-Buddhist records
(2) moral policing/authoritarianism/purity-sexuality obsessions with attendant asexual/anti-sexual twists
(3) transformation of Vedic guna-Varna into jaati-caste-by-birth varna
(4) associating profession and "karma" with sin/hierarchy and rebirth
(5) hoarding of "dangerous" knowledge, and removal of such knowledge from public access, thereby concentrating them for potential destruction
(6) teaching the contextualization of values, and subsequent decontextualization of the role of land/people/identity - towards internationalization in the negative/passive/opportunist direction, that justified collaborating with hostile forces for trade profits.

I feel these and other monastic orders took the joy out of Indian spirituality, and made it both a state domain instead of public and individual, as well as an instrument of repression and continuance of repressive/exploitative social/political hierarchical orders. They have introduced things - deviations - that were not part of the "original". The overall political power that this structure gained - has affected how people even opposed to them - have had to react. That opposition could not take things back to before the deviation - and was a classic dialectic evolution. Rise of Buddhism determined that opposition to it would now be forced to evolve along a trajectory that retained the imperialist social control bit - because the rulers saw the advantage of a theology of renunciation and celibacy [the best possible way of keeping a whole population feel continuously guilty for doing things they cannot otherwise help not doing], supposed forgiveness/ahimsa [best when applied to the ruling regime], looking down upon public/praja capacity to retaliate and for violence [good for the ruler], and justification of current birth based privilege or deprivation based on unverifiable past karma.

Each one of these factors are effective weapons of social control in favour of a ruling hierarchy. But the byproduct of that line is also emasculation - military and sheer life force - of a society.

a correction: The excerpts I posted are from Sri Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's foreword of that book. Please note.

brihaspati garu,

On Buddhism and its history, I believe there has been inadequate study to see how Buddhism and Sanatan Dharma are historically interwoven.

For example, there is inadequate mention of Sri Sugata Buddha, the Adi Buddha, Lord Buddha, the 9ᵗʰ Vishnu Avatara, son of Anjana and Hemasadana, born in Kikata, the place later renamed as Bodhgaya, possibly around 1887 BCE, and left the world circa 1807 BCE. Most of the attention is restricted to Shakya Simha Gautama Buddha, born to Shuddhodana and Mayadevi, in Lumbini (Kapilavastu) born between 800-560 BCE.

This differentiation between the two is important because Buddha seems to have been hijacked by Buddhist groups, taking him out of Sanatan Dharma fold and creating a new religion around him.

So it becomes difficult to ascertain which parts of Buddhism are to be ascribed to

1. Lord Buddha,
2. Shakya Simha Gautama Buddha,
3. various Buddhist groups after Gautama Buddha,
4. non-Bharatiya Asian influences, or to
5. Neo-Buddhists, with large dollops of Western interference

It is in fact possible that later Buddhists after Gautama Buddha tried to distance themselves from the Sanatan Dharma rootedness of Buddhism going back to Sri Sugata Buddha, and instead tried to claim Gautama Buddha as the new founder of their religion.

At this point I can only speculate what might have happened.

It is possible that between Lord Buddha and Gautama Buddha, Buddhism was simply a part of Sanatan Dharma with the Brahmins also accepting Lord Buddha, albeit in a special mode of being anti-Vedic for purposes of deception and bringing calm to the Asuric tendencies. It was perhaps their way of reconciling his admonition of certain animal sacrifices by them which they may have considered being part of Vedic tradition, which they themselves may have misunderstood. In short Lord Buddha tried to cleanse Vedic society of non-Vedic traditions which may have crept in later on, but which Brahmins had started to adopt. Or Lord Buddha may have decided to cleanse Vedic society of some of its original customs which he found unwarranted, e.g. cruelty to animals, in case such a tendency existed in that society.

The reason why Buddhism spread so rapidly in Bharat was because Sri Sugata Buddha was considered as a Vishnu Avatara and his message made sense. People following Lord Buddha never thought of themselves as having changed their religious identity.

However after the advent of Gautama Buddha, the Buddhists made a much deeper cut from the Sanatan Dharma, possibly for political reasons. It seems, it is Gautama Buddha who usurped the mantle of Buddha from Lord Buddha, rejected the Vedas which Lord Buddha had not and proposed the nihilist worldview.

The social engineering may have started after Gautama Buddha, and it was in response of this that Adi Shankaracharya rose up and started the renaissance of Sanatan Dharma.

RamaY wrote:a correction: The excerpts I posted are from Sri Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's foreword of that book. Please note.

He was a great scholar. And quite wellknown to us.

RamaY wrote: My summary:

Buddha started his search towards enlightenment and he correctly found religion to be the only path to that. All his journey and goal are Vedic/Hindu in nature, he didn't find/follow any path that was different from Vedic/Hindu tradition.

It is debatable whether Buddha found anything new or not. But, according to the bio of Buddha, he did claim to have found something unique(compared to other prevalent schools). One does not know whether it was a new religion or a new path within an old religion. Buddha actively seeks to convert the elites of the society. The words used to refer to the elites are: Agra-Kula. This is very important.

The word 'Kula' is found in Valmiki Ramayana with a different context. In Valmiki Ramayana, the word 'Kulapathi' is used to refer to a master of a school(a rishi running an ashram). So, the word 'Kula' may have meant 'colleagues'('co-travellers'). There is a telugu word 'Kolatha' which means 'measuring'.

By the time of MB, the word 'Kula' is used to refer to lineage or family. As far as I know(and I know very little), Vyasa MB or Valmiki Ramayana, do not use the word Agra-Kula. 'Agra' means 'leading'. 'Agra-kula' means 'leading-families'.

It is quite clear, going through buddhist literature that Buddhism placed great emphasis on social(caste or family) background. In fact, Sadh-dharma-pundarika sutram, a buddhist missionary manual, exhorts all the Kula-putras(sons of good families) to take up missionary activity for the buddhism. It seems the word Kula-putra was used to refer to Buddhist missionaries.

johneeG wrote:

Jhujar wrote:Cleopatra is corruptiuon of Kulputri

There may be some merit in this speculation. Kulaputra/kulaputri means highborn. But, it seems, the Buddhists used it as a synonym for missionaries.

In the SDP, the Lord Sâkyamuni(s) encourages his disciples to spread the message in writing etc. His disciples are called Bodhisattvas, Mahâsattvas etc., and kula-putras, i.e. "family-sons" (often translated freely as "sons of good family").
The passage from the SDFP quoted above read:

"Therefore, young men of good family, you should after the complete extinction of the Tathâgata, with reverence, keep, read, promulgate, cherish, worship it."

In other words: Once Sâkyamuni(s) as passed away, it is up to the kula-putras to spread the SDP in various ways. The kula-putras is thus one of the many synonyms of a Buddhist missionary.

Link

This in itself is inconclusive. But when it is combined with the data point that Cleopatra's son was being sent(or already sent) to India, then there is a clear connection. So, maybe, the later day egyptian religion and empire was highjacked by the Buddhists through political power.

Cleopatra is supposed to have lived in 69-30 BCE. This was the time when the Buddhists were very active. X-nity is supposed to have been born just after this time.

There is early connection of India with X-nity. It is not mundane connection but a vital one in X-nity.

Saint Pantaenus (Greek: Πάνταινος; died ca. 200)[1] was a Christian theologian and a significant figure in the Catechetical School of Alexandria from around AD 180. This school was the earliest catechetical school, and became influential in the development of Christian theology. Pantaenus was a Stoic philosopher teaching in Alexandria. He converted to the Christian faith, and sought to reconcile his new faith with Greek philosophy. His most famous student, Clement, who was his successor as head of the Catechetical School, described Pantaenus as "the Sicilian bee".[2] Although no writings by Pantaenus are extant,[3] his legacy is known by the influence of the Catechetical School on the development of Christian theology, in particular in the early debates on the interpretation of the Bible, the Trinity, and Christology. He was the main supporter of Serapion of Antioch for acting against the influence of Gnosticism.

In addition to his work as a teacher, Eusebius of Caesarea reports that Pantaenus was for a time a missionary, traveling as far as India where, according to Eusebius, he found Christian communities using the Gospel of Matthew written in "Hebrew letters", supposedly left them by the apostle Bartholemew (and which might have been the Gospel of the Hebrews).

The wording is crafty. He did not travel 'as far as India'. He traveled TO India. The difference in the two wordings is that the wording of the wiki gives an impression that India was one of the several stops of Pantaenus. But, it seems that India was the goal/destination of Pantaenus. He was traveling to India. Why did he come to India? Well, he came to India for 'Gospel of Matthew' which was left there by one 'Bartholemew'. And it was written in Hebrew.

This piece flies in the face of all X-ian chronology. So, they are trying to make sense of it by connecting it to Syrian X-ians or the fake landing of 'Saint Thomas' in India. They have pushed both these later events into antiquity to make sense of Pantaenus's travel to India and finding Gospel in India. This is bogus. The Saint Thomas visit to India is bogus and pushing the syrian x-ian presence in India to 180 CE is also bogus.

What must be noted is that Pantaenus did not find the Gospel in Egypt, Europe, Africa or Middle-East Asia(or any other part of Asia). He found it explicitly in India and India alone. That means, Gospel was in India which Pantaenus found(or rather he brought that Gospel from India to Greece/Rome). Why was Gospel in India and who is this Bartholemew?

Because Gospel was created in India by Indians:

According to an early Christian tradition, a certain Pantaenus went to India, where he found a copy of the Gospel according to Matthew (see the discussion in Metzger, op. cit., p. 129 f.). It is reported to have been in Hebrew letters. It was said to have been brought there and left there - in India - by a certain Bar-tholomew. What are we to make of that?
The first piece of information is, as we have seen, quite true: The Gospel of Matthew has its home in India. But what about the second part - the legend of Bartholomew having brought it there?

The answer is simple - provided you know the Buddhist sources. Just like the disciples of Jesus often have more than one name, thus the disciples of Buddha also have more than one name. Maudgalyâyanas also has other names, and one of these is indeed one that can be translated as "son", bar, of thalama.

The early Christian tradition about Pantaenus going to India, where he found the Gospel of Matthew said to have been brought there by Bartholomew, now becomes clear. Matthew and Bartholomew are the same person - the Buddhist Maudgalyâyanas. So what Pantaenus found was the Gospel of Maudgalyâyanas - i.e. the MSV, or parts of it. That should not come as a surprise by now.

When the Buddhist gospels were eventually translated into other Oriental languages, it was the MSV version that was regarded as "canonical". This was the Gospel according to Maudgalyâyanas. And this was what Pantaenus found in India.

Link

In simple terms, Pantaenus carried a buddhist gospel named Mûlasarvâstivâdavinaya to Greece/Rome. It was written in Hebrew.

Buddhists have a long tradition for counting the number of words and syllables in their gospels. They also have a deep experience in translating Indian texts into foreign languages. It goes back to the time of king Asoka.

Link

So, if the Cleopatra has connection with India and in 30 BC and Pantaenus had a connection with India in 180 AD. Both are prominent connections. Gospel is central to X-nity and it was brought from India. The son of Ceasar and Cleopatra was being sent to India. That means a potential future king of Rome(and the last Pharaoh of Egypt) was being sent to India for safekeeping.

During this time, 100 BCE to 180 AD, Buddhism was predominant in India and actively sending various missionaries worldwide. So, it is very much possible that Cleopatra was a Buddhist by descent or conversion. Maybe Romans were unhappy with Ceasar's and later Mark Anthony's affair with Cleopatra because she was seen as a Buddhist missionary wanting to spread Buddhism in Rome. Otherwise, whats the big deal in Royalty having an affair?! In fact, it is egyptians who should be enraged, not Romans. But curiously, it is the otherway around.

Eventually, Buddhism did spread to Rome through Gospels.

Link to original post

According to the bio of Buddha, Buddha actively sought to 'convert' the elites of his day. He converted a son of high family. He is referred to as Agra-kulika-puthra. Buddha tried to 'convert' the Brahmins, Kings, and many such people of the society. He also tried to 'convert' the teachers of opposing schools. But, one thing to be noticed is that the method of 'conversion' was not debates. It was combination of preaching and miracles. Buddha apparently showed miracles and preached to them about his so-called new method: middle path.

RamaY wrote: Like everyone he confused the journey with the goal and practiced extreme penance, which almost killed him. But that journey gave him "anta:karana suddhi". Then he separated his journey from the goal and regained physical and mental strength. When he achieved realization it was done thru jnana (awareness) as Vedic/Hindu marga dictates.

Once he achieved realization he went on to teach the same to the society.

Saar,
I am afraid, you are trying to read it in a different manner.

If you read the bio of Buddha(without going into whether its true or fake), Before, he was born, he used to reside in Tushitha Heaven. Then, he was told to take birth. Among 4 qualities, Bodhisatva also looked for high-caste(or leading family stature) and he zeroed in on Shuddhodhana and Maya as his parents.

Maya died soon after his birth. There are certain Buddhist scriptures that claim Maya was a virgin despite Buddha's birth. (Yep, Virgin Mother, Virgin Maya, ... amazing parallels, only possible if it was copied from one to the other!)

Asitha Muni(a hindu character is being borrowed/stolen by the Buddhist crafters of Buddha's bio) and his nephew see a shining light in the sky, when he was born. Then they travel to Shuddhodhana's palace. They foretell that Buddha will either be a chakravarthi of empires or chakravarthi of sanyasis. (Just as, wise men of east follow the star and come to jesus's place when he was born. They hail him as the king of jews. Just as, Simeon and Anna visit infant jesus and predict that he will become a savior. Co-incidence?!)

Then, Shuddhodhana tries to keep his son, Siddhartha, away from all the pains of the world by keeping him entertained in all kinds of pleasures. Buddha marries 3 women(or is it 4, I forget). Siddhartha has a son.

But, he wanted to become a Sanyasi. He was inspired to become a sanyasi when he saw a sanyasi while roaming in the town. 3 instances are mentioned which motivated the Buddha:
a) he saw a dead body while roaming in the town.
b) he saw a diseased person writhing in pain while roaming in the town.
c) he saw a sanyasi while roaming in the town.

a) and b) made him lose interest in the world, while c) inspired him to take up sanyasa. Of course, he did not follow the due procedure. He did not take permission of his parents, nor did he take the permission of his wife. He was about 30 years of age, when he decided to take up sanyasa. (Jesus was about 30 years, when he left his home.)

Siddhartha joined various eminent schools of sanyasis and tried the tapas. But he was not satisfied with their teachings. So, he frequently changed the schools. He gave up one and joined another one. He kept shifting from one to another and rejected them all. He had some close friends during these years who were with him all along. One day, they saw Siddhartha giving up the strict vows of tapas. They became disgusted with him and left him. Finally, he claimed to get enlightenment and in the process discovered a new path: middle path.

Frankly, one does not know what this enlightenment means or how he achieved it. Before achieving the enlightenment, he is supposed to be a Bodhisatva(potential Buddha). Now, after the achievement of the enlightenment, he is supposed to be Buddha.

So, now he established his own school of sanyasis. The unique point of this school was missionary activity. Strictly speaking, it may not have been the unique point. Nirgranthas(i.e. Jainas) were already in missionary mode.

Buddha sent out missionaries to swell up his numbers. Brahmins, royalty and moneyed men were prime targets. Kings, elite and ordinary folk paid respects and regards to all Godmen even if they did not agree or understand the theology being preached. This is a continuation of Hindu tradition of respecting all sanyasis.

There was coaxing to make people join Buddha's sanyasi organization. Even a young child, Buddha's own son, was given sanyasa. All the male relatives of Buddha were given sanyasa. Many of them were forced to take up sanyasa because Buddha's father was the King of Shakyas.

Many of them resented the sanyasa because they had not taken it up voluntarily. Over a period, there was lot of internal politics and bickering in the Buddha's organization. Devadatta, Buddha' cousin, wanted to replace the Buddha as leader of the Sanyasi organization. Buddha refused to give up the leadership of the organization even though Buddha was quite old by that time. Devadatta split the organization into two. Some(Many?) followers of Buddha left with Devadatta and formed a new organization. Devadatta's organization and Buddha's organization competed with each other to swell the ranks and also gain the favour of the King Ajatashatru, ruler of Magadha. There were also plots to murder Buddha. Buddha's right-hand man Sariputra had a fight with Devadatta faction when both of them encountered each other while on their missionary activity. Devadatta was abused by Sariputra. Their was a fight. Sariputra killed some of the opposite faction. But, he was also critically wounded and died as a consequence. Initially, Devadatta acquired the favour of Ajatashatru, but later Buddha was able to charm Ajatashatru.

When Buddha was thus coaxing many people(particularly in his home country) into Sanyasa, the women became desperate and asked Buddha to accept them also into his school. Buddha refused to do so.(This is a traditional hindu position.) But, then Ananda, a close disciple and cousin of Buddha, took up the cause of women by appealing to Buddha on emotional lines. Those women were being led by Buddha's aunt who had raised him after the death of his mother. So, Buddha gave in to the emotional appeal and accepted the women into Sanyasa. But, Buddha warned that his religion which was going to last for 2000 years, would now last only 1000 years because the women have been allowed to join. Then, Buddha puts up many preconditions for nuns. Many of them are quite rigorous and nuns are kept lower in hierarchy then the male sanyasis, even if the nun is a senior in terms of age or knowledge or anything else. This is the unique attribute of Buddhism. Nuns exist only in Buddhism and X-ism, correct me if I am wrong.

If one goes by the bio of Buddha, then Buddha also used to undergo Chaatur-masyas(4 month vows) that has been prescribed for Sanyasis in Hinduism. Chaatur-masya means 4 months. Sanyasis are not supposed to stay at any one place. They should keep roaming. But, in 4 months of rainy season, they should remain at one place(village, town, ..etc). A sanyasi's seniority is judged by the number of chaatur-masyas he has taken up in his life so far.

Buddha lived a long life of 80 years and he had taken up sanyasa quite early(30 years). He claimed to have been enlightened very early. If Buddha is taken as a real historical figure, then his field of action seems to have been limited to few cities in UP and Bihar. Even the populace of these cities did not completely become Buddhists. In fact, even the Kings(like Ajatashatru) did not become total Buddhist supporters. His organization remained a small school among many others. Of course, the bio of Buddha boasts that it had defeated many schools which were taken as prominent in those times. It should be noted that the method of defeat was not discussion or debate. Buddha defeated his opponents or convinced the people of the superiority of his school by performing miracles.(very similar to jesus figure. jesus also purportedly shows miracles to convince people).

RamaY wrote: I think by Buddha's time most likely the society left the Vedic/Hindu path and became charvaka (materialistic). Even the religious schools spent their time in acquisition of knowledge but not practicing what they learned. Most likely people stopped practicing the last two legs of ashrama-dharma (Vanaprastha and Samnyasa). That is why there was so much surprise and ananda/joy when they came across a self-realized person.

Saar,
this is nonsense. On the other hand, vanaprastha and sanyasa was quite common. And their was no such ananda/joy when Buddha introduced himself to others. It seems he was accorded the same respect that was reserved for all godmen in desh.

Also, there seem to be very little 'charvaka', reading the buddha's bio. It comes across as if people were quite devout to the extent that even the false/fake sanyasis were respected.

Anyway, the buddha's bio itself seems to borrow motifs and themes from Hindu literature(particularly Valmiki Ramayana and Bhagavatham), so one does not know how much credibility it should be given.

RamaY wrote: Buddha re-introduced Samnyasa ashrama-dharma to Bharat. He told/encouraged people to practice this aspect of Ashrama Dharma with the same rigor they were practicing Grihastha asrama. He told them that this is the only way they can get rid of all the sorrows/strings they accumulated during their Grihastha ashrama.

Again nonsense, saar.
There were many sanyasi schools. Buddha actually became pupil of many such schools. And finally established his own school. Nothing new or unique. Nothing. Except the attempts to get royal patronage. That is unique!

Buddha also removed the 'Social' condition/privilege to Samnyasa ashrama that allowed only Brahmana-varna to take up this Ashrama. He told (correctly IMO) that all varnas have equal right to follow all ashramas including Samnyasa. [/quote]

It seems the rule in Hinduism is that only a dwija(not just brahmin) male can become a sanyasi. One does not know whether this rule was followed by Hindus during Buddha's period(if such a personality indeed existed at all).

RamaY wrote: In summary, Buddha re-introduced Vedic/Hindu Ashrama-Dharma to Bharat, that became obsessed with Varna-Dharma alone, through his teachings.

Au contraire, Buddha destroyed the Ashrama-dharma of Vedhic/Hindhu. He took out all the checks and balances that were kept. No permissions of parents/wives, coaxing/forcing/tricking people into becoming a sanyasi, seeking royal patronage for sanyasa schools, building elaborate and rich schools right in the middle of the city for sanyasis, sanyasis taking wealth as 'charity', by removing the age/gender bar and allowing everyone(infact, forcing everyone) to become sanyasi, buddhism disrupts the social balance and eventually makes the society weak.

RamaY wrote: Looks like I posted this even before I read the author saying the obvious

The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up, and died a Hindu. He was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo- Aryan civilization.

"Even so have I, monks, seen an ancient way, an ancient road followed by the wholly awakened ones of olden times . . . Along that have I gone, and the matters that I have come to know fully as I was going along it, I have told to the monks, nuns, men and women lay-followers, even, monks, this Brahma-faring, brahmacarya that is prosperous and flourishing, widespread and widely known, become popular—in short, well made manifest for gods and men."

Saar ji,
what were the teachings of Buddha, that in itself can be a topic of great discussion. Because there were competing schools of Buddhism teaching conflicting things about what buddha is supposed to have taught. Infact, Adhi Shankara's single, simple and profound criticism of Buddhism is,"What exactly did Buddha/Sugatha teach? There are different schools teaching opposite theories in the name of Buddha/Sugatha? If he taught different things to different people, then he must have been trying to fool you or he must himself be a fool."

-----
Bji,
I wanted to express my appreciation of your posts in this thread, Mughal Era thread and in reply to Anand K's posts. Really good posts, saar. Very enlightening. Please do continue. Bravo...



Bji,
could you please post more on Buddhism's iconoclasm? Any leads/pointers which indicate destruction of temples or idols? Or even the philosophy or theory that demanded iconoclasm...

Bji,
it seems to me that Buddhism acted like a parasite. It would weaken the host(state). That may explain why India in Buddhist period was rich and powerful, but very pacifist. Interestingly, X-ism behaves in the same manner in the initial phases(i.e. during roman period and even subsequent dark ages), until they come in contact with jihadis. It seem X-ism was influenced by jihadi model to create colonial model.

You have hinted in the past that during Buddhist period, many war-sciences were discouraged and access to such knowledge may have controlled through viharas and universities(under Buddhist control).

Now, Sudarshan saar asked a very relevant question:

sudarshan wrote:

johneeG wrote:
----
Sudarshan saar,
your query led me to an interesting points:

quote:
Guns and Cannons in Ancient India during the Vedic and Mahabharata Period
Details about guns used in ancient India are found in Shukra Niti. About weapons used in Vedic age are found in Atharva Veda. Information regarding cannons are found in Vana Parva of Mahabharata and also in Naishadham text of Sriharsha. The name given by ancient Indians to cannon was Shatagni.

Shatagni had the capacity to kill nearly 100 soldiers of the enemies. Puranas also give information about Shatagni.

Shatagni was a large gun which used to fire iron balls fitted with spikes. Shatagni gun was mounted on a vehicle which had eight wheels. This was far more superior to the first versions of modern cannons.

Guns were known as Bhushundi in ancient India. Small guns were known as Lagu Naliyam and those with bigger holes were known as Briha Naliyam.

There are archeological evidences that bullets were made using various metals in ancient India.

Treatise dealing with various weapons used in ancient India is found in Dhanur Veda. It mentions about machine operated weapons.

Link to original post

Hmm. What happened to all this yudh vidya in later times? Like when the Greeks came a'calling? For that matter, what happened to all the divya astras from Ramayana/MB times? Anu-shakti would have made mincemeat of the Greek/Mohameddan/European invaders, naa?

Sudarshan saar,
I am not saying that anu-shakti(or atom bomb) existed at that time. I don't believe in that theory. But, there may have been powerful weapons like cannons, mechanical semi-automatic bows that release several arrows at a time, some kind of bombs, and even guns.

What happened to such knowledge?
I think, it may have been lost during Buddhist period. Not just these high-profile ones, but even the regular warfare sciences like archery and chariots seem to have suffered. Even cavalry sciences may have suffered to an extent.

I mean, where are the chariots when the muslims were attacking? They mention elephants, but there is no mention of chariots(as far as I know).

So, my guess is that during buddhist period, desh lost the knowledge of war-sciences. Bji, please give your opinion on this.

----

RajeshA wrote: Why do we need to say that it is because they are Buddhists? They are hostile simply because they have a different religious identity than us.

Saar,
from a hardcore Buddhist perspective(specially, in a non-Indian or anti-Indian), the perception is that relationship between Hindhuism and Buddhism is same as India and Pakistan. The existence of Pakistan cannot be justified if the idea of India is accepted. Similarly, if Hindhuism is accepted and acknowledged then the existence of Buddhism or the role of Buddha becomes unnecessary.

Remember, Buddha is presented as the 'reformer of Hindhuism/Vedhic'...

RajeshA wrote:There is no cooperation of Buddhists with the Islamics that the Hindus too have not indulged in!

If in the Mahabharata time one talks of decay setting in, then the decay among all colors of Dharmics when Islam came around was far too progressed, that includes all Dharmics - Aastikas, Buddhists, Jains!

Just because before Islam came in, there were monarchs and dynasties which had various religious identities - Hindu Kshatriyas, Buddhists, Jains, etc. doesn't mean anyone of them was really acting as per Raj Dharma.

So if it comes to showing decay, there is enough muck to throw around. Should one try to analyze the political currents in Buddhist lands or for that matter in Hindu India, one would hardly find any leaders one could look up to, who are not compromised and corrupt to the core!

So the only question left is: what are we trying to achieve by all that? The message being sent out is: everything is bad, bad to the core; there is nothing to salvage, because everything is corrupt! History has shown that leaders with some formal Dharmic identities have sold out their people, so let's pull down those identities and knowledge systems!

I just don't know what one gets from all this rhona-dhona! The decay is everywhere to see. History has been of decay! What new insight are we getting from looking at all the blisters. Everybody knows they are there, and if one hasn't seen them, one can still smell them. So is whining the only thing left to do? How much of reality $hit would one have to smear in one's face before the others are satisfied that one understands the §hitty reality? Can we all ever move on from there?

Why should Buddhism be debated? What are we trying to achieve?

I think the importance of Buddhism is that most of the commies regurgitate the Buddhist arguments against Hindhuism. That is the most important reason why it should be studied.

See, whenever, someone tries to critique a culture/religion/civilization, first one tries to look at the past to find similar attempts(so that inspiration can be taken from them). Most often, the new enemies regurgitate the old allegations or arguments.

So, commies regurgitate the arguments pushed by colonials, Ejs, jihadhis and Buddhists(and to an extent jains). Colonials and EJs, in their turn, regurgitate the arguments of greeks, romans, jihadhis and Buddhists.

So, Buddhist arguments against Hindhuism frequently get regurgitated in various garbs. It is therefore necessary to go to the root and study the whole thing.

Agnimitra wrote: A major portion of the Buddhist clergy and elites were caste-Brahmin converts who defected to the sangha when it was the intellectual fashion and had political ascendency. One major concern of caste-Brahminism during those times was that they were losing some of their best and brightest to Buddhism. A modern analogy is how people from certain elite castes are also the most prominent and copious converts to the intellectual elite of Pinko Leftism in India. Thus, on both sides of the Buddhist-Brahminism divide, one had people from the same caste who were adept at playing similar games.

Exactly.

johneeG garu,

my namaskaar to you for your various posts on our original light. I much appreciate your expositions.

could you please post more on Buddhism's iconoclasm? Any leads/pointers which indicate destruction of temples or idols? Or even the philosophy or theory that demanded iconoclasm...

Taranath comes to mind first hand. Hieuen Tsang and Chinese chronicles, SE Asian chronicles too. I will try to give refs.

it seems to me that Buddhism acted like a parasite. It would weaken the host(state). That may explain why India in Buddhist period was rich and powerful, but very pacifist. Interestingly, X-ism behaves in the same manner in the initial phases(i.e. during roman period and even subsequent dark ages), until they come in contact with jihadis. It seem X-ism was influenced by jihadi model to create colonial model.

A striking observation. I think it was a deviation from what "was before" and was shaped up in a conjunctive need between long distance/foreign traders and imperialist ambitions. Just like "protestant" movements splintering in ever increasing cascades compared to the "catholic". Each new splinter needs to desperately prove its distinction from the parent and often finds an intense love-hate relation develop, often showing violently competitive tendencies.

The two streams you compare - share many other charactersitics - they both take off after being taken up by imperialist ambitions, both emphasize celibacy and a certain suspicion/looking down on the role of women, monasticism as both a means of preventing problems of sexuality as well as an organized structure that perhaps turns sexual repression and sublimation [as well as lack of typical family bonds that hold people back] into militancy. Jihadism added the predatory sexuality to keep motivation and mobility at the same time.

You have hinted in the past that during Buddhist period, many war-sciences were discouraged and access to such knowledge may have controlled through viharas and universities(under Buddhist control).

This is my hypothesis from observing that a similar phenomenon happened under middle phase of post Roman pre-medieval Church, and the curious mentions of how "dangerous" knowledge was segregated and isolated from the "unworthy" by the gate-keeper system of Buddhist uni's.

johneeG wrote:

RajeshA wrote:There is no cooperation of Buddhists with the Islamics that the Hindus too have not indulged in!

If in the Mahabharata time one talks of decay setting in, then the decay among all colors of Dharmics when Islam came around was far too progressed, that includes all Dharmics - Aastikas, Buddhists, Jains!

Just because before Islam came in, there were monarchs and dynasties which had various religious identities - Hindu Kshatriyas, Buddhists, Jains, etc. doesn't mean anyone of them was really acting as per Raj Dharma.

So if it comes to showing decay, there is enough muck to throw around. Should one try to analyze the political currents in Buddhist lands or for that matter in Hindu India, one would hardly find any leaders one could look up to, who are not compromised and corrupt to the core!

So the only question left is: what are we trying to achieve by all that? The message being sent out is: everything is bad, bad to the core; there is nothing to salvage, because everything is corrupt! History has shown that leaders with some formal Dharmic identities have sold out their people, so let's pull down those identities and knowledge systems!

I just don't know what one gets from all this rhona-dhona! The decay is everywhere to see. History has been of decay! What new insight are we getting from looking at all the blisters. Everybody knows they are there, and if one hasn't seen them, one can still smell them. So is whining the only thing left to do? How much of reality $hit would one have to smear in one's face before the others are satisfied that one understands the §hitty reality? Can we all ever move on from there?

Why should Buddhism be debated? What are we trying to achieve?

I think the importance of Buddhism is that most of the commies regurgitate the Buddhist arguments against Hindhuism. That is the most important reason why it should be studied.

See, whenever, someone tries to critique a culture/religion/civilization, first one tries to look at the past to find similar attempts(so that inspiration can be taken from them). Most often, the new enemies regurgitate the old allegations or arguments.

So, commies regurgitate the arguments pushed by colonials, Ejs, jihadhis and Buddhists(and to an extent jains). Colonials and EJs, in their turn, regurgitate the arguments of greeks, romans, jihadhis and Buddhists.

So, Buddhist arguments against Hindhuism frequently get regurgitated in various garbs. It is therefore necessary to go to the root and study the whole thing.

johneeG garu,

that may be true, that one's new rivals use past weapons used by old foes!

The issue is however: are we still vulnerable to their ideological claims and weapons? Yes they do attack, but do we get ideologically hurt?

Today I think, as we rediscover more and more about our past and its wealth, we are recovering our past shine as well. The inheritance we have is more than enough to make us ideologically impregnable, and this ideological shield would only become stronger by the day.

Where we are still in the gutter is not in ideological strength, but in organizational strength, in technological strength and ultimately in political strength!

The Globe acts as a single theater of politics and ideology, finance and security. We are not living outside it, in a separate sand-box. We are right in the middle of it.

In order to however use our strengths - ideological and cultural, something which the others may find difficult in chaining and restraining, we first have to collect everything and absolutely EVERYTHING in our fist. That means taking ownership of all that we ever produced, and that includes Buddhism.

If we don't take ownership of it, then either China would do it, or West would digest it, and along with it would swallow all the spheres of influence that exist on the planet of Buddhism.

What is Rajiv Malhotra fighting for? He is fighting for taking back the ownership of all knowledge that originated with us but was subsumed into their own systems and claims after adequate altercation of source references.

That is the real wealth - ownership of the world's religious, cultural and scientific inheritance. Those who control the narrative of the past control the claim to forge world's destiny.

The ideological and political cock-fights between Hinduism and Buddhism are really a horse flogged to death. There is just nothing to be gained by beating on him any further. If there are some aberrations in Hinduism that have crept in due to Buddhism, which shouldn't have been there otherwise, all these can be removed simply by reverting to a previous state of Sanatan Dharma wisdom. We don't need to endlessly curse Buddhism if reverting is all we need to do.

Our vulnerability is that our knowledge about our Sabhyata and Sanskriti has been diluted. Our vulnerability is that we are still struggling with organization, missionary zeal, alliances and resources to take on West, Islam and China. It is for these reasons that we need to retake possession of Buddhism as part of our Sanskriti.

The Hinduism-Buddhism battle has been won. The Buddhist Lanka fell. The Aastikmata (Hindus) were victorious.

So if USA after fighting Nazi Germany can make it its bulwark in Europe against Communist Russia, why is Hinduism having such a difficulty making the strategic transition that all victors need to make - to adopt the defeated as their junior partners.

Fa-Hien - A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms

Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.d. 399-414) in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline

Translated and annotated with a Corean recension of the Chinese text

Moved this post to the Tibet - Shivabhumi Mukti Sangharsh thread.

Buddhist nations did take up arms.... and violent insurgencies when faced with mortal danger from the state/foreign powers. Tibet, Mongolia, China and Japan have many examples of this type of response. Even in modern Sri Lanka and Burma (and Thailand) we have seen how militant Buddhism can become. The leaps of faith and mindbending law bending is terrific!

IMO you didn't see this type of violence during the diachronic decline of Buddhism in India and Afghanistan (i.e. by the time the Arabs invaded) because they never had that kind of impact/control in the first place. In the China, Tibet, japan cases the integration with the state (or power/status) was AFAIK stronger and they had a lot to loose. That is, it did not hold power India in a sustained and contiguous manner which lead to growth of enduring socio-economic and political structures. There were flashes of glory (even till the 15th century) but the influence never seeped in deep enough (not even with the Mauryas and the Palas!).... and to boot, there were many breaks in between the patronages. The schisms and transmutations made things worse, the Sangha system deteriorated by 4th century C.E.. And payback, which ran for a few centuries, was a *****. The debates, serious businesses then, converted many. The First Bhakti movement captured mindspaces and simply swept aside the southern strongholds of Buddhism and Jainism. On the other end of the response scale there were odd instances (sometimes from Buddhist sources) Kumarila Bhatta instigating Raja Sudhanvana to execute Buddhists monks (or so says certain Buddhist sources), Pushyamitra Sunga's and Mihirakula's campaigns (as per Taranath), Sasanka in Bengal, the sack of Somapura Mahavihara, Nagarjuna execution by Gautamiputra Satakarni (as per Hieun Tsang), proscription of Buddha in Puranas and contemporary literature etc etc. All this contributed to a non salvageable decline. Then came the Arabs and the Turks who performed a most effective coup de grace....

Its tricky. The archeological evidence for growth of large institutional frames - like the mahaviharas of Bengal - seem to start off in exactly the phase of supposed "decline". In fact Nalanda shows growth from 8th century, large ones in North Bengal were laid out in the 10th-11th century.

Its difficult to speak of what happened up the GV. Given narrative claims of jihadis and sufi saints digging up even to the foundations of "But-khanas" [with the specific declared aim of not leaving a single stone/brick trace] the traces up in UP might be lacking but does not necessarily mean lack of growth in the period.

What is apparent is that Buddhism in India was much more connected to foreign trade guilds and had interests/interconnections to large or widespread empires and their central regimes - than in countries other than India. Hence perhaps the mercantile interests dominated or influenced the role played in state politics - which became antagonistic to smaller regimes rising in competition with the central one, or when the central power weakened imperially. That there were such mercantile confoundings and perhaps confused political loyalties across indigenous/foreign divides in the Buddhist mercantile networks are apparent in the Sindhi narrative.

This would set up other local forces against the sangha as catering to "foreign" or non-local interests.

All of India should become Buddhist! Buddhism really complements a centralized state, just look at the Buddhist states of SE Asia or even our own Mauryan Empire. Hinduism due to varnashrama dharma is quite feudalistic and even the Hindu Gupta "empire" had an extremely weak central authority. Due to the mindless rituals of Hinduism (spending crores of rupees on bogus temple rituals) while there co-religionsts starve and hence easy prey for EJs.

Also Hinduism is ill equipped to deal with Islamic threat. You would think that after all the Hindus suffered from Islam, there would at least be a successful nationwide Hindu resistance to Islam...instead we get our present situation where even a pathetic minority like the Christians are threatening our religion. Look at SL or Burma, they haven't even suffered 1/100th of what the Hindus have suffered from the Religion of Peace, yet they have successfully resisted the jihadi threat. As for Christians, SL used to have 10% Christian population (mostly from converted Hindu Tamils), now it has 7percent Christian as almost all the Sinhalas have reconverted to Buddhism. Compare this to the S. Indian states which look like becoming Christian majority in a decade or so. Situation is dire, let us not forget the golden period of India was when its elites were Buddhism. We need to look for this period for inspiration, not some fictional "glorious Vedic past".

^^

Considering that the majority Bauddha regions of India succumbed rather easily to Islam & it was Buddhists who fled abandoning Mahabodhi & Nalanda, your thesis falls flat on its face.

It was also Bauddhas in India who came running to Astikas:

However, this current was not entirely lost in the world influenced by dharmakIrti. In the vimala-prabhA commentary on the kAlachakra tantra, the last notable work of the Indian vajrayAna exponents, we hear of this in the context of the catastrophic end of the bauddha-mata in India. There, the bauddha-s hammered by the Mohammedans, come running to Astika-s asking them to form an alliance with the bauddha-s to resist the Abrahamistic barbarians. The bauddha-s state that they wanted to the Astika-s and themselves to be unified in the all-encompassing worship of the great god kAlachakra and his consort the goddess vishvamAtA. Here, the Astika-s are asked to give up their attachment to varNa but they are portrayed as refusing to do so. This tension is not be ignored because the Astika narratives do mention betrayals by nAstika-s during their grim struggle against the irruptions of Mohammedanism. In the light of bauddha opposition to varNa, one can see that these accusations of the Astika-s were probably not without substance, and the bauddha-s finally realized only late that allying with the Astika-s was the only way out. Thus, one can interpret the destabilization of the varNa-jati system by the bauddha-s as potentially undermining the resistance against the invaders and also perhaps thereby contributing to the destruction of the bauddha-s themselves.

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... locutions/

I would also be happy to post the Japanese criticism of Buddhist subversion as having played a role in the Christian infection spreading among the populace if we are going to bring in foreign countries.

Several Japanese both Confucians & Shintoists have critiqued Buddhism for weakening Japan to monotheism.

And Japan fared better than any Bauddha only nation in resisting monotheism, both in the 17th century and again in the late 19th century during the Meiji period.

Dr. Ambedkar also rejected Islam because it had destroyed Buddhism in India and other countries. Many present-day Ambedkarites never tire of quoting his one-liner: �The history of India is nothing but a history of a mortal conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism.�22 But Dr. Ambedkar has also written: �There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism was due to the invasions of the Muslims.�23

Referring to the Persian word for �idol�, but, derived from Buddha, Dr. Ambedkar observes: �Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Muslim mind idol worship had come to be identified with the religion of Buddha. To the Muslims they were one and the same thing. The mission to break idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhara and Chinese Turkestan (�) in all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism.�24

Moreover: �The Muslim invaders sacked the Buddhist universities of Nalanda, Vikramasila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They razed to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders.�25

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/b ... h/ch10.htm

Dr. Abdul Qudoos Ansari: �The iconoclastic fury of Islam must have [had] a terrible effect on the shrines of the Gaya region, and particularly on Buddhism, with the result that a time came when, there being no Buddhists to look after their own shrines and worship at Bodh Gaya, the Brahmins had to do their work even by going [outside] their jurisdiction.�13 Though he gratuitously accuses the Brahmin management of �the sin of greed�, he does not accuse them of any destruction or forcible take-over, and this constitutes a radical difference with the Rama-Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid scenario...

The famous Tibetan monk Dharmaswami (1234-36 in that area) �had to flee away for seventeen days, owing to the [apprehension of] the attack of the Turks�, and king Buddhasena, �not able to provide protection�, also �escaped into the forest for fear of the Turks�.15

It was the temple�s good fortune that the living Buddhist presence there had practically disappeared by the time the area passed into Muslim hands. Already in Dharmaswami�s time, decades before the actual Muslim take-over of that very area, all students and pilgrims and lay Buddhists had stopped coming to the area: �According to Dharmaswami, the Bodh Gaya establishment had been deserted by all except for [some] monks, on account of the repeated Turkish conquests.�16 The popular support base and the training grounds for Buddhist monks were being destroyed in all of North India, and Bodh Gaya was dying as a Buddhist centre along with all those other establishments that were being physically eliminated by the Turks. Not Hinduism but Islam destroyed Buddhism in India.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/acat/ch3.htm

Surasena wrote:^^

Considering that the majority Bauddha regions of India succumbed rather easily to Islam & it was Buddhists who fled abandoning Mahabodhi & Nalanda, your thesis falls flat on its face.

It was also Bauddhas in India who came running to Astikas:

However, this current was not entirely lost in the world influenced by dharmakIrti. In the vimala-prabhA commentary on the kAlachakra tantra, the last notable work of the Indian vajrayAna exponents, we hear of this in the context of the catastrophic end of the bauddha-mata in India. There, the bauddha-s hammered by the Mohammedans, come running to Astika-s asking them to form an alliance with the bauddha-s to resist the Abrahamistic barbarians. The bauddha-s state that they wanted to the Astika-s and themselves to be unified in the all-encompassing worship of the great god kAlachakra and his consort the goddess vishvamAtA. Here, the Astika-s are asked to give up their attachment to varNa but they are portrayed as refusing to do so. This tension is not be ignored because the Astika narratives do mention betrayals by nAstika-s during their grim struggle against the irruptions of Mohammedanism. In the light of bauddha opposition to varNa, one can see that these accusations of the Astika-s were probably not without substance, and the bauddha-s finally realized only late that allying with the Astika-s was the only way out. Thus, one can interpret the destabilization of the varNa-jati system by the bauddha-s as potentially undermining the resistance against the invaders and also perhaps thereby contributing to the destruction of the bauddha-s themselves.

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... locutions/

I would also be happy to post the Japanese criticism of Buddhist subversion as having played a role in the Christian infection spreading among the populace if we are going to bring in foreign countries.

Several Japanese both Confucians & Shintoists have critiqued Buddhism for weakening Japan to monotheism.

And Japan fared better than any Bauddha only nation in resisting monotheism, both in the 17th century and again in the late 19th century during the Meiji period.

Buddhism is reliant on strong centralized state. When Muslims attacked India, not even one dynasty patronized Buddhism (Senas of Bengal even persecuted them), hence it was already declining. Plus Hindus had systematically wiped out much of Buddhism so many Buddhists were mad and accepted Islam (especially in Bengal). For example its been proven that Badrinath and Tirupati were previous Buddhist temples. Bottom line is Buddhism in India was a shadow of its former self because of Hindu persecution when attacked by Muslims.

The Hindus on the other hand had no qualms against violence and were concentrated in Northwest area near the Islamic lands but they were by nature feudalistic and hence impotent in face of empires. Fact is Hinduism is not conducive to strong centralized states.

Surasena wrote:

Thus, one can interpret the destabilization of the varNa-jati system by the bauddha-s as potentially undermining the resistance against the invaders and also perhaps thereby contributing to the destruction of the bauddha-s themselves.

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... locutions/

Not sure how the author reached this conclusion. Its a non sequitur. Rather, the struggle over varna-jAti system itself was responsible for weakening India from within - not the Buddhist refusal to cheerfully succumb to (pseudo-)"astika" intransigence on it. A Buddhist could argue that it was the other way round.

A fixation with a particular systemic mode of existence will eventually draw circumstances to cave in on that individual or society that "justifies" that mode of existence. That is the true Astika understanding.

[BTW this doesn't mean that I agree with TonySoprano ji. I am not Buddhist or anything.]

Proven by whom?

Stop peddling neo-Buddhist nonsense.

Well I guess then its also been proven that Mahabodhi was actually an Astika place of worship that Bauddhas usurped. It wouldn't be the first time they did that considering their persecution and usurpation elsewhere of Tengrists and the Bon adherents in Tibet.

There is plenty more material to explore including the interesting (to say the least) behavior of Bauddha monks in Sindh during Qasim's invasion.

It is Hindu majority India that the Dalai Lama & many Tibetans found refuge in not any Bauddha utopia.

Bottom line is that it was Buddhists who fled helter skelter in the face of Muslims and came begging to Astikas for aid.

The NW area actually had a heavy Bauddha presence (hint: remember where the Bamiyan Buddhas used to stand) & it was quickly Islamized, shows how much you know.

"KOKUTAI" AND "A LONG-RANGE POLICY"

Aizawa's New Theses explained how the bakufu might create national strength and wealth in 1825 to meet the Western threat posed mainly by Christianity. This threat, though unique in its magnitude, was not unprecedented in Japanese history. Earlier, Buddhism had entered Japan.

The practitioners of this doctrine sought to transform our Divine Land into another India, to convert innocent subjects of our Middle Kingdom into followers of the Indian barbarians. When transformed by barbarism within, how can "what is essential to a nation" (kokutai) remain intact?. . . Due to their adoration of India, those members [of the True Pure Land Sect] forsook our Middle Kingdom; due to their devotion to Buddhist clerics, they forsook ruler and parent.80

Partly because of this earlier Buddhist "transformation" of Japanese customs, beliefs, and values, Japan's kokutai, or "what was essential for it to be a nation,"81 had been gravely endangered. Heresy and dissention within created national weakness which foreign enemies could exploit. In 1825, Aizawa feared subversion by alien heresies, not invasion by Western military forces, chiefly threatened the independence and integrity of Japan's bakuhan state. Aizawa's knowledge of the West had shown him that a nation must possess something of more basic importance than wealth and armed strength:

Just what is essential (tai/t'i) for a land and people to be a nation (kuni)? Without four limbs, a man is not a man. Similarly, a nation also possesses some essence [or requisite and defining entity that makes it a nation] (kokutai).

Certain people stress the need to enrich our country and strengthen our arms in order to defend our borders. But the foreign beasts now seek to take advantage of the fact that people in outlying areas crave a source of spiritual reliance, and furtively seduce our commoners into betraying us. Should the barbarians win over our people's hearts and minds, they will have captured the realm without a skirmish. Then the wealth and strength that these people stress will no longer be ours to employ. In effect, we would provide arms for the brigand and provisions for the bandit. What a pity if, after all our meticulous planning and painstaking effort, we merely ended up joining the enemy's ranks!81 (emphasis added)...

Since neo-Buddhists are fond of claiming credit for Japan's achievements.

Aizawa's ideas would heavily influence the state Shinto of the Meiji gov't & you can see what he thought of Buddhisms effects on Japan (he was not unique of course).

Surasena wrote:Proven by whom?

Stop peddling neo-Buddhist nonsense.

Well I guess then its also been proven that Mahabodhi was actually an Astika place of worship that Bauddhas usurped. It wouldn't be the first time they did that considering their persecution and usurpation elsewhere of Tengrists and the Bon adherents in Tibet.

There is plenty more material to explore including the interesting (to say the least) behavior of Bauddha monks in Sindh during Qasim's invasion.

It is Hindu majority India that the Dalai Lama & many Tibetans found refuge in not any Bauddha utopia.

Bottom line is that it was Buddhists who fled helter skelter in the face of Muslims and came begging to Astikas for aid.

The NW area actually had a heavy Bauddha presence (hint: remember where the Bamiyan Buddhas used to stand) & it was quickly Islamized, shows how much you know.

Yeah NWest had significant Buddhist population but ALL the rulers were Hindu. For example Gurjar-Pratiharas and Saivate Shahi dynasty of Kabul. Also Punjab was mainly Hindu. Northwest Buddhist population was actually declining due to years of genocide by the Hunas who became Hindu Saiva converts. Mlecchas such as Mihirkula went around genociding Buddhists until driven away by last Emperor of India: Harshavardhan the Great. Are you kidding about Buddhists persecuting Bon and Tengrists? Buddhism (like Hinduism) is syncretic and absorbs different belief systems and makes them their own. The reason for Hindus so heavily persecuting the Buddhists in India is the Buddhists destroyed the monopoly of the Brahmins spiritual hegemony. Also some Hindu sects like Saivism are monotheistic and by definition any creed that is monotheistic is an instrinsically violent creed(Vaishnavism is really polytheistic with multiple avatars and for most part was freindly to Buddhists). Just look at Zorastiranism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Saivate kings also murdered Jainas in South India (whole temple reliefs record these barbaric incidents with glee in Meenakshi tempe for example) and poked out the eyes of Vaishnava Ramanuja acharya. Senas were also Saivates and destroyed the Mahabodhi tree.

Surasena wrote:

"KOKUTAI" AND "A LONG-RANGE POLICY"

Aizawa's New Theses explained how the bakufu might create national strength and wealth in 1825 to meet the Western threat posed mainly by Christianity. This threat, though unique in its magnitude, was not unprecedented in Japanese history. Earlier, Buddhism had entered Japan.

The practitioners of this doctrine sought to transform our Divine Land into another India, to convert innocent subjects of our Middle Kingdom into followers of the Indian barbarians. When transformed by barbarism within, how can "what is essential to a nation" (kokutai) remain intact?. . . Due to their adoration of India, those members [of the True Pure Land Sect] forsook our Middle Kingdom; due to their devotion to Buddhist clerics, they forsook ruler and parent.80

Partly because of this earlier Buddhist "transformation" of Japanese customs, beliefs, and values, Japan's kokutai, or "what was essential for it to be a nation,"81 had been gravely endangered. Heresy and dissention within created national weakness which foreign enemies could exploit. In 1825, Aizawa feared subversion by alien heresies, not invasion by Western military forces, chiefly threatened the independence and integrity of Japan's bakuhan state. Aizawa's knowledge of the West had shown him that a nation must possess something of more basic importance than wealth and armed strength:

Just what is essential (tai/t'i) for a land and people to be a nation (kuni)? Without four limbs, a man is not a man. Similarly, a nation also possesses some essence [or requisite and defining entity that makes it a nation] (kokutai).

Certain people stress the need to enrich our country and strengthen our arms in order to defend our borders. But the foreign beasts now seek to take advantage of the fact that people in outlying areas crave a source of spiritual reliance, and furtively seduce our commoners into betraying us. Should the barbarians win over our people's hearts and minds, they will have captured the realm without a skirmish. Then the wealth and strength that these people stress will no longer be ours to employ. In effect, we would provide arms for the brigand and provisions for the bandit. What a pity if, after all our meticulous planning and painstaking effort, we merely ended up joining the enemy's ranks!81 (emphasis added)...

Since neo-Buddhists are fond of claiming credit for Japan's achievements.

Aizawa's ideas would heavily influence the state Shinto of the Meiji gov't & you can see what he thought of Buddhisms effects on Japan (he was not unique of course).

Whatever, India was known as "holy western land" or Tenjiku when it was Buddhist. Now its called "Indo" and has obviously lost its lofty position in Japanese culture. There is a popular Japanese saying, "Born a Shinto and die a Buddhist", this means Japanese society is very syncretic. Sure a few Shinto nutjobs were opposed to Buddhism (by their talk of "Middle Kingdom", they seem to sound like Confucian chinese). East asian countries always have had a ambivalent relationship with Buddhism. Sometimes it was heavily patronized (like it was in China by foreign rulers during the turbulent times after end of Han dynasty), other times ruthlessly persecuted (Tang persecutions). We can see this trend in modern day by China trying to digest Tibetan Buddhist culture while at the same time patronizing Han chinese Buddhism (of Shaolin, Ch'an fame).

^^

More nonsense.

Post after post you keep peddling nonsense.

Let me just take your claim about Mihirakula, here is the real story:

But at least, the next incident is reported by two seemingly independent sources: the persecution of Buddhists by the Huna king Mihirakula in Kashmir. Romila Thapar herself admits that Hsuan Tsang's account about "the destruction of 1.600 Buddhist stupas and sangharamas and the killing of thousands of monks and lay-followers" sounds exaggerated, but she has faith in Kalhana's more detailed version which mentions "killing innocent people by the hundreds".

But Hsuan Tsang gives an interesting detail which does not sound like a fairy-tale and may well be historical. Mihirakula, "wishing to apply his leisure to the study of Buddhism", asked the Buddhist sangha to appoint a teacher for him. But none of the more accomplished monks was willing, so they appointed a monk who had the rank of a servant. The king found this procedure insulting, and ordered the destruction of the Buddhist church in his kingdom. This king was not anti-Buddhist, was open-minded and took a sincere interest in Buddhism. But once a king's ego is hurt, he can get violent, regardless of his religion. That is regrettable, but it is something else than religious fanaticism.

When a commander in the service of the Buddhist emperor Ashoka was angered by the Buddhist monks' refusal to let the king meddle in their affairs, he had 500 of them killed. The massacre had nothing to do with religious intolerance, merely with hurt pride, and the Marxist historians have done well not to put it in their list. For the same reason, Mihirakula's rage against the impolite monks cannot be equated with the religiously motivated persecutions by the Muslim rulers. There was never a Muslim king who invited Pagan scholars to instruct him in the Pagan doctrines, the way Mihirakula asked for a Buddhist teacher. The only exceptions to this rule were the apostate emperor Akbar, who was vehemently criticized for it by the Muslim clergy, and Dara Shikoh, who was executed for apostasy by his brother Aurangzeb.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/negaind/ch2.htm

Of course you seek to whitewash the persecution of Bon practitioners and Tengriists but go ask them or go read the primary sources.

Now here is some real persecution by that Bauddha hero Ashoka:

For what reason mauryan emperor ashoka tried banning rituals performed by Indian women? Seculars never questioned ramifications thereof

manasataramgini ‏@blog_supplement 14 May
@vAsukeya Girnar shilAliper anuvAdaH: Women perform numerous, vulgar, and pointless ma~Ngala rites of various type. These are useless Such assemblies [ma~NgalAni] are not done [in my empire] The devAnAmpriyaH sees much doSha in such acts.

https://twitter.com/blog_supplement/sta ... 7057978368

This is how Sujitkumar Mukhopadhyaya, the editor of the Ashokavadana, relates this work's testimony about Ashoka doing with a rival sect that very thing of which Pushyamitra is accused later on:

"At that time, an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives." (S. Mukhopadhyaya: The Ashokavadana, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi 1963, p.xxxvii; in footnote, Mukhopadhyaya correctly notes that the author "seems to have confused the Nirgranthas with the Ajivikas", a similar ascetic sect; Nirgrantha, "freed from fetters", meaning Jain) Only when Vitashoka, Ashoka's favourite Arhat (an enlightened monk, a Theravada-Buddhist saint), was mistaken for a Nirgran- tha and killed by a man desirous of the reward, did Ashoka revoke the order.

Typically, Mukhopadhyaya refuses to believe his eyes at this demythologization of the "secular" emperor Ashoka: "This is one of the best chapters of the text. The subject, the style, the composition, everything here is remarkable. In every shloka there is a poetic touch.(...) But the great defect is also to be noticed. Here too Ashoka is described as dreadfully cruel. If the central figure of this story were not a historic personage as great and well-known as Ashoka, we would have nothing to say. To say that Ashoka, whose devotion to all religious sects is unique in the history of humanity (as is well-known through his edicts) persecuted the Jains or the Ajivikas is simply absurd. And why speak of Ashoka alone? There was no Buddhist king anywhere in India who persecuted the Jains or the Ajivikas or any other sect." (The Ashokavadana, p.xxxviii)

This just goes to show how far the idealization of Buddhism and Ashoka has gotten out of hand in Nehruvian India. When the modern myth of Ashoka as the great secular-Buddhist ruler is contradicted by an ancient source (one outspokenly favourable to Buddhism and Ashoka) which shows him persecuting rival schools of thought, the modern scholar (a Hindu Brahmin) still insists on upholding the myth, and dismisses the actual information in the ancient source as a "great defect". Moreover, the non-persecution of other religions, claimed here for Ashoka against the very evidence under discussion, was not unique at all: it was the rule among Hindu kings throughout history, and the Buddha himself had been one of its beneficiaries.

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/a ... mitra.html

Notice that I am the only one quoting any sources here while you repeat nonsensical claims from one post to the next with no sources.

Tells you all you need to know.

There is more nonsense in those posts of yours but I haven't got time.

TonySoprano wrote: Whatever, India was known as "holy western land" or Tenjiku when it was Buddhist. Now its called "Indo" and has obviously lost its lofty position in Japanese culture. There is a popular Japanese saying, "Born a Shinto and die a Buddhist", this means Japanese society is very syncretic. Sure a few Shinto nutjobs were opposed to Buddhism (by their talk of "Middle Kingdom", they seem to sound like Confucian chinese). East asian countries always have had a ambivalent relationship with Buddhism. Sometimes it was heavily patronized (like it was in China by foreign rulers during the turbulent times after end of Han dynasty), other times ruthlessly persecuted (Tang persecutions). We can see this trend in modern day by China trying to digest Tibetan Buddhist culture while at the same time patronizing Han chinese Buddhism (of Shaolin, Ch'an fame).

I know about the syncretic nature of Japanese civilization but the point was something else. It is for neo Bauddha trolls in India trying to claim Japan's achievements.

Nut jobs according to whom, neo Bauddha trolls like you?

If it wasn't for men like Aizawa & Yoshida Shoin (another man who disliked Buddhism) Japan would have ended up a Western colony as so many Bauddha heavy nations managed to do.

Go peddle your Bauddha proselytization agenda elsewhere or even better ask your fellow Bauddhas to take on the Han military and liberate Tibet as you guys are so brave unlike us spineless Hindus led by our "evil" Brahmins.

Edit: Tirupati is not a Buddhist Shrine - An Answer to Dr. Jamanadas
http://ravilochanan.blogspot.in/2007/05 ... er_05.html

On the collaboration of certain Bauddha monks with Qasim during his invasion of Sindh, bji has already documented this before so I need not rehash. Here is the link to his post for those interested:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1090693

The following is the most important passage from the more detailed post of bji quoting from the Chachnama:

When Muhammad Kásim had completely settled the affairs at Nerún, he prepared to go to Síwistán, and he, accompanied by the Samaní, started for that place. He travelled, stage by stage, till he arrived at a town called Maój, about 30 leagues from Nerún.* In that town, there was a Samaní, who was a chief among the people. The ruler of that fortified town was a cousin of Dáhar Chach, by name Bachehrá son of Chandar. On the approach of the Arabs, the Samaní party assembled, and sent a message to Bachehrá, saying:—“We people are a priestly class (Násiks), our religion is peace and our creed is good will (to all). According to our faith, fighting and slaughtering are not allowable. We will never be in favour of shedding blood. You are sitting quite safe in a lofty palace; we are afraid that this horde will come and, taking us to be your followers and dependents, will deprive us of our life and property. We have come to know that Amír Hajjáj has, under the order of the Khalífah, instructed them to grant pardon to those who ask for it. So when an opportunity offers, and when we consider it expedient, we shall enter into a solemn treaty and binding covenant with them. The Arabs are said to be faithful* to their word. Whatever they say they act up to and do not deviate from.” Bachehrá refused to accept this advice, and paid no attention to what they said. Then, Muhammad Kásim sent a spy to gather information as to the inclinations of these men, whether they were all unanimous or whether there was a difference of opinion among them. As some of the residents of the fortified town were ready to fight, and, with that inten­tion, had issued out of the town, Muhammad Kásim encamped on the sand-hills near the gate of the town,* since there was no other open field for a battle and there was a flood of rain-water all around, and to the north the river of Sind was flowing.

People should take the claims of Buddhism being against jaati-vaarna distinctions with a very large pinch of salt. This comes out of a certain orientalist reconstruction of past Buddhism [probably out of two needs - to paint India as non-"Hindu" prior to Abrahamic intrusions, and the desire to extract some support for a pseudo-Christian prior trend in India - hence also the emphasizing those points that seemed different from the Vedic].

The original Buddhist literature clearly maintains the distinctions between "varnaas" - with a distinct tendency of classing the buddhist convert - or monk - shramana, with equivalently and alternatively as Brahmin. There is also the clearly spelt out desire to be born into "forward castes" - so that the "reforms" or "renlightenment" that maitreya will want tod o can be done. That single idea rules out any Buddhist meme of having the varnas wiped out.

This was probably a later trend or innovation [as varna equalizer] in contest with those who did not convert, or with the fall of imperialist powers who had used the sangha in a collaborative foreign-trade-profit-mercantilism nexus - who rose up again from their pocket of survival away from Buddhist sangha.

The second most possibly damaging innovation by Buddhism could again be related to a twisting of the varna-jati complex. It was a proto-Buddhist innovation to link birth into social status [or lack of it] as having a past life and "karma" connotation. That the hierarchical thing was a specific Buddhist innovation - is apparent because the typical "Hindu"/post-vedic parallel source of this theory, as the Geeta, does not show the direct gradation of "karma" into good and evil or to borrow the Buddhist terminology - uttama and adhama karma, based on connection to "himsa" an dbloodshed.

This aspect of Buddhism might have turned whole segments of society who were engaged in adhama karma, linked to dealing in animal flesh,blood, carcass, meat, skin/leather, as being socially "down" and also delinked such activity from the "higher" status. Thereby rose the peculiar social system in which the necessary but "dirty" side of a society's regular activities were relegated to an "underclass" whose birth into such a degrading existence was psychologically acceptable as having been the results of a "bad karma past life".

It might have been the Buddhist interlude that shaped teh hierarchical varna-jaati innovation linked to past life karma, which is now stamped as a Hindu innovation. Societies imbibe state imposed practices and rationalize and internalize them to avoid the trauma of being unable to resist such state impositions. Such internalizations continue for a long period even after the original state is gone - if it provides identity and material advantages too.

Surasena wrote:^^

More nonsense.

Post after post you keep peddling nonsense.

Let me just take your claim about Mihirakula, here is the real story:

But at least, the next incident is reported by two seemingly independent sources: the persecution of Buddhists by the Huna king Mihirakula in Kashmir. Romila Thapar herself admits that Hsuan Tsang's account about "the destruction of 1.600 Buddhist stupas and sangharamas and the killing of thousands of monks and lay-followers" sounds exaggerated, but she has faith in Kalhana's more detailed version which mentions "killing innocent people by the hundreds".

But Hsuan Tsang gives an interesting detail which does not sound like a fairy-tale and may well be historical. Mihirakula, "wishing to apply his leisure to the study of Buddhism", asked the Buddhist sangha to appoint a teacher for him. But none of the more accomplished monks was willing, so they appointed a monk who had the rank of a servant. The king found this procedure insulting, and ordered the destruction of the Buddhist church in his kingdom. This king was not anti-Buddhist, was open-minded and took a sincere interest in Buddhism. But once a king's ego is hurt, he can get violent, regardless of his religion. That is regrettable, but it is something else than religious fanaticism.

When a commander in the service of the Buddhist emperor Ashoka was angered by the Buddhist monks' refusal to let the king meddle in their affairs, he had 500 of them killed. The massacre had nothing to do with religious intolerance, merely with hurt pride, and the Marxist historians have done well not to put it in their list. For the same reason, Mihirakula's rage against the impolite monks cannot be equated with the religiously motivated persecutions by the Muslim rulers. There was never a Muslim king who invited Pagan scholars to instruct him in the Pagan doctrines, the way Mihirakula asked for a Buddhist teacher. The only exceptions to this rule were the apostate emperor Akbar, who was vehemently criticized for it by the Muslim clergy, and Dara Shikoh, who was executed for apostasy by his brother Aurangzeb.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/negaind/ch2.htm

Of course you seek to whitewash the persecution of Bon practitioners and Tengriists but go ask them or go read the primary sources.

Now here is some real persecution by that Bauddha hero Ashoka:

For what reason mauryan emperor ashoka tried banning rituals performed by Indian women? Seculars never questioned ramifications thereof

manasataramgini ‏@blog_supplement 14 May
@vAsukeya Girnar shilAliper anuvAdaH: Women perform numerous, vulgar, and pointless ma~Ngala rites of various type. These are useless Such assemblies [ma~NgalAni] are not done [in my empire] The devAnAmpriyaH sees much doSha in such acts.

https://twitter.com/blog_supplement/sta ... 7057978368

This is how Sujitkumar Mukhopadhyaya, the editor of the Ashokavadana, relates this work's testimony about Ashoka doing with a rival sect that very thing of which Pushyamitra is accused later on:

"At that time, an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives." (S. Mukhopadhyaya: The Ashokavadana, Sahitya Akademi, Delhi 1963, p.xxxvii; in footnote, Mukhopadhyaya correctly notes that the author "seems to have confused the Nirgranthas with the Ajivikas", a similar ascetic sect; Nirgrantha, "freed from fetters", meaning Jain) Only when Vitashoka, Ashoka's favourite Arhat (an enlightened monk, a Theravada-Buddhist saint), was mistaken for a Nirgran- tha and killed by a man desirous of the reward, did Ashoka revoke the order.

Typically, Mukhopadhyaya refuses to believe his eyes at this demythologization of the "secular" emperor Ashoka: "This is one of the best chapters of the text. The subject, the style, the composition, everything here is remarkable. In every shloka there is a poetic touch.(...) But the great defect is also to be noticed. Here too Ashoka is described as dreadfully cruel. If the central figure of this story were not a historic personage as great and well-known as Ashoka, we would have nothing to say. To say that Ashoka, whose devotion to all religious sects is unique in the history of humanity (as is well-known through his edicts) persecuted the Jains or the Ajivikas is simply absurd. And why speak of Ashoka alone? There was no Buddhist king anywhere in India who persecuted the Jains or the Ajivikas or any other sect." (The Ashokavadana, p.xxxviii)

This just goes to show how far the idealization of Buddhism and Ashoka has gotten out of hand in Nehruvian India. When the modern myth of Ashoka as the great secular-Buddhist ruler is contradicted by an ancient source (one outspokenly favourable to Buddhism and Ashoka) which shows him persecuting rival schools of thought, the modern scholar (a Hindu Brahmin) still insists on upholding the myth, and dismisses the actual information in the ancient source as a "great defect". Moreover, the non-persecution of other religions, claimed here for Ashoka against the very evidence under discussion, was not unique at all: it was the rule among Hindu kings throughout history, and the Buddha himself had been one of its beneficiaries.

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/a ... mitra.html

Notice that I am the only one quoting any sources here while you repeat nonsensical claims from one post to the next with no sources.

Tells you all you need to know.

There is more nonsense in those posts of yours but I haven't got time.

Looks like Sitaram Goel wants to have his cake and eat it too! He quotes Romila Thapar for saying Mihirkula's crimes were exaggerated but condemns the same person when she writes that Mahmud of Ghazni's claims of killing kafirs is exaggerated!

The story of Asoka killing Jains is from Ashokavadana is exaggerated according to Thapar and so is Pusyamitra's persecution of Buddhists. Conveniently Goel and Elst don't take that into account.

As for the mleccha Mihirkula, of course Buddhist monks were not too fond of him. He was a barbarian and invader and not Arya! His kind contributed to collapse of HINDU Gupta "empire". Compare this to Brahmins who would not even have a "servant Brahmin" give his "brahmavidya" to fellow Indians (shudras). At least the Buddhists constructed great universities and libraries which were meritocratic and allowed ALL who qualified. Its also sickening of you to justify Mihirkula's barbarism.

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

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

"Though there was no great persecution of Buddhists by the ruling families of Andhradesa, at least two pallava rulers,
Simhavarma and Trilochana were zealous in destroying the monasteries at
Sriparvata and Dhanyakataka. Radical Saivaite sects like Kalamukhis
initially and later, Veerashaivas conducted an aggressive campaign
condemning Buddhists as atheists. Occupying Buddhists places, Shiva and Vishnu temples were built over Buddhists shrines.
The aggressive and often violent campaign is exemplified by the conduct
of the Veera Saiva proponent, Mallikarjuna Panditaradhya, who after
losing a debate to Buddhist monk in the court of chandole conspired and
got them, killed and destroyed their places of worship. Panditaradhya's
aggressive campaign almost wiped out Buddhism, in the Andhra country.
Earlier shankara who was known as Pracchana Buddha borrowed Madhyamaka
metaphysics and logic and modeled his mathas on Buddhist monasteries.
Kumarila and Shankara carried on virulent crusade against Buddhism."

"In the fifth century AD, Fa Hien, the Chinese traveler had found Buddhism
to be prosperous at most of the places with the exception of these :
Kanauj, Kapilavastu, Ramagrama, Vaisali and Gaya. (Note that these
places have been very important to Buddhism because Buddha was supposed
to have given most of the sermons in these places).

Later when Hsuan-Tsang visited India, he found, in Vaisali, "hundreds of
monasteries, with the exception of three or four, having been deserted,
with only a few monks remaining". "On the contrary, there were tens of
Deva-temples, the various sects of Hindus lived pell-mell and the
Digambara Jains flourished".

In Kanauj where Fa Hien had seen two monasteries of Little Vehicle, his successors Song-Yun and Tao-Sheng neither monks nor nuns, though the temples were numerous. This is attributed by him to the Huna invasion.
"But even Kanauj, the metropolis of Harsa, the famed patron of Buddhism and Buddhist pilgrims in the first of the seventh century AD, is seen populated by anti-Buddhist Brahmanas and Deva-worshipers and the number of temples exceeded the viharas"[Pg.298]

The chapter goes to show similar conditions of Udyana, Kashmir, Sindh etc,
from the account given by Huan-Tsuang. Only, Magadha, especially
Nalanda, seemed to have been thriving in all these times. Most of the
followers were of Mahayana and numbered in thousands.

In Bengal's Tamluk province, Fa Hien recorded 24 monasteries, Huan-Tsang
10, and I-tsing one or two. Meanwhile, the Deva-temples had been
increasing while the Buddhist monasteries were decreasing.
More accounts of many other places are given in East India, which clearly
show the decline of Buddhism. In Orissa, especially Kalinga, Jains were
the most prosperous followed by Deva-worshipers, and the Buddhists were
again in few numbers. In the South, Buddhism was losing ground to the
rising movements of Saivism and Jainism." source: "Studies of Buddhist Culture of India"

A Tibetan Buddhist monk called Dharmaswamin had visited Bihar during 14th century and he recorded that the few remaining Buddhist monks in Bodhgaya lived in so much fear of Hindu persecution (Shaivites) that they had installed Shiva Linga idols along side Buddha idols so that the Hindus do not bother them.

Similarly, the 14th century Magadhan Buddhist monk Prajnatara, who had later migrated to China and Korea, had written a travelogue in Chinese language and mentions various Hindu kingdoms in Indian subcontinent at that time which were hostile to Buddhists, so much so that he had to travel at night to reach his destination of Sri Lanka.

What does that all say to you?

No one is justifying Mihirkula's actions, stop putting words into my mouth.

Buddhists evidently had no problem opening the gates to the Arab monotheist barbarians, apparently they suddenly discovered Mihirakula was anArya but not the Arabs who invaded Sindh.

It was a quarrel between a ruler out of control & Buddhists & had nothing to do with Astikas, go cry some more.

In the above post you have quoted claims made in some neo-Bauddha forum & no primary sources.

Contrary to the neo-Bauddha lies about the Tibetan monk Dharmaswamin, the reasons Dharmaswamin gives were quiet different & had already been referenced above if you bothered to read:

The context which Dr. Ansari relates gives the impression that a more serious and less artistic fanaticism was troubling the Buddhists of Bodh Gaya, but not from the Brahminical establishment: the then king Buddhasena (the last but one independent ruler in the area) had �fled into the forest on the outskirts of Gaya on the approach of the Turkish raiders but returned soon after withdrawal�. The famous Tibetan monk Dharmaswami (1234-36 in that area) �had to flee away for seventeen days, owing to the [apprehension of] the attack of the Turks�, and king Buddhasena, �not able to provide protection�, also �escaped into the forest for fear of the Turks�.15

It was the temple�s good fortune that the living Buddhist presence there had practically disappeared by the time the area passed into Muslim hands. Already in Dharmaswami�s time, decades before the actual Muslim take-over of that very area, all students and pilgrims and lay Buddhists had stopped coming to the area: �According to Dharmaswami, the Bodh Gaya establishment had been deserted by all except for [some] monks, on account of the repeated Turkish conquests.�16 The popular support base and the training grounds for Buddhist monks were being destroyed in all of North India, and Bodh Gaya was dying as a Buddhist centre along with all those other establishments that were being physically eliminated by the Turks. Not Hinduism but Islam destroyed Buddhism in India.

16A.Q. Ansari: Archaeological Remains, p.26.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/acat/ch3.htm

Brave Bauddhas opening gates to Muslims invading Sindh, proselytizing Astika's with rubbish on this forum even as the Dalai Lama & Tibetans came here for shelter.

Such shining courage has no parallels in the annals of human history.

Surasena wrote:No one is justifying Mihirkula's actions, stop putting words into my mouth.

Buddhists evidently had no problem opening the gates to the Arab monotheist barbarians, apparently they suddenly discovered Mihirakula was anArya but not the Arabs who invaded Sindh.

It was a quarrel between a ruler out of control & Buddhists & had nothing to do with Astikas, go cry some more.

In the above post you have quoted claims made in some neo-Bauddha forum & no primary sources.

Contrary to the neo-Bauddha lies about the Tibetan monk Dharmaswamin, the reasons Dharmaswamin gives were quiet different & had already been referenced above if you bothered to read:

The context which Dr. Ansari relates gives the impression that a more serious and less artistic fanaticism was troubling the Buddhists of Bodh Gaya, but not from the Brahminical establishment: the then king Buddhasena (the last but one independent ruler in the area) had �fled into the forest on the outskirts of Gaya on the approach of the Turkish raiders but returned soon after withdrawal�. The famous Tibetan monk Dharmaswami (1234-36 in that area) �had to flee away for seventeen days, owing to the [apprehension of] the attack of the Turks�, and king Buddhasena, �not able to provide protection�, also �escaped into the forest for fear of the Turks�.15

It was the temple�s good fortune that the living Buddhist presence there had practically disappeared by the time the area passed into Muslim hands. Already in Dharmaswami�s time, decades before the actual Muslim take-over of that very area, all students and pilgrims and lay Buddhists had stopped coming to the area: �According to Dharmaswami, the Bodh Gaya establishment had been deserted by all except for [some] monks, on account of the repeated Turkish conquests.�16 The popular support base and the training grounds for Buddhist monks were being destroyed in all of North India, and Bodh Gaya was dying as a Buddhist centre along with all those other establishments that were being physically eliminated by the Turks. Not Hinduism but Islam destroyed Buddhism in India.

16A.Q. Ansari: Archaeological Remains, p.26.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/acat/ch3.htm

Lol I have given primary sources on all the quotes and they are reputed books by well recognized scholars not some crackpot historians who talk of non-existant "glorious Vedic past".

Why did the Buddhists welcome Arabs you ask? Who was the ruler then..it was a Raja Dahir who was a vicious persecutor of Buddhists. As for Islam, of course it killed Buddhism because Buddhism was a shadow of its former self due to the cultural genocide of the Hindus. And you have nothing to say for all the evidences I give you of other Hindu rulers than Mihirkula genociding Buddhists.

^^

In the Chachnama account the monk gives the following speech:

“We people are a priestly class (Násiks), our religion is peace and our creed is good will (to all). According to our faith, fighting and slaughtering are not allowable. We will never be in favour of shedding blood. You are sitting quite safe in a lofty palace; we are afraid that this horde will come and, taking us to be your followers and dependents, will deprive us of our life and property. We have come to know that Amír Hajjáj has, under the order of the Khalífah, instructed them to grant pardon to those who ask for it. So when an opportunity offers, and when we consider it expedient, we shall enter into a solemn treaty and binding covenant with them. The Arabs are said to be faithful* to their word. Whatever they say they act up to and do not deviate from.”

Not one word about any persecution of Bauddhas by Dahir but justification for capitulation citing Bauddha principles.

Shows how much honesty you have.

You have not quoted from any primary source, just other neo-Bauddha trolls like yourself on some forum who make Dharmaswami say very different things to what he actually said.

The First Bengali Book “the Charyapada“, exposes cover up behind anti-
Buddhist riots in the Sen Dynasty. Bengali speaking communities at home and abroad
respected the Centenary (1907 – 2007) Discovery Anniversary of First Bengali Literature
“The Charyapada (An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs}”is the source of Assamese,
Bangla, Hindi and Orissa languages and it was discovered by great scholar Haraprasad
Shastri from the Royal library of Nepal. It was sad time in the Karnataka’s Hindu rulers
Sen dynasty and Brahmin rulers who destroyed Buddhist Pala dynasty and the stronghold
of Buddhist community. The conspiracy of Halayud Mishra and Hari Sen with the
Baktiar Khilj’s Army and the carnage that followed in Bangladesh and other parts of
India where infuriated mobs went about killing, burning and looting of the Buddhist
community.

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct...45645796,d.bmk

The author is quoting the following poem no. 47 from Charyapada:

Dharmapada
I am united in the midst of the lotus and the thunderbolt.
The Chandali woman burns with equity.
The Dombi' house is on fire.
We put the fire down with moon water.
When the straw burns smoke cannot be seen.
From the tip of the Sumeru mountain I have entered the sky.
Harihara, Brahma, Bhatta have all been burnt down.
The nine virtue Patta is burnt too.
Dharma says : I know very clearly
that water has arisen through the five pipes.

This must refer to barbaric Sena rule.

1) Your link doesn't work.

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

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

brihaspati wrote:People should take the claims of Buddhism being against jaati-vaarna distinctions with a very large pinch of salt. This comes out of a certain orientalist reconstruction of past Buddhism [probably out of two needs - to paint India as non-"Hindu" prior to Abrahamic intrusions, and the desire to extract some support for a pseudo-Christian prior trend in India - hence also the emphasizing those points that seemed different from the Vedic].

The original Buddhist literature clearly maintains the distinctions between "varnaas" - with a distinct tendency of classing the buddhist convert - or monk - shramana, with equivalently and alternatively as Brahmin. There is also the clearly spelt out desire to be born into "forward castes" - so that the "reforms" or "renlightenment" that maitreya will want tod o can be done. That single idea rules out any Buddhist meme of having the varnas wiped out.

This was probably a later trend or innovation [as varna equalizer] in contest with those who did not convert, or with the fall of imperialist powers who had used the sangha in a collaborative foreign-trade-profit-mercantilism nexus - who rose up again from their pocket of survival away from Buddhist sangha.

The second most possibly damaging innovation by Buddhism could again be related to a twisting of the varna-jati complex. It was a proto-Buddhist innovation to link birth into social status [or lack of it] as having a past life and "karma" connotation. That the hierarchical thing was a specific Buddhist innovation - is apparent because the typical "Hindu"/post-vedic parallel source of this theory, as the Geeta, does not show the direct gradation of "karma" into good and evil or to borrow the Buddhist terminology - uttama and adhama karma, based on connection to "himsa" an dbloodshed.

This aspect of Buddhism might have turned whole segments of society who were engaged in adhama karma, linked to dealing in animal flesh,blood, carcass, meat, skin/leather, as being socially "down" and also delinked such activity from the "higher" status. Thereby rose the peculiar social system in which the necessary but "dirty" side of a society's regular activities were relegated to an "underclass" whose birth into such a degrading existence was psychologically acceptable as having been the results of a "bad karma past life".

It might have been the Buddhist interlude that shaped teh hierarchical varna-jaati innovation linked to past life karma, which is now stamped as a Hindu innovation. Societies imbibe state imposed practices and rationalize and internalize them to avoid the trauma of being unable to resist such state impositions. Such internalizations continue for a long period even after the original state is gone - if it provides identity and material advantages too.

What are you talking about? Buddhist mahaviharas were open to any caste as long as they passed the entrance exam. Here is what Dharmakirti thought about Brahmanism:

वेद प्रामाण्यं कस्य चित् कर्तृवादः स्नाने धर्मेच्छा जातिवादाव लेपः|
संतापारंभः पापहानाय चेति ध्वस्तप्रज्ञानां पञ्च लिङगानि जाड्ये||
Believing that the Veda are standard (holy or divine), believing in a Creator for the world,
Bathing in holy waters for gaining punya, having pride (vanity) about one's caste,
Performing penance to absolve sins,
Are the five symptoms of having lost one's sanity.
- Dharmakirti, a 7th century Buddhist philosopher

Surasena wrote:1) Your link doesn't work.

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

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

Instead of jumping from one claim to another.

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

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