What's new

To Indians and followers of Hindu religion

dabong1 said:
I think you find that it was the hindu warlords that wiped out the Buddhists and not the muslims.

Shashanka was the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal. He was manipulated by the Brahmins to become a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists. He had destroyed the Bodhi tree of Bodh Gaya and ordered the mass destruction of all Buddhist images and monasteries in his kingdom.
Google

Google eh? Hmm lots of results...Ahh I can see where you're coming from. Ashamed to quote the source ? I'll do it for you

The Manuwadi Hindus destroyed Buddhism in its own land of birth Rupee News

AKA Rupee News :rofl:


Please read up on the people responsible for raiding/pillaging/buring of the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda and Taxila, and there you have your answer :cheers:
 
I think you find that it was the hindu warlords that wiped out the Buddhists and not the muslims.

Shashanka was the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal. He was manipulated by the Brahmins to become a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists. He had destroyed the Bodhi tree of Bodh Gaya and ordered the mass destruction of all Buddhist images and monasteries in his kingdom.
Google



Both those below are rupeenews articles


Yes ,there was persecution of Buddhists under Indian rulers,But not significant enough.

Also ,it was under Indian rulers Buddhism prospered

Pusyamitra Sunga (reigned 185 to 151 BCE) assassinated the last Mauryan emperor Brhadrata in 185 BCE, and subsequently founded the Sunga dynasty. From the mid 3rd century BC, under Ashoka, Buddhist proselytization had begun to spread beyond the subcontinent. Buddhist texts such as the Ashokavadana and Divyavadana, written about four centuries after his reign, they contain accounts of the persecution of Buddhists during his reign. They ascribe to him the razing of stupas and viharas built by Ashoka, the placement of a bounty of 100 dinaras on the heads of Buddhist monks and describe him as one who wanted to undo the work of Ashoka. However, some historians have rejected Pushyamitra' s persecution of Buddhists and the traditional accounts are often described as exaggerated. The Asokavadana legend has been likened to a Buddhist version of Pusyamitra's attack of the Mauryas, reflecting the declining influence of Buddhism in the Sunga Imperial court. Later Sunga kings were seen as amenable to Buddhism and as having contributed to the building of the stupa at Bharhut

Akira Hirakawa, Paul Groner, "A History of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana

Ashok Kumar Anand, "Buddhism in India".


But decline of Buddhism has many reasons.

The most contributing one was during foreign rule in the subcontinent.

Persecution of Buddhism under these people.

The White Huns invasions.

The Hepthalites:,king Mihirakula

The Turks:,Qutb-ud-din Aybak,Khiljis

The Turkomogoloids: ,Timur,Aurangazeb

and yeah ,Mahmud of Ghazni,Muhammad of Ghor
 
Last edited:
[quote="Bombensturm']
But decline of Buddhism has many reasons.[/quote]

Yeah one of them was the Hindu philosopher Adi Shakaracharya, but the methods he used were logic and debate. Plus a lot of Philosophy of Buddhism had been assimilated by Hinduism, there were no "Dharmic Crusades"
 
AFAIK, the reasons for the decline of Budhism were very similar to the earlier decline of Hinduism. The Buddhist monks regressed into the very same practices as the Brahmin priests that they earlier opposed. Stupas became means to own lands and hoard wealth. Just like it happened with the Brahmin priests they began restricting the religious knowledge to themselves. Thus their disconnect with the average folks grew. Add to this the revivalist Hindu movement by Adi Shankaracharya and it sent Buddhism into a terminal spin in India that it never recovered from.
 
India has certainly been under Muslim rule for > 1000 years, but not ALL of India has been ruled by Muslims for this period. Just wanted to clarify.

It depends on which India you are talking about.If you are talking about the India which includes present day Pakistan then it comes out to be nearly a 1000 thousand years.But if you are talking about the region which is present day India only then it comes around to be 700 or so years.Moreover in no point of time did Muslims rule the whole of India.
 
I still wonder if Dara Shikho won the battle against aurangzeb and how history would've changed.

I still wonder what would have been the course of Indian History of that stray arrow had not hit Raja Hemu in his eye ;)

I think Islamic rule of India happened due to India's internal weaknesses. The many ethcities and languages and cultures made ruling it difficult something similar to Europe and similarly there were few periods where large parts of it were united into a single political unit.When they were united it happened to be an outsider or relatively shortlived.

The Roman empire extended into current day England, which Hitler never captured.

At the end of the day, being ruled is not okay for one's self respect and sense of identity. Even though British built railroad but more than 100,000 Indian army soldiers died in the second world war.

Fact that Hinduism by its nature is not a uniting force has been the reason for the success of Islam to convert 35% of locals.The problem is with the administration of Hinduism. The scriptures were well intentioned but couldnt be executed well.

For instance, castes were not to be decided by Birth.The idea behind caste system was actually to maintain a certain amount of distribution of power.So one person will have only knowledge ie Brahmins but he wont be taught how to fight (physically) and wont own any wealth..and hence the four main castes and even the so called lower caste were to be Land owners...in itself a major source of power.

This specialisation meant that India has lacked leaders who understand how to exercise power as they tend to come from one of these....

All in all...foreign rulership sucked.

My post of the day. Could not have said it better. :tup:
 
Last edited:
I think you find that it was the hindu warlords that wiped out the Buddhists and not the muslims.

Shashanka was the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal. He was manipulated by the Brahmins to become a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists. He had destroyed the Bodhi tree of Bodh Gaya and ordered the mass destruction of all Buddhist images and monasteries in his kingdom.
Google

Wanna know who Bakthiyar Khilji was and the great social service he did ?
 
For the sake of knowledge,

Really?? ok. no problem.

want to know how you see thousand year of muslims rule over Sub-continent.

1. What is a muslim rule??????

2. If you want to say that by the religion of a person ruling a particular country then India's Prime Minister is Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Will you call it India under a Sikh Rule??????? :blink:

Or Obama ruling USA a christian rule???

3. Whole of India was never under any Shariya law and religion of the ruler doesn't matter till everyone is free to observe its religion.

4. Which subcontinent you are referring to??????

5. As far as my knowledge goes Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka etc. also part of Indian subcontinent.

Or your geography books teaches you something different?????? :blink::blink:

Also the entry of Mohammad Bin Qasim in Sind.

6. The Dahir was very unpopular at that time and Dahir's marriage to his sister further alienated him from Hindus as it is forbiddin in Hinduism.

7. Buddhist + Jats + some other tribes helped against Dahir.

8. After that Arab have got so severe spanking that they never look back at India.:cheers:

In the words of the Arab chronicler Suleiman, “a place of refuge to which the Muslims might flee was not to be found.”

Battle of Rajasthan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Addressing only Hindu or Hindu religion follower is not kinda religious profiling, just to get the point of view)(please no bashing)

But you see all type of people are posting and flaming.
 
@ Thread starter

Some more points:

1. The areas currently under pakistan like punjab, FATA, sindh, baluchistan etc. are the place who were under muslim rule for largest period.

2. No matter who the invader is Gaznavi or Gauri or Nadir Shah or Abdali or Babar they all came through current pakistan.

So obviously they have not came India by air or given free road passage to India.

They have reached India after killing, raping, butchering and conquering pakistan and its people. The pakistanis are those who have always get defeated first and get suffered by these invaders.
 
AFAIK, the reasons for the decline of Budhism were very similar to the earlier decline of Hinduism. The Buddhist monks regressed into the very same practices as the Brahmin priests that they earlier opposed. Stupas became means to own lands and hoard wealth. Just like it happened with the Brahmin priests they began restricting the religious knowledge to themselves. Thus their disconnect with the average folks grew. Add to this the revivalist Hindu movement by Adi Shankaracharya and it sent Buddhism into a terminal spin in India that it never recovered from.

Good post.. The decline of Buddhism from 6 th century AD was mainly their totaly different Practices from whole group and then missing proper leadersip for a long time.... This already happened with Jainism in 2nd Century AD... Hence both religion became sort of closed groups..
I read few old books where the points were raised on Buddhists groups who were busy with Money making as you pointe out and then internal fight for holding rights of Mathas and Stoops.. Like Royalty fighting..

When Adi Shankaracharya started his Vedanta Theory and started visiting different part of India.. he actually streamlined all Hindu practices and stopped fight over different deities.. and then one surprised thing happened which actually merged Buddhists with hindus and the main reason was to treat Buddha as one of Avatar of Lord Vishnu. This has been nullified recently by Puri Shankaracharya and he also apologized for this ill-logic presented to Hindus. Hence while Jains remained different in a closed group.. Buddhists in India became part of Hindus some where 11-12 century..
 
@ Thread starter

Some more points:

1. The areas currently under pakistan like punjab, FATA, sindh, baluchistan etc. are the place who were under muslim rule for largest period.

2. No matter who the invader is Gaznavi or Gauri or Nadir Shah or Abdali or Babar they all came through current pakistan.

So obviously they have not came India by air or given free road passage to India.

They have reached India after killing, raping, butchering and conquering pakistan and its people. The pakistanis are those who have always get defeated first and get suffered by these invaders.

I don't know where you studied history from, but let me make one thing clear: We Pakistanis exist because of there "killers, rapists, butcherer and conquerors". Call them name and whatnot, they brought Islam to that area and I am grateful for it.
 
Coming to the OPs original question, most non-muslim Indians have a very negative feeling of the muslim domination (I will not use the word muslim rule) of the Indian subcontinent. I'm a non-hindu Indian, but I feel the Islamic conquest of India almost wiped out the ancient culture and civilization, especially in north India. I come from South-West coast of India which was never really under any muslim ruler except for a very brief period under Tipu Sultan. However, there are significant proportion of the population there who are muslims, who are basically descendants of Arab traders. The Islamic influence in the culture of my hometown is very much present, and we accept it as a part of our own.
Prior to Islamic invaders, there were other others invaders viz. Aryans, Greeks, Huns, Scythians etc. who came to this land. But they all got assimilated into the melting pot called India, and their cultures, traditions and religions got merged into the native cultures, traditions and religions enriching the land called India. But the Islamic invasion was a whole new thing to India. For the first time in India, wars were fought for loot and plunder and spread of an alien religion & culture, at the cost of local culture. Up until the Islams entry into India, India was great center of human creativity. Arts, culture, science, mathematics, surgery, medicine, astronomy, philosophy etc. were flourishing in India (which the muslims/Arabs repackaged and sold it to others as their own). There were many centers of learning, like Nalanda university. People & society were open in their thinking and lifestyle (Ex. Kamasutra, temple sculptures). Women had more freedom and greater role in the society. After the Islamic invasion of the subcontient, many of the negative aspects of Indian/Hindu culture got institutionalised. Purdah and Sati (especially in societies which bore the brunt of the Islamic invasion in Rajastan, Gujarat, Punjab etc.) became more enforced. Caste system got more rigid. With the advent of Islam, India suddenly seemed to run out of its creative energy. The whole of islamic period didn't seem to produce any creative work, except for some islamic monuments, which were built at the cost of the native people.
People can debate endlessly regarding the duration of the 'Islamic rule' in India, but the basic fact remains that for the most part of that history the muslims in India was confined to cities and urban centers, especially in central and Deccan India. The foreign muslim rulers only formed the top part of the power pyramid, with the base grass roots power still residing with the non-muslim natives. Islamisation of the society only started in the later part of the Mughal rule.
Even though 'muslim rule' is seen as retrogressive my most Indians who are aware of the history, we still still accept it as a part of our history and culture. When Islam arrived in India, India was a progressive country and Islam was seen as backward culture coming from Arabia and central Asia. But Indians were too over confident about their strength, too complacent and too divided to see the external threat which would endanger their very way of life.
The flexibility of the Hindu culture is both its strength and its weakness. The ambiguities within the Hindu philosophy causes divisions among the people which the outsiders can easily exploit. On the other hand, the immense ability to absorb new ideas and cultures and flexibilty to absorb blows makes it a survivor and that is the reason that majority of the Subcontinent is still non-muslim and the survival of the one of the oldest human civilization. Islamic dominance of a few centuries is only a part of the 5000years history of the Indian civilization. At the end of the day, irrespective of whether it was good or bad, we take the Islamic phase of our history in our stride.
 
When Adi Shankaracharya started his Vedanta Theory and started visiting different part of India.. he actually streamlined all Hindu practices and stopped fight over different deities.. and then one surprised thing happened which actually merged Buddhists with hindus and the main reason was to treat Buddha as one of Avatar of Lord Vishnu. This has been nullified recently by Puri Shankaracharya and he also apologized for this ill-logic presented to Hindus. Hence while Jains remained different in a closed group.. Buddhists in India became part of Hindus some where 11-12 century..

Another thing that the Shankaracharya did to revive Hinduism was to break down the teachings in the Vedas and the Puranas into simpler texts for the common folk. Apart from the Brahmans, hardly anyone new Sanskrit and this earlier restricted the spread of the core values incorporated in the sacred texts. By translating these into the local languages and essentially simplifying the message, he was able to bring back the masses into the Hindu fold.
 
Back
Top Bottom