What's new

3 (Pakistani) soldiers martyred and 7 (Indian) soldiers killed in LOC firing

Status
Not open for further replies.
What a delusional statement. Buddhism which started in 500 BC got a shot in the arm when Ashoka embraced it and propagated it all through south Asia, East Asia and South east asia .

It survived in India until the advent of Islamic rulers. All the regions which fell under Islamic rule have turned Islamic from Buddhism be it Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. The regions like Myanmar, Tibet, Thailand, Sri Lanka etc still continued to practice Buddhism as they did not to fall under Islamic rulers.
: Pusyamitra Sunga, Simhavarma, Naravama, Toramana, Miharakula, Sasanka, Kalasa Kshemagupta, Harsha, and the Chalukyans were Hindus in power. Kumarila Bhatta and Shankaracharya....

These dudes uprooted buddhism from india.

In the Ayodhya Kaanda of Valmiki Ramayana, a Buddhist was compared to a thief and the Tathagatas to atheists (Naastiks). It said:

यथा हि चोर स्स तथा हि बुद्ध-
स्तथागतं नास्तिकमत्र विद्धि।


As a thief, so is Buddha. Know that Tathagatas are atheists. [Sarga 109; shloka 34]

The Yajnavalkya Smriti says that the very sight of a monk with red robes and shaven head (referring to Buddhists), even in a dream, is a bad sign. [Yajnavalkya SmritiI/272-273]

The Agni Purana[16/1-3] and Vishnu Purana[18/13-18] refer to Buddha as an embodiment of Grand Deception (māyamohasvarup) and that he deluded the people from the Vedic Religion. His path is a sure ticket to hell.

The great philosopher of Hinduism, Shankaracharya, said that the Buddha was suffering from what we know as schizophrenia. Shankaracharya said that

he (Buddha) was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused.–So that–and this the Sûtra means to indicate–Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.”

[Shankar Bhashya on Brahmasutra 2/2/32]

The writer of Saankhyakaarika, Vachaspati Mishra, uses the words ‘Mleccha (filthy)’, Purushaapsad (low people) and PashuPraay (Animal like) for Buddhists, Jains, etc. He writes:

आप्तग्रहणेनाsयुक्ताः शाक्यभिक्षुर्नि ग्रन्थकसंसारमो चकादीनामागमाभासाः परिहृता भवन्ति . अयुक्तत्वं चैतेषां विगानात्, विच्छन्न मूलत्वात्, प्रमाणविरुद्धार्थाभिधानात् कैशिचदेव मलेच्छादिभिः पुरुषापसदैः पशुप्रायैः परिग्रहाद् बोद्धव्यम् .

“By saying ‘true revelation’, all pretended revelations such as those of Shaakya, Bhikshu (Buddha),etc have been set aside. The invalidity of these systems is due to their making unreasonable assertions, to want of sufficient basis, to their making statements contradictory to proofs, and lastly to their being accepted only by Mlecchas, or by mean men or by animal like people. “



Kumarila Bhatta was regarded as the fiercest critic of Buddhism. He was the strongest protagonist of Vedic ritualism. Kumarila is said to have been a Brahmin of Bihar who raged with the ardour to preach against Buddhism. The Shankar Digvijayaof Madhava (earliest authentic biography of Shankaracharya) refers to Malayali King Sudhanva’s brutal extermination of Buddhists at the instigation of Kumarila Bhatta.


...


The king (Sudhanva) commanded his servants “kill all Buddhists from Himalaya to Rameshvaram, even children and elderly. Whosoever will not kill them, will be killed at my hands.” [93]

At the instigation of Kumarila Bhatta, the king killed the Buddhists, the opponents (of the Hindu religion) just like a Yogi destroys the disturbances. [95]

[Madhava-Vidyaranya, Sankara Digvijaya Sarg 1; shlokas 93-95]

This was about Kumarila’s brutal persecution of Buddhists. Now let us turn to Adi Shankaracharya, the Brahmin of South India, who did a great job of glorifying the Vedas and the Advaita Vedanta philosophy. He was vigorously anti-Buddhism. I have already quoted his remarks on Buddha, which show his ‘regard’ for the Buddhist religion (Refer Shankar Bhasya on Brahmasutra 2/2/32). With regards to the Sringeri matha built by Shankaracharya, Sir Charles Eliot in his book Hinduism and Buddhism (1921 Ed. Page 211) says,

“There is some reason to suppose that the Matha of Sringeri was founded on the site of a Buddhist Monestary”

The 15th Sarga of his biography Madhava-Vidyaranya Sankara Digvijay refers to his campaigns against the Buddhists, being escorted by King Sudhanvan’s army wherever he went from the Himalayas to the India Ocean. Owing to his anti Buddhist activities, Buddhism fell on its evil days.

This royal persecution of Buddhists by some Brahminic rulers was the most potent factor which contributed to bring the decline of Buddhism in India. The Budaun Stone Inscription of Lakhanapaala refers to one Varamasiva, a Saiva ascetic, who destroyed an idol of Buddha in the South (Dakshinapatha) before his arrival in Vodamayuta (Epigraphia Indica vol.1, Page 63)

A Chalukya Inscription of 1184 A.D. refers to a feudatory chief, Mahaamandaleshvara Viruparasadeva, who is described as a’forest-fire to the Jain religion’, a ‘destroyer of the Buddha religion’, a ‘demolisher of Jain basadis’ and ‘establisher of the Sivalinga-Simhaasana (Shiva Linga Throne).He destroyed several samayas at Pariyalige, Anilevada (Anhilwad), Unukallu (Unkal), Sampagadi (Sampagaon), Ibbaluru (Ablur?), Marudige (Maradigi), Anampur (Alampur), KaTahada (Karad), Kembhavi, Bammakuru and other places. [Annual report of the archaeological survey of India 1929-30 Page 171]

We know from the record of the Nalanda Inscription of Vipulasrimitra, that a Vangala army killed a Buddhist monk namedKarunasrimitra of Somapura and burnt down his house, which was actually a monastery. [Epigraphia Indica vol.21 Page 97]

Another fierce Hindu king who showed his great hostility towards Buddhism was Shashanka, the King of Gauda. He was a notable example of anti-Buddhist Brahminical fanaticism. He is said to have uprooted the sacred Bodhi-Tree at Bodh-Gaya but in order to destroy it totally, he burnt its remains. A Buddha image from a temple east of the Bodhi tree was removed by him and in its place, he installed an image of Siva. [On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India vol. 2 by Thomas Watters, 1905, Pages 115,116]

This is corroborated by The Life of Hiuen Tsiang by the Shaman Hwui Li who mentions that a certain Kumaara-Raja threatened the monks of Nalanda with a behaviour similar to Shashanka, and with the destruction of the whole monastery unless Hiuen Tsang was sent to his court. Kumara-Raja wrote in his letter,

“I have again sent a messenger with a written request: If he (Hiuen Tsang) does not come, your disciple will then let the evil portion of himself prevail. In recent times Shanshanka-Raja was equal still to the destruction of the law and uprooted the Bodhi tree. Do you, my Master, suppose that your disciple has no such power as this? If necessary then I will equip my army and elephants, and like the clouds sweep down on and trample to the very dust that monastery of Nalanda. These words (are true) as the sun!” [The Life of Hiuen Tsiang by the Shaman Hwui Li ; Translated by Samuel Beal; 1911; Pg. 171]

Another cruel persecutor of Buddhism was Mihirakula, who had occupied the throne of Kashmir. Kalhana Pandit, the famous chronicler of Kashmir and the author of Rajatarangini, says that for his atrocities he was like Yama, the god of death. Kalhana describes further: “One’s tongue would become polluted if one attempted to record his cruelties and evil deeds in detail” [Rajatarangini I, 289,290 and 304; Translated by M. A. Stein]. From his account it is known that Mihirakula played an important role in the development of Brahmanism. He was a worshipper of Shiva and built a Shiva temple in Srinagara [Rajatarangini I, 306; M. A. Stein]. The view that he was a Shaivite is upheld by M. A. Stein as he writes,

“The impression which this tradition retained of Mihirakula’s religious propensities, is in full accord with the evidence of his coins which, in the emblems of bull and trident and in the legends of jayatu vrsa, jayatu vrsadhvaja, display a distinct leaning towards Shaivism.”

[Si-Yu-Ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World Tr. Samuel Beal, 1969; Book iv, Page 171]

Mihirakula’s hostility towards the Buddhist was shared by the Shaivite Brahmins. Kalhana comments in the Rajatarangini on the greed of the Brahmins who eagerly accepted grants of land from Mihirakula.

“Brahmins from Gandhara, resembling himself in their habits and verily themselves the lowest of the twice-born, accepted Agraharas from him.”

[Rajatarangini I, 307; M. A. Stein]

This shows that the Brahmins were hand in glove with his slaughter of Buddhists and the destruction of the Buddhist establishments. So, the fake polemics of some Hindu writers that Mihirakula was not a Hindu or that his destruction of Buddhists establishments cannot be tied to Hindus are unfounded.

Another hateful persecutor of Buddhists was Pushyamitra Sunga, founder of the Sunga Dynasty. Several Chinese and Japanese historians mention Pushyamitra’s name at the head of the list of persecutors. Buddhist writers portray Pushyanitra as a cruel persecutor of the religion of Sakyamuni (Buddha). Pushyamitra, a militant follower of Brahminism, assassinated the last Mauryan Emperor Brhadratha, capturing the throne of Magadha and founded the Sunga Dynasty. It ruled for a period of one hundred and twelve years. Pushyamitra had to justify his position as head of the Brahmanic reaction by persecuting the Buddhists and destroying Buddhist monasteries on the one hand and restoring the sacrificial ceremonies of the Brahmanic faith on the other, for which his principal helpers were Patanjali and also perhaps Manu, the author of the Manusmriti. who was also his contemporary according to some scholars. The persecution of the Buddhists by Pushyamitra, was a logical sequence of the Brahmanic reaction and the political coup d’etat. The Buddhist text Divyavadana mentions the persecutions of Pushyamitra and his destruction of Buddhist stupas and monasteries. Hindutva apologists such as Dr. Koenraad Elst have tried to refute these charges on Pushyamitra, saying that they are “rendered improbable by external evidence”. Elst then claims that “he (Pushyamitra) allowed and patronized the construction of monasteries and Buddhist universities in his domains, as well as the still-extant stupa of Sanchi.” Although he gives no reference for this claim, it is possible that he was referring to the epigraph on the gateway of Barhut, which mentions its erection “during the supremacy of the Sungas“. The inscription uses the words सुगनं रजे (During the reign of Sungas). It does not necessarily include the reign of Pushyamitra. It only means ‘during the reign of Sungas’. The gateway was constructed during the reign of his successors who were more tolerant to Buddhism than the founder of the dynasty and leader of the Brahmanic reaction. That the gateways were erected long after the time of Pushyamitra is also the opinion of eminent archaeologists like Mr. N. G. Mazumdar, who writes,

“The Sungas referred to in this inscription formed a dynasty which was founded by the general (Senapati) Pushyamitra, succeeding the Mauryas about 180 B.C. The gateways, however, appear to have been set up about a century later, towards the close o the Sunga period.”

[A Guide To The Sculptures In The Indian Museum, Pt.I N. G. Mazumdar, 1937 Ed., Page 13]

Dr. Elst also quotes the historian of Buddhism, Etienne Lamotte, who wrote, “To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof”. [History of Indian Buddhism, Institut Orientaliste, Louvain-la-Neuve 1988/1958, p.109] Firstly, this reference is incorrect as the page number is 392. Even then, let me provide the complete quote of Etienne Lamotte. He writes,

“To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof. Nevertheless, as was remarked by H. Kern, in view of the varied opinions, it is possible that, in some localities, there may have been pillages of monasteries, perhaps with the tacit permission of the governors. “

Prominent Indian historian, professor Romila Thapar writes,

“Buddhist sources claim that they (Sungas) persecuted the Buddhists and destroyed their monasteries and places of worship. This could have been an exaggeration, but archaeological evidence reveals that Buddhist monuments in the Sunga domain were at this time in disrepair and being renovated. However, if the chronology of these monuments shifts forward as is now being suggested, then this would make them post-Sunga renovations. Nevertheless, even if some renovations were of a later date, the damage to the stupa at Sanchi, and to the monastery at Kaushambi dates to Shunga times. Added emphasis is given to this from Pushyamitra having performed ashvamedhas, or horse sacrifices. This is sometimes viewed as indicating support of Vedic Brahmanism and a disapproval of heterodox sects.”

[The Penguin History of Early India from the origins to AD 1300, Romila Thapar, 2002 Edition, Pg. 210]

1_deorkothar_stupa.jpg
This view of Professor Thapar was confirmed when Deorkothar Stupaswere excavated by P. K. Mishra (Archaeological Survey of India) in 1999 till 2000. The story about this Stupa was published by P. K. Mishra on the official website of the Archaeology magazine, a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America. P. K. Mishra wrote,

“The ancient Buddhist text Divyavadanam speaks of the death and destruction brought about by Pushyamitra Sunga, who ruled in the first quarter of the second century B.C., in a bid to glorify Hinduism. During his reign, Buddhist monuments were wantonly destroyed. Although archaeological evidence is meager in this regard, it seems likely that the Deorkothar stupa was destroyed as a result of Pushyamitra Sunga’s fanaticism. The exposed remains at Deorkothar bear evidence of deliberate destruction datable to his reign. The three-tiered railing is damaged; railing pillars lie, broken to smithereens, on stone flooring. Twenty pieces of pillar have been recovered, each fragment itself fractured. The site offers no indication of natural destruction.”

[SOURCE: http://archive.archaeology.org/online/news/deorkothar/ ]

Etienne Lamotte wrote his book in 1958, when he did not have the new archaeological findings before him. To hang on to his quote is an example of a drowning man clutching at straws.

Further Reading

Buddhist scholars have also laid claim to many Hindu temples being original Buddhist Shrines. A book written by Dr. K. Jamnadas was titled ‘Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine’. In this book, the author has given huge stock of evidence to prove that the temple which is today sacred to Hindus was once a Buddhist Shrine. Readers are advised to make up their own mind after reading the book themselves and verifying the proofs.The book can be downloaded from the link http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Tirupati.pdf

/................


HINDU VIOLENCE AGAINST BUDDHISM IN INDIA HAS NO PARALLEL

Dr. M.S.Jayaprakash


The ruthless demolition of Buddha statues by the Taliban leaders in Afghanistan has invited severe criticisms from different quarters of the world. It is quite surprising to note that the Hindu Nazi-led Indian Govt. supported by all other Hindu Nazis has condemned the Taliban action. It appears paradoxical that the ancestors of the present Hindu Nazis in India wantonly destroyed the Buddhist statues and brutally killed the followers of Buddha in India. An impartial student of history can unequivocally remark that the Indian Nazis have no moral right to criticise the Taliban action.

Hundreds of the Buddhist statues, Stupas and Viharas were destroyed in India between 830 AD and 966 AD in the name of the revival of Hinduism. Indigenous and foreign sources, both literary and archaeological, speak volumes of the havoc done to Buddhism by the Nazis in India.

Role of Sankaracharya

Nazi leaders like the Sankaracharyas and many kings and rulers took pride in demolishing the Buddhist images aiming at the total eradication of the Buddhist culture. Today, their descendants destroyed the Babri Masjid and they have also published a list of mosques to be destroyed in the near future. It is with this sin of pride that they are condemning the deed on the part of the Afghans.

The Hindu ruler, Pushyamitra Sunga, demolished 84,000 Budhist stupas which had been built by Ashoka the Great (Romila Thaper, Ashoka and Decline of Mouryas, London, 1961, p 200). It was followed by the smashing of the Buddhist centres in Magadha. Thousands of Budhist monks were mercilessly killed. King Jalaluka destroyed the Budhist viharas within his jurisdiction on the ground that the chanting of the hymns by the Buddhist devotees disturbed his sleep. (Kalhana, Rajatharangini, 1:40). In Kashmir, King Kinnara demolished thousands of Viharas and captured the Budhists villages to please the Brahmins. (Kalhana 1:80).

Demon's role

A large number of Buddhist viharas were usurped by the Brahmins and converted into Hindu temples where the Untouchables were given no entrance. The Buddhist places were projected as the Hindu temples by writing puranas which were concocted myths or pseudo-history.

The important temples found at Tirupati, Ahoble, Undavalli, Ellora, Bengal, Puri, Badrinath, Mathura, Ayodhya, Sringeri, Bodhgaya, Sarnath, Delhi, Nalanda, Gudiallam, Nagarjuna Konda, Srisailam and Sabarimala (Lord Ayyappa) in Kerala are some of the striking examples of the Brahmanic usurpation of the Buddhist centres.

At Nagarjunakonda, the Adi Sankara played a demon's role in destroying the Buddhist statues and monuments. Longhurst who conducted excavations at Nagarjunakonda has recorded this in his book Memoirs of the Archaelogical Survey of India No: 54, The Budhist Antiquties of Nagarjunakonda (Delhi, 1938, p.6.).

Non-Brahmins burnt alive

The ruthless manner in which all the buildings at Nagarjunakonda were destroyed is simply appalling and cannot represent the work of treasure-seekers because many of the pillars, statues and sculptures have been wantonly smashed to pieces. Local tradition relates that the Brahmin teacher Sankaracharya came to Nagarjunakonda with a host of followers and destroyed the Budhist monuments. The cultivated lands on which the ruined buildings stand was a religious grant made to Sankaracharya.

In Kerala, Sankaracharya and his close associate Kumarila Bhatta, an avowed enemy of Budhism, organised a religious crusade against the Buddhists. We get a vivid description of the pleasure of Sankaracharya on seeing the people of non-Brahmanic faith being burnt to death from the book Sankara Digvijaya.

Havoc played in Kerala

Kumarila instigated king Suddhavanan of Ujjaini to exterminate the Buddhists. From the Mirchakatika of Sudraka we learn that the king's brother-in-law in Ujjain persecuted the Budhist monks. They were treated as bullocks by passing a string through their noses and yoking them to carts. The Keralopathi documents refer to the extermination of Buddhism from Kerala by Kumarila. About the activities of Sankara, Swami Vivekananda observe:

"And such was the heart of Sankara that he burnt to death lots of the Buddhist monks by defeating them in argument. What can you call such an action on Sankara's part except fanaticism." (Complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.VII. p. 118, Calcutta, 1997).

Kerala's Buddhist history

There are hundreds of places in Kerala having the names like palli either affixed or suffixed with them. Karungapalli, Karthikapalli, Pallickal, Pallippuram are some of the examples of these places. The term palli means a Budhist vihara.

It should be noted that Kerala had 1,200 years of Buddhist tradition.Till recently schools in Kerala had been called as Ezhuthupalli or Pallikoodam. Our Christian and Muslim brothers use the term palli to denote their place of worship. The pallies were wantonly smashed by the Hindu Nazis under the leadership of Sankara and Kumarila.

They exterminated 1,200 years of Buddhist tradition and transformed Kerala into a Brahminical State.Original inhabitants of Kerala like the Ezhavas, Pulayas etc. were crushed under the yoke of casteism. Many viharas were transformed into temples and the majority of the people were prevented from entering the temples under the pretext of caste inhibitions.

Role of Parasurama

It can also be noted that the name of Kerala is the sanskritised Aryan version of the Dravidian and Budhist term cherala. The Parasurama legend regarding the origin of Kerala says that the land of Kerala was raised from the sea by Parasurama by throwing an axe from Gokarna to Kanyakumari. This is a cock and bull story created by the Brahmins to hide all crimes against the Buddhists.

A number of the Buddha statues have been found at places like Ambalapuzha, Karungapalli, Pallickal, Bharanikkavu, Mavelikkara and Neelamperur. They are all in a disfigured state.

Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala and Lord Padmanabha at Thiruvananthapuram are the proxy images of the Buddha being worshipped as Vishnu.

Hundreds of Buddhists were killed on the banks of the river at Aluva in Kerala. The term Aluva is derived from Alavi which means Trisul, a weapon used by the Hindu Nazis to stab the Buddhists. Similarly on the banks of the Vaiga river in Tamil Ndu thousands of the Buddhists were killed by the Saiva saint Sambanthar. The Tamil books Thevaram documents this brutal extermination of Buddhism.

Historians hiding facts

This is what really happened in India, the land of the Buddha. But our so-called eminent historians are bent upon hiding the cruelty inflicted on the Budhists in India. These "historians" have succeeded in creating an impression that India is a land of non-violence and tolerance. The entire world has been duped by them.

The deed on the part of Taliban is justifiable on the ground that Islam does not permit idols. At the same time, one has to note that Islam does not allow the deomolition of other people's religious centres and images. Whatever may be the argument for and against the Taliban action, the Hindu atrocities on Buddhism in India has no parallel in the entire history of religious struggles. Let the world know the cruel and crooked face of "Indian vulture, no culture".

////////////////////////////////////////////////////





Hinduism and Talibanism
By Mukundan C. Menon

Which is more deplorable: destruction of Buddhism in its own birth place in ancient India by Hindus, or of Buddha statues by present day Islamic Talibans in Afghanistan?

Two well known academicians of Kerala - Prof KM Bahauddin, former pro-vice chancellor of Aligarh Muslim and Osmania universities, and Dr MS Jayaprakash, professor of history at Kollam - throw some deep insights into the dark history of India when Buddhism was systematically eliminated by Brahminical forces who control Hinduism, then and now.

Says Jayaprakash: ‘The ruthless demolition of Buddha statues by Taliban has courted severe criticism from different quarters of the world. Surprisingly, the BJP-led Indian Government, supported by all Hindutva forces, also condemned the Taliban action. It is a paradox that the forerunners of the present Hindutva forces in India had wantonly destroyed not only Buddhist statues but also killed Buddhists in India. Therefore, any impartial student of history would unequivocally say that these Hindutva forces have no moral right to criticize Taliban now.’

He elaborates: ‘Hundreds of Buddhist statues, stupas and viharas have been destroyed in India between 830 and 966 AD in the name of Hindu revivalism. Both literary and archaeological sources within and outside India speak volumes about the havoc done to Buddhism by Hindu fanatics. Spiritual leaders like Sankaracharya and many Hindu kings and rulers took pride in demolishing Buddhist images aiming at the total eradication of Buddhist culture. Today, their descendants destroyed the Babri Masjid and also published the list of mosques to be targeted in future. It is with this sin of pride that they presently condemn Taliban.’

Prof. Bahauddin elaborates the selfish compulsions of Brahminism to wipe-out Buddhism: ‘Buddhism tried to create a dynamic society in ancient India. Jainism also contributed its share. As Buddhism spread, iron ploughs and implement were used for development of agriculture. As a result, new areas were cultivated and agricultural productivity increased, apart from developing trade centres and road links. Subsistence-level economy changed to a surplus economy with grain storage facilities, exchange of goods, trade and development of bureaucratic administration. This also created social change - from elans consisting several families to tribes consisting several elans of similar socio-economic conditions. The emphasis of Brahmins, on the other hand, was for receiving and giving alms and not on production of goods. Those who give and receive alms were close to Gods and those who produce were considered as inferior. According to Manusmriti, a Sudra should not have wealth of his own. In case he has any, a Brahmin as his master can take it over without any hesitation. ‘Rigveda’ goes a step further to kill those who do not give ‘danam’ to the Brahmins. In other words, someone has to produce goods so that others can give ‘danam’ to the recipient Brahmins. It was against this system of 'downgrading those who produce' that Buddhism came into being.’

Recalls Dr. Jayaprakash: ‘The Hindu ruler Pushyamitra Sunga had destroyed 84,000 Buddhist stupas which were built by Emperor Ashoka. This was followed by the demolition of Buddhist centres in Magadha. Thousands of Buddhist saints were killed mercilessly. King Jalaluka destroyed the Buddha viharas within his jurisdiction on the ground that chanting of hymns by Buddhists disturbed his sleep! In Kashmir, King Kinnara demolished thousands of viharas and captured the Buddhist villages to please Brahmins. A large number of Buddha viharas were usurped by Brahmins and converted into Hindu temples where entry of ‘untouchables’ was prohibited. Notably, Buddhist places were regularized as Hindu temples by writing Puranas, which were invented myths or pseudo history. The important temples at Tirupathi, Aihole, Undavalli, Ellora, Bengal, Puri, Badarinath, Mathura, Ayodhya, Sringeri, Bodhigaya, Saranath, Delhi, Nalanda, Gudimallam, Nagarjunakonda, Srisailam and Sabarimala are some of the striking examples of Brahminical usurpation of Buddhist centres.’

Detailing the divergence in both orientation and essence between Buddhism and Hinduism, Prof. Bahauddin says: ‘Equality, compassion, non-violence, utilization of human abilities for general welfare, etc. were the cardinal principles of Buddhism. According to ‘Sathpatha Brahmanam (22-6, 3-4-14), on the other hand, the whole universe is controlled by God, God is controlled by Mantram and Mantram is with Brahmins and, therefore, Brahmins are God (on earth). They used Mantram and Sapam to instil fear in the people to obey them, while Buddhism encouraged people to observe visible facts, to apply reason to get out of fear. Buddhism also encouraged people to do good things, besides guiding Kings to look after the people's welfare. Buddhism considers the general welfare of the people, while Brahminism considers that the whole world was created for them all along. And, there is bound to be conflict between these two opposite ways of thinking.’

According to Dr Jayaprakash, Sakaracharya had played ‘a demon's role’ in destruction of Buddhist statues and monuments at Nagarjunakonda (in present-day Andhra Pradesh). ‘A. N. Longhurst, who conducted excavations at Nagarjunakonda, had recorded this in his invaluable book, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 54, The Buddhist Antiquities of Nagarjunakonda (Delhi, 1938, p. 6). The ruthless manner in which all the buildings at Nagarjunakonda have been destroyed is simply appalling and cannot represent the work of treasure-seekers alone since so many pillars, statues, and sculptures have been wantonly smashed to pieces. Local tradition relates that the great Hindu philosopher and teacher, Sankaracharya, came to Nagarjunakonda with a host of followers and destroyed the Buddhist monuments. The cultivated lands on which ruined buildings stand represent a religious grant made to Sankaracharya.’

Quoting Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Prof. Bahauddin says that the conflict against Brahmin supremacy had, in fact, started before Buddhist period, between Vasishta Muni, a Brahmin, and Viswamitra, a non-Brahmin. ‘The dispute was about the learning of ‘Vedas’, the right to conduct religious ceremony, to receive gifts, and to perform coronation of King. Vasishta Muni insisted that these were the exclusive privileges of Brahmins, while Viswamitra was opposed to such exclusive rights. This dispute lasted for long period, and even Kings joined in it (Writings and Speeches of Dr. Ambedkar, vol. 7, p. 148-155. It was won by Brahmins.’

Prof. Bahauddin lists the different stages of Brahmin hostility against Buddhism: ‘1) 483-273 BC: The period after Buddha's death upto Ashoka's rule when attempts were made to include Brahminical ideas in Buddhist ideology. 2) 273-200 BC: When Buddhism spread all over India and became a world religion. 3) 200 BC-500 AD: The period when all possible efforts were made to disintegrate Buddhism from within by adulterating Buddhist teachings with Brahminical ideas and also through physical annihilation from outside. As a result, Buddhism divided itself into 18 sects, of which Hinayana and Mahayana were prominent ones. 4) 500-700 AD: Brahminism gained supremacy in North India and efforts began to drive out Buddhism and Jainism from South India. 5) 700-1100 AD: Brahminism gained supremacy in South India and, with added vigour, it moved again to North India to obtain complete supremacy over Buddhism and Jainism. 6) 1100-1400 AD: Buddhism and Jainism were destroyed from the remaining Southern States of Karnataka and Kerala and, thus, total supremacy of Brahminism all over India was achieved.’

Adds Dr. Jayaprakash: ‘Within Kerala, Sankaracharya and his close associate Kumarila Bhatta, an avowed foe of Buddhism, organized a religious crusade against Buddhists. A vivid description of Sankaracharya's pleasure of seeing people of non-Brahminic faith being burnt to death is available in ‘Sankara Digvijaya’. Kumarila instigated King Suddhanvan of Ujjain to exterminate Buddhists. The ‘Mricchakatika’ of Sudraka describes how the King's brother-in-law in Ujjain inhumanly tortured the Buddhist monks, by using them as bullocks by inserting a string through their nose and yoking them to the cart! The ‘Keralolpathi’ documents the extermination of Buddhism from Kerala by Kumarila. About the activities of Sankaracharya, even Vivekananda had observed: ‘And, such was the heart of Sankara that he burnt to death lots of Buddhist monks by defeating them in argument. What can you call such action on Sankara's part except fanaticism’ (Complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. III, p. 118, Calcutta, 1997).’

According to Dr. Jayaprakash, there are hundreds of places in Kerala having names ‘palli’ either affixed or suffixed with them. ‘Karunagapalli, Karthikapalli, Pallickal, Pallippuram, Edappally, etc. are some examples of these places. The term ‘palli’ means a Buddha vihara. Notably, Kerala had 1200 years of Buddhist tradition. Earlier, the schools in Malayalam were called as ‘Ezhuthupalli’ or ‘Pallikoodam’. It is also worth noticing that the Christians and Muslims in Kerala use the term ‘palli’ to denote their church and mosque alike. These ‘pallies’ or viharas had been ruthlessly demolished by the Hindu forces under the leadership of Sankaracharya and Kumarila. They could exterminate 1200 years of Buddhist tradition and converted Kerala into a Brahminical state based on the ‘Chaturvarna’ system. Original inhabitants of Kerala, like the Ezhavas, Pulayas, etc., were crushed under the weight of casteism. Many a viharas was transformed into temples and majority of people were prevented from entering temples under the pretext of caste pollution. It can also be noted that the name ‘Kerala’ is the Sanskritised Aryan version of the Dravidian and Buddhist term ‘Cherala’. The Parasurama legend is nothing but an invented myth for regularizing the Brahminical ‘Kerala’ hiding its glorious Buddhist traditions.’

Jainism, too, met with the same fate in South India. Prof. Bahauddin elaborates: ‘Very little information is available about growth of Jainism in South India during 300-400 AD. The Jain book, ‘Digambara Darsana’, recounts the starting of a Sangham at Madurai in 470 AD and Jainism became widespread and strong during 500-600 AD (Kumaraswamy Iyengar, ‘Studies in South Indian Jainism’, p. 51-58)….. The Jains used to instal the images of their saints in their religious places, a practice which was followed by Brahmins. Hindu temples appeared all over Tamilnadu probably after converting the Jain religious places. The idols of 63 Brahmin Sanyasis, who led destruction of Jainism, still adorn the walls of some Hindu temples in Tamilnadu. The remains of destroyed Jain idols, their abandoned religious and living places are scattered all over Tamilnadu to narrate their story. Frescos depicting the kings of Jains could be seen on the walls near the Golden Tank at Madurai Meenakshi Temple where, of the total 12 annual festivals, five depict the killing of Jains according to Kumaraswamy Iyengar (p. 78-79).’

According to Dr. Jayaprakash, a number of Buddha statues have been discovered at places like Ambalapuzha, Karunagapalli, Pallickal, Bharanikkavu, Mavelikara and Neelamperur in Kerala. ‘They are either in the form of smashed pieces or thrown away from viharas. Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala and Lord Padmanabha at Thiruvananthapuram are the proxy images of Buddha being worshipped as Vishnu. Hundreds of Buddhists were killed on the banks of Aluva river. The term ‘Aluva’ was derived from ‘Alawai’ which means ‘Trisul’, a weapon used by Hindu fanatics to stab Buddhists. Similarly, on the banks of the Vaigai river in Tamilnadu, thousands of Buddhists were killed by the Vaishnava Saint, Sambanthar. Thevaram, a Tamil book, documents this brutal extermination of Buddhism.’

Prof. Bahauddin recalls the strong reasons to believe that a large section of Jains had embraced Islam: ‘The spread of Islam in Tamilnadu can be considered in three or four stages. Islam spread in Kerala and Tamilnadu when Jainism was under pressure (650-750 AD). The new religion was received without resistance…. Since Islam considers every human being with equality Jainism and Buddhism had no conflict with it. When Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim attacked Sindh, the Buddhists supported him because they were facing annihilation at that time. A similar situation was prevailing in South India during 650-750 AD…. Muslims in Tamilnadu are called Anchuvanthar, Labba (teacher), Rauthar, Marakar (sailor) or Jonakan (Yavankan). The Anchuvanam is the guild of traders and groups of artisans. The Muslim mohallas of ‘Anchuvan Vamsagar’, ‘Anchuvanathar’, etc. are scattered all over Tamilnadu and seem to be the en bloc conversion of Jain guilds engaged in different activities, especially weaving. Those who ran away from Tamilnadu settled down in Sravanabalagola and Gomatheswaram in Karnataka. And, those who could not leave due to their economic interests converted to Islam. If we analyze the body structure, food, language, dress, ornaments, customs and habits of Anchuvanthar, it could be see that those are a continuation of Jain way of living and customs.

Till recently, the weavers in such Muslim mohallas will not eat at noon or night, and take only one meal before dusk. This was a continuation of Jain habits. There is a separate place in such villages called ‘Odukkam’ where Jain Munist used to sit in prayer. On the last Wednesday of the month called ‘Odukkathae’ Wednesday, the Muslims gather together to sing religious songs, which is also a Jain tradition. When religious functions like Maulood, Rathif, etc. are organized in the house, a white cloth with lotus symbol on it called ‘Mekett’ is tied, which resembles the ‘Asmanagiri’ of the Jains…. The architecture of Muslim stone mosques are completely of Jain architecture. The pillars of earlier mosques have practically no difference with the Jain temple pillars. The close relationship between traders and weavers had probably cemented by conversion to Islam. During 950-1200 AD, there were large number of Sufis, Fakirs, wandering poets, singing minstrels, etc. among Muslims all over Tamilnadu. Nadirshah with 500 disciples settled down in ‘Trichinopoly’ during 1000 AD. Aliyar Shah and his disciples made Madurai as their centre. Baba Fakhruddin travelled all over Tamilnadu. Nagur became another Sufi centre. The Muslim religious literature of Tamilnadu of that period was least different from those created by Jains and Hindus during the ‘Bhakti’ movement.’

Prof. Bahauddin recounts the spread of Jainism and Buddhism in Kerala, thus: ‘Jainism spread in North Kerala around 200 BC. The Jain architectural remains in Canara and Malabar are not available anywhere else in South of Nepal. While Jainism entered North Kerala via Mangalore, Salem, Coimbatore and Wayanad, it entered Southern Kerala from Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil, Chitharal, etc. The hill near Anamala, which was an important Jain centre, is still called ‘Jain Durgam’. The close-by Kurumala was also a Jain centre. From Anamala through Munnar, Devikulam, Kothamangalam, Perumbavoor, etc. they reached Neryamangalam, Kothamangalam, Perumbavoor and other places. The ‘Kallil Kshetram’ in Perumbavoor is an important Jain monument as also the ‘Jainmedu’ in Vadakethara village of Palakkad district. Kerala's cave temples at Chitharal, Kallil, Trikur, Erunilamkode (Thrissur district) and Thiruveghapuram (Palakkad district) were constructed during the period of Jain King Mahendra Verman-I (610-640 AD). Temple records of Rameswaram, Sucheendram, Poothadi (Wayanad), Keenalur (Kozhicode) , etc. show that they were part of ‘Kunavai Koottam’ during 10-11th centuries. ‘Koottam’ is the place of living for Jain Sanyasis. Temple records show that all these present-day Hindu temples were Jain religious places till 11th century. Place names with Kallu, Poothan, Aathan, Kotha, Palli, Ambalam, etc. were all Jain centres. Spread all over Kerala, names of these places show that Buddhism and Jainism were widespread. The famous Kalpathi in Palakkad district was a Buddhist-Jain centre. The ‘Ratholsavam’ there is akin to the ‘Kettukazhcha’ of Buddhists. The present Bhagavati temples were also Jain temples. The group, ‘Adikal’, had a prominent position among Jains who became ‘Pisharadi’ after absorption of Jainism in Hinduism.’

‘Similarly, the Buddhist stoopa at Kodungallore, located in Methala village South-East of Thrikanamathilakam, is an important Buddhist ruin in Kerala…. Mahismathi was the capital of Chera King Satyaputran, which shows the relationship of Chera country (Kerala) with Buddhism. There is a reference in ‘Manimekhala’ about a Buddhist Chaityam in Kerala. While Vadakkumnatha Temple at Thrissur and Kurumba Temple at Kodungallore were Buddhist temples, Buddha statues were discovered from Kollam, Alappuzha, Mavelikara, Pallikkal, Karumadi and other places…. Treating mental patients in Thiruvadi temple and leprosy patients in Thakazhi temple shows that they were Buddhist temples since these kind of humanitarian services were not rendered out from Hindu temples…. By 900 AD Buddhism and Jainism were almost wiped out from Tamilnadu. The second settlement wave of Brahmins in Kerala during 900 AD was with Pandyan Kings' support. Karnataka and Kerala were the only two states where Buddhism and Jainism were still surviving and the second immigration of Brahmins might have been for driving out these two religions from the remaining places.’

Prof. Bahauddin recalls: ‘Very few people know that Buddhism and Jainism were the prominent religions of Kerala till 1200 AD. I was also under the impression that Hinduism was in Kerala from the very beginning. When facts were pieced together, a different picture emerged. Only from the end of 1800 AD the evidence became available about Buddha, Buddhism, Ashoka, etc. That fact itself is a pathetic story….’

Adds Dr. Jayaprakash in conclusion: ‘This is what really happened in India, the land of Buddha. But our so-called eminent historians, except a few, are bent upon eclipsing the cruelty done to Buddhists in India. These pseudo historians have succeeded in creating an impression that India is a land of righteousness and toleration. The entire world has been duped by them. The deed on the part of Taliban can be justified on the ground that Islam does not permit idols. But one has to note that Islam does not allow the demolition of other people's religious centres and images. Whatever may be the argument for and against Taliban action, the Hindu atrocities on Buddhism in India has no parallel in the entire world history of religious struggle. Let the world know the cruel and crooked face of the ‘Indian vulture without culture’! q

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

How Adi Shankara destroyed Buddhism and founded ‘Hinduism’ in the 8th century


Why did Buddhism disappear from Bharat?

Jainism was in full swing in India prior to Hinduism. All royal people were influenced by Jain monks and there speech on ruthless Hindu Kshatriya or warrior dharma/religion of protection & offense. They highlighted the path of peace and salvation that could only be attained by Jainism.
The Brahmins performed a great Puja and earnestly prayed Lord Shiva to stop the progress of Jainism. According to aggressive Hindu beliefs Adi Shankaracharya was born. Regarding Shankaracharya it is said in at least one case he was not able to answer questions placed by a married woman regarding sex and he was not aware of sexual behaviors because being a Brahmin he was performing vrat of Brahmcharya where a person is supposed to fight back any sexual thoughts arising in mind. Hence his knowledge regarding sex was either zero or in infancy or very less as compared to sex indulged people of his age. http://rupeenews.com/2010/10/how-ad...hism-and-founded-hinduism-in-the-8th-century/


Adi Sankaracharya there wasdecline of Buddhism in India. Others argue that it was due to the Muslim invasion (of Bakhtyar) that Nalanda was routed and the library there was burned and thousands of Buddha viharas were destroyed subsequently. Much of this is described in The Book of Thoth(Leaves of Wisdom).
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.
1. Lal, V. 2004. Buddhism’s Disappearance from India [serial online]. [cited 2009 August 26]; [2 screens]. Available from

2. Jaini, P.S., Narain A.K., ed., 1980. The Disappearance of Buddhism and the Survival of Jainism: A Study in Contrast. Studies in History of Buddhism. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Company:181-91.
3. Ahir, D.C. 2005. Buddhism Declined in India: How and Why? Delhi: B.R. Publishing.
Prof. P. Sankaranarayanan in his article The life and work of Sri Sankara published in the web page of Kanchi Mutt writes: “Buddhism, the rebel child of the Vedic religion and philosophy, denied God and the soul, laid the axe at the very roots of Vedic thought and posed a great danger to its very survival. This onslaught was stemmed occasionally, compelling Buddhism to seek refuge in other lands. While the credit for this should go primarily to the Mimamsaka, Kumarila Bhatta, it was because of Sri Sankara’s dialectical skill and irrefutable arguments that it ceased to have sway over the minds of the inheritors of Vedic religion.”

The hold of Buddhism on the masses of India could be seen from the writing of celebrated Chinese pilgrim Faxian (334-420 AD). He made a journey that marked the high point of the first wave of Chinese pilgrims in India. He left China in 399 AD and returned in 414 AD. We see that even two centuries later the religion was hardly weakened as may be gleaned from the detailed historic accounts of the reign of Harshavardhana (606-647AD). The sources for such accounts are: coins and inscriptions, the reports of pilgrims, official Chinese documents and writings by well-known personalities like the Chinese travelerHuien Tsang.
Though a Hindu, King Harshavardhana maintained an impartial tolerance towards the other religions, especially Buddhism that at that time was the religion of the common masses. To honor Huien Tsang, a devout student Buddhist theology and admirer of the holy land of Buddha, Harshavardhana organized the Kanauj Assembly in 643 AD. This was a grand assembly of many rajas including King Bhaskaravarman of Kamrupa (Assam) and the Vallabhi king, Dhuvabhatti. The Assembly at Kanauj included a large congregation of Brahmans, Buddhist monks ands Jains, who were involved in religious discourses. We should not forget to mention that Huien Tsang, along with thousands of students from many countries, studied in the well-known Buddhist university of Nalanda. If so, how could the religion that Sankara opposed and helped drive out of India flourish

T1) The Divyavadana (ed. Vaidya, 282). The most important of the murderous Hindu bigots who carried out their systematic campaign of violence against the peaceful followers of Lord Buddhawas Pushyamitra (184-48 B.C.), the founder of the Shunga dynasty. For details and refrences do see BELOW
2) Goyal [430] “The culprit in this case was Toramana, a member of the same dynasty as the Shaivite Mihirakula who did “immense damage to the Buddhist shrines in Gandhara, Punjab and Kashmir.” For details and refrences do see BELOW
3) Mihirakula is said to have razed 1600 viharas, stupas and monasteries, and “put to death 900 Kotis, or lay adherents of Buddhism” [Joshi, 404].
4) The Aryamanjushrimulakalpa tells us that Pushyamitra “destroyed monasteries with relics and killed monks of good conduct.” [Jayaswal, 18-19]
5) As Goyal [394] notes, “According to many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India.”
6) The celebrated Tibetan historian Lama Taranatha mentions the march of Pushyamitra from Madhyadesha to Jalandhara. In the course of his campaigns, the book states, Pushyamitra burned down numerous Buddhist monasteries and killed a number of learned monks The archaeological evidence for the ravages wrought by Pushyamitra and other Hindu fanatic rulers on famous Buddhist shrines is abundant.

7) The Brhannaradiya-purana lays it down as a principal sin for a Brahmana to enter the house of a Buddhist even in times of great peril.
8) The drama Mrchchhakatika shows that in Ujjain the Buddhist monks were despised and their sight was considered inauspicious.
9) The Vishnupurana (XVIII 13-18) also regards the Buddha as Mayamoha who appeared in the world to delude the demons. Kumarila is said to have instigated King Sudhanvan of Ujjain to exterminate the Buddhists.
10) The Kerala-utpatti describes how he exterminated the Buddhists from Kerala.”

11) The Chinese traveller Yuan Chwang (Huen Tsang), who visited India in the seventh century records the oppressions of Shashanka, the king of Gauda, who was a devotee of Shiva.
12) Yuan Chwang’s account reads, “In recent times Shashanka, the enemy and oppressor of Buddhism, cut down the Bodhi tree, destroyed its roots down to the water and burned what remained.” [Watters II p.115] He also says that Shashanka tried “to have the image (of Lord Buddha at Bodhgaya) removed and replaced by one of Shiva”.
13) Another independent account of Shashanka’s oppressions is found in the Aryamanjushrimulakalpa, which refers to Shashanka destroying “the beautiful image of Buddha” [Jayaswal, 49-50].

14) Another prominent seventh century murderer of Buddhists was Sudhanvan of Ujjain, already mentioned in the quotation from Goyal above as having been supposedly instigated by Kumarila Bhatt.
15) Madhava Acharya, in his “Sankara-digvijayam” of the fourteenth century A.D., records that Suddhanvan “issued orders to put to death all the Buddhists from Ramesvaram to the Himalayas”.
16) Even after the Islamic invasions of India, Hindu bigotry and hatred for Buddhists was not subdued. According to Sharmasvamin, a Tibetan pilgrim who visited Bihar three decades after the invasion of Bakhtiaruddin Khilji in the 12th century, the biggest library at Nalanda was destroyed by Hindu mendicants who took advantage of the chaos produced by the invasion.

He says that “they (Hindus) performed a Yajna, a fire sacrifice, and threw living embers and ashes from the sacrifice into the Buddhist temples. This produced a great conflagration which consumed Ratnabodhi, the
nine-storeyed library of the Nalanda University“. [Prakash, 213]. Numerous destroyed Buddhist shrines were converted into Hindu temples after their destruction.
17) Ahir [58] notes that “The Seat of Buddha’s Enlightenment was in the possession of a Hindu Mahant till 1952.
18) Similarly, at Kushinara, where the Buddha had entered into Mahaparinirvana, the cremation stupa had been converted into a Hindu temple, and on top of it stood the temple of Rambhar Bhavani when
Cunningham discovered the site in 1860-61.
19) Among the shrines which still continue to be dedicated to Hindu gods mention may be made of the Caityas of Chezrala and Ter in Andhra Pradesh which are now Shiva and Vishnu temples respectively.

20) The temple of Madhava at Sal Kusa, opposite Gauhati in Asam, was once a sacred shrine of the Buddhists. …
21) And the famous Jagannatha temple at Puri in Orissa was also originally a Buddhist shrine.
22) Similarly, the Vishnupada temple at Gaya was also once a Buddhist shrine.” As Rajendralal Mitra notes in his famous work of 1878 [quoted in Ahir, 59] the feet of Buddha at Gaya were rechristened the feet of Vishnu and held as the most sacred object of worship in the new Vishnupada temple.
23) According to the records of Hieun Tsang and Kalhana’s Rajaatarangini, Asoka the great repented, converted to Buddhism (273-232 BC) and did a lot for Buddhism. Asoka renounced violence, and renounced his religion after the Kalinga war, and he became a Buddhist. During Asoka, Buddhism had become the state religion. The Brahmans did not like him, and many historians think the Brahaman opposition to Asoka led to the destruction of the Muyarian dynasty.
says the following about the Kushans (emphasis is mine and not Nehru’s): ” This Kushan Empire is interesting in many ways. IT WAS A BUDDHIST EMPIRE, and one of its famous rulers-the Emperor Kanishka-was ardently devoted to the dharma…the Kushans were Mongolians or closely allied to them. From the Kushan capital there must have been a continuous coming and going to the Mongolian homelands, and Buddhist learning and Buddhist culture must have gone to China and Mongolia…the Kushan Empire sat like a colossus astride the back of Asia, in between the Greaco-Roman world in the south. It was a halfway house both between India, and Rome, and India and China. The Kushan period corresponded with the last days of the Roman Republic when Julius Ceaser was alive, and first 200 years of the Roman Empire

25) THE HINDU KASHATRIYA HINDU AND BUDDHIST WARS
Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says (Page 103 and 104) “Chandragupta proclaimed his holy war “against all foreign rulers in India. The Kashatriyas and the Aryan aristocracy, deprived of their power and positions by the aliens (Kushans), were at the back of this war. After a dozen or so years of fighting, Chandragupta managed to gain control over Northern India including what is now called UP. He then crowned himself king of kings. Thus began the Gupta dynasty. It was a period of somewhat aggressive Hinduism and nationalism. The foreign rulers-the Turkis and Parathions and other Non-Aryans were rooted our and forcibly removed. We thus find racial antagonism at work. The Indo-Aryan aristocrat was proud of his race and looked down upon these barbarians and malachas. Indo-Aryan States and rulers were conquered by the Guptas were dealt with leniently, But there was not leniency for non-Aryans.
26) Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says “Chandragupta’s son Samadugupta was an even more aggressive fighter than his father….the Kushans were pushed back across the Indus…Samadugupta’s son, Chandragupta II was also a warrior king, and he conquered Kathiwad and Gujrat, which had been under the rule of a Saka or Turki dynasty for a long time. He took the name Vikramaditya…..The Gupta period was a period of Hindu imperialism in India. There was a great revival of old Aryan culture and Sanskrit learning. The Hellenistic, or Greek and Mongolian elements in Indian life and culture which had been brought by the Greeks, Kushans and others were not encouraged, and were in fact deliberately superseded by laying stress on the Indo-Aryan traditions. Sanskrit was the official court language. But EVEN IN THOSE DAYS SANSKRIT WAS NOT THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE.
The spoken language was a form of Prakrit….Kalidasa belonged to this period ……………. Samadragupta changed the capital of his empire from Pataliputra (Peshawar) to Ayodhia. Perhaps he felt that Ayodhiya
offered a more suitable outlook–with its story of Ramachandra immortalized in Valmikis epic.
27) HINDU BUDDHIST CONFLICT
Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says “The Gupta revival of Aryanism and Hinduism was naturally not very favorably inclined towards Buddhism. This was partly because this movement was aristocratic, with the Kashatriya chiefs backing it, and Buddhism had more democracy in it; partly because the Mahayana form of Buddhism was closely associated with the Kushans and other alien rulers of northern India….but Buddhism declined in India…Chandragupta the first was a contemporary of Constantine the great, the Roman Emperor who founded Constantinople. “

The Buddha was a true revolutionary—and his crusade against Brahminical supremacy won him his most ardent followers from among the oppressed castes. The Buddha challenged the divinity of the Vedas, the bedrock of Brahminism. He held that all men are equal and that the caste system or varnashramadharma, to which the Vedas and Other Brah’minical’ books had given religious sanction, was completely false. Thus, in the Anguttara Nikaya, the Buddha is said to have exhorted the Bhikkus, saying,
“Just, O brethren, as the great rivers, when they have emptied themselves into the Great Ocean, lose their different names and are known as the Great Ocean Just so, O brethren, do the four varnas—Kshatriya, Brahmin, Vaishya and Sudra—when they begin to follow the doctrine and discipline propounded by the Tathagata [i.e. the Buddha], renounce the different names of caste and rank and become the members of one and the same society.”
The Buddha’s fight against Brahminism won him many enemies from among the Brahmins. They were not as greatly opposed to his philosophical teachings as they were to his message of universal brotherhood and equality for it directly challenged their hegemony and the scriptures that they had invented to legitimize this. To combat Buddhism and revive the tottering Brahminical hegemony, Brahminical revivalists resorted to a three-pronged strategy.
Firstly, they launched a campaign of hatred and persecution against the Buddhists. Then, they appropriated many of the finer aspects of Buddhism into their own system so as to win over the “lower” caste Buddhist masses, but made sure that this selective appropriation did not in any way undermine Brahminical hegemony. The final stage in this project to wipeout Buddhism was to propound and propagate the myth that the Buddha was merely another ‘incarnation’ (avatar) of the Hindu god Vishnu. Buddha was turned into just another of the countless deities of the Brahminical pantheon. The Buddhists were finally absorbed into the caste system, mainly as Shudras and ‘Untouchables’, and with that the Buddhist presence was completely obliterated from the land of its birth. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar writes in his book, The Untouchables, that the ancestors of today’s Dalits were Buddhists who were reduced to the lowly status of ‘untouchables’ for not having accepted the supremacy of the Brahmins. They were kept apart from other people and were forced to live in ghettos of their own. Being treated worse that beasts of burden and forbidden to receive any education, these people gradually lost touch with Buddhism, but yet never fully reconciled themselves to the Brahminical order. Many of them later converted to Islam, Sikhism and Christianity in a quest for liberation from the Brahminical religion.
To lend legitimacy to their campaign against Buddhism, Brahminical texts included fierce strictures against Buddhists. Manu, in his Manusmriti, laid down that, “If a person touches a Buddhist […] he shall purify himself by having a bath.” Aparaka ordained the same in his Smriti. Vradha Harit declared entry into a Buddhist temple a sin, which could only be expiated for by taking a ritual bath. Even dramas and other books for lay people written by Brahmins contained venomous propaganda against the Buddhists. In the classic work, Mricchakatika, (Act VII), the hero Charudatta, on seeing a Buddhist monk pass by, exclaims to his friend Maitriya— “Ah! Here is an inauspicious sight, a Buddhist monk coming towards us.”
The Brahmin Chanakya, author of Arthashastra, declared that, “When a person entertains in a dinner dedicated to gods and ancestors those who are Sakyas (Buddhists), Ajivikas, Shudras and exiled persons, a fine of one hundred panas shall be imposed on him.” Shankaracharaya, the leader of the Brahminical revival, struck terror into the hearts of the Buddhists with his diatribes against their religion.
The simplicity of the Buddha’s message, its stress on equality and its crusade against the bloody and costly sacrifices and ritualism of Brahminism had attracted the oppressed casts in large numbers. The Brahminical revivalists understood the need to appropriate some of these finer aspects of Buddhism and discarded some of the worst of their own practices so as to be able to win over the masses back to the Brahminical fold. Hence began the process of the assimilation of Buddhism by Brahminism.
The Brahimns, who were once voracious beef-eaters, turned vegetarian, imitating the Buddhists in this regard. Popular devotion to the Buddha was sought to be replaced by devotion to Hindu gods such as Rama and Krishna. The existing version of the Mahabharata was written in the period in which the decline of Buddhism had already begun, and it was specially meant for the Shudras, most of whom were Buddhists, to attract them away from Buddhism. Brahminism, however, still prevented the Shudras from having access to the Vedas, and the Mahabharata was possibly written to placate the Buddhist Shudras and to compensate them for this discrimination.
The Mahabharata incorporated some of the humanistic elements of Buddhism to win over the Shudras, but, overall, played its role of bolstering the Brahminical hegemony rather well. Thus, Krishna, in the Gita, is made to say that a person ought not to violate the “divinely ordained” law of caste. Eklavya is made to slice off his thumb by Drona, who is finds it a gross violation of dharma that a mere tribal boy should excel the Kshatriya Arjun in archery.
The various writer of the puranas, too, carried on this systematic campaign of hatred, slander and calumny against the Buddhists. The Brahannardiya Purana made it a principal sin for Brahmins to enter the house of a Buddhist even in times of great peril. The Vishnu Purana dubs the Buddha as Maha Moha or ‘the great seducer’. It further cautions against the “sin of conversing with Buddhists” and lays down that “those who merely talk to Buddhist ascetics shall be sent to hell.”
In the Gaya Mahatmaya, the concluding section of the Vayu Purana, the town of Gaya is identified as Gaya Asura, a demon who had attained such holiness that all those who saw him or touched him went straight to heaven. Clearly, this ‘demon’ was none other the Buddha who preached a simple way for all, including the oppressed castes, to attain salvation. The Vayu Purana story goes on to add that Yama, the king of hell, grew jealous at this, possibly because less people were now entering his domains. He appealed to the gods to limit the powers of Asura Gaya. This the gods, led by Vishnu, were able to do by placing a massive stone on the “demon’s” head. This monstrous legend signified the ultimate capture of Budhdhism’s most holy centre by its most inveterate foes.
Kushinagar, also known as Harramba, was one of the most important Buddhist centres as the Buddha breathed his last there. The Brahmins, envious of the prosperity of this pilgrim town and in order to discourage people from going there, invented the absurd theory that one who dies in Harramba goes to hell, or is reborn as an ***, while he who dies in Kashi, the citadel of Brahminism, goes straight to heaven. So pervasive was the belief in this bizarre theory that when the Sufi saint Kabir died in 1518 AD at Maghar, not far from Kushinagar, some of his Hindu followers refused to erect any memorial in his honor there and instead set up one at Kashi. Kabir’s Muslim followers were less superstitious. They set up a tomb for him at Maghar itself.
In addition to vilifying the fair name of the Buddha, the Brahminical revivalists goaded Hindu kings to persecute and even slaughter innocent Buddhists. Sasanka, the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal, murdered the last Buddhist emperor Rajyavardhana, elder brother of Harshavardhana, in 605 AD and then marched on to Bodh Gaya where he destroyed the Bodhi tree under which the Buddha had attained enlightenment. He forcibly removed the Buddha’s image from the Bodh Vihara near the tree and installed one of Shiva in its place.
Finally, Sasanka is said to have slaughtered all the Buddhist monks in the area around Kushinagar. Another such Hindu king was, Mihirakula, a Shaivite, who is said to have completely destroyed over 1500 Buddhist shrines. The Shaivite Toramana is said to have destroyed the Ghositarama Buddhist monastery at Kausambi.
The extermination of Buddhism in India was hastened by the large-scale destruction and appropriation of Buddhist shrines by the Brahmins. The Mahabodhi Vihara at Bodh Gaya was forcibly converted into a Shaivite temple, and the controversy lingers on till this day. The cremation stupa of the Buddha at Kushinagar was changed into a Hindu temple dedicated to the obscure deity with the name of Ramhar Bhavani. Adi Shankara is said to have established his Sringeri Mutth on the site of a Buddhist monastery which he took over. Many Hindu shrines in Ayodhya are said to have once been Buddhist temples, as is the case with other famous Brahminical temples such as those at Sabarimala, Tirupati, Badrinath and Puri.
References:
4. Yu-Ki Or, Buddhist Records of the Western Countries written by Hsien-tsang (circa 650 AD). Taken from Translations by Thomas Watters (1904) and Samuel Beal (1884) http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/Hsien-Tsang.htm)
5. Messengers of light: Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in India by Paul Magnin Unesco Courier, Vol. 48 No.5 May.1995 Pp.24-27.
6. Discovery of India by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
http://rupeenews.com/2009/03/24/the-manuwadi-hindus-destroyed-buddhism-in-its-own-land-of-birth/
Recently we read in the Mississauga’s Weekly Voice dated December 5, 2009 relating to the Crowning Glory entitled “Politician Donates $10 million Crown for Tirupati Deity.” It is also most remarkable that medical surgeon Dr. K. Jamanadas writes a book entitled “Tirupate Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine” and this book has potential credibility to accept that Buddha statues become God Vishnu in Hinduism. Hindu rulers made the shiva linga in the Buddhagaya temple and declared that Buddhagaya Mahabodhi Temple belongs to Hindus. Today Indian Buddhists have no democratic and human rights in the Puri Jagannatha Buddhist temple and Mahabodhi temple of Buddhagaya, Bihar. Hindu fanatic are taking over Mosque, Buddhist temples and churches in India. There are no human rights in Hindu society. Non-violence is the supreme religion in Buddhist philosophy. Violence or tragedy of caste system is the Vedic way of life in Hinduism. Hindu fanatics burnt Buddhist monks and Buddhists alive.
The ruthless manner in which all the buildings at Nagarjuna Konda were destroyed is simply appalling and cannot represent the work of treasure seekers because many of the pillars, statues and sculptures have been wantonly smashed to pieces. Local tradition relates that the Brahmin teacher Sankaracharya came to Nagarjuna Konda with a host of followers and destroyed the Buddhist monuments. The cultivated lands on which the ruined buildings stand was a religious grant made to Sankaracharya. In Kerala, Sankaracharya and his Hindu fanatic close associate Kumarila Bhatta, an avowed enemy of Buddhism, organized a religious crusade against the Buddhists. We get a vivid description of the pleasure of Sankaracharaya on seeing the people of non-Brahmanic faith being burnt to death from the book Sankara Digvijaya (World Victory).
According to the Charyapada (First Bangla Book)and Sankara’s Digvijaya book havoc played in Kerala, Bangladesh, West Bengal, Bihar and all South Asia. Kumarila Bhatta instigated king Suddvannan of Ujjaini to exterminate the Buddhists. From the Mirchakatika of Sudraka we learnt that King’s brother-in-law in Ujjain persecuted the Buddhist monks and nuns. They were treated as bullocks by passing a string through their noses and yoking them to carts. The keralopathi documents refer to the extermination of Buddhism from Kerala by Kumarila Bhatta.
In 1906 Pandit Haraprasad Sastri discovered the first Bangla book the “Charyapada” from the Royal Library of Nepal and he declared that Bangla language was started from the Buddhist thoughts. Dr. Mohammad Shahidullaha and Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee discovered that Brahmanism was started to destroy Buddhism. Hindu politics pays respect to the Buddha as the “Vishnu’s 9th Avatar.” Hindu rulers did not convert to Buddhism but they convert the Buddha as the Hindu god and the sinister conspiracy was started to destroy Buddhists in India. Hindu and Brahmin politics could not tolerate at all as the separate Buddhist existence in India.
There are hundred of places in Keral, Bangladesh, Bihar, West Bengla and Uttar Pradesh having the names like Buddha vihar, (Dharma Thakur), palli (or Buddha Vihar in Kerala) either affixed or suffixed with them. In Kerala karungapalli, Karthikapalli, Pallickal, Pallipuram are some of the examples of these places. The term palli means a Budhist Vihara in Kerala. It should be noted that Kerala had 1, 200 years Buddhist tradition. Till recently schools in Kerala had been called as Ezhuthupalli or Pallikoodam. Our Christian and Muslim brothers use the term Palli to donate their place of worship in Kerala. The Buddhist Temples or Palli were wantonly smashed by the Hindu Nazis under the leadership of Sankaracharya and Kumarila Bhatta. They exterminated 1, 200 Buddhist tradition and transformed Kerala into a Brahmanical State. Original inhabitants of Kerala like the Ezhavas, Pulayas etc. were crushed under the yoke of cateism. Many Buddhist Temples or Viharas transformed into Hindu temples and the majority of the people were prevented from entering the temples under the pretext of tragedy of caste system. A number of the Buddha statues have been found at places like Ambalapuzha, karungaoalli, Pallickal, Bharanikkavu, Mavelikkara and Neelamperur. They are all in disfigured state.
A large number of Buddhist temples were usurped by the Fanatic Brahmins and were converted into Hindu temples where the poor Hindus and Untouchables, Srisailam of Karnataka and many others as they were originally the Buddhist temples. Anti-Brahmanism is particularly discussed in the context of the Human Enlightenment of the Buddha and Racial Harmony. Lord Buddha’s enlightenment and his Noble Community are a movement that opposes the Vedic Tragedy of Caste system. We pray to Lord Buddha for peace in the world as the great poet Rabindranath Tagore writes, “Buddha, my Lord, my Master, they birthplace, is truly here where cruel is the world of men, for thy mercy is to fill the blank of their utter failure, to help them who have lost their faith and betrayed their trust; to forget themselves in thee an thus forget their malignant were given no entrance. The Buddhist places were projected as the Hindu temples by writing puranas which were concocted myths or pseudo-history. Badrinath, Mathura, Ayodhya, Srinegeri, Buddhagaya, Saranath, Delhi, Nalanda, Gudiallam, Nagarjuna konda, Srisailam and Sabarimala (Lord Ayyappa) in Kerala are some of the striking examples of the Brahmanic usurpation of the Buddhist centres. At Nagarjunakonda, the Adi Sankara (8th century) of Kerala played a demon’s role in destroying the Buddhist statues and monuments. Longhurst who conducted excavations of Nagarjuna Konda has recorded this in his book Memoirs of Archaelogical Survey of India No. 54, The Buddhist Antiquites of Nagarjuna Konda (Delhi, 1938, page 6).
In this way, Hindu scholars including Swami Vivekananda discovered that the temples of Lord Jagannath of Puri, Vithula of Pandharpur, Ayyappa of Keraladay. The Master Lord Buddha to whose inspiration he owed his greatness needs to be invoked today even more fervently than in his day. The cruel stupidity of wicked racial discrimination and caste and color bars, parading as religion, has stained the earth with blood and deep hatred more than mutual violence, outrages humanity at every step. Today, in this hapless land poisoned by fratricidal malice, we yearn for a word from him who had proclaimed love and compassion for all creatures as the path to salvation.”
Gautam Buddha is not the enemy of Hindu society and now Hindu politicians use the Buddha as the Hindus’ trade mark. India emphasizes her mother India abiding Lord Buddha’s teaching and Great Emperor Asoka’s Buddhist heritage. The wheel in the centre of the Indian national flag is the wheel of the Law of the Buddha’s Teaching – the Dharma, and the state emblem of India is an adaptation of the famous Lion Capital was erected by the Great Emperor Asoka at Saranath, where the Buddha –Enlightened One first delivered his teaching of compassion and wisdom to the world.
Buddhism invites anyone to come and see for himself and permits him to accept only those facts which agree with reason, logic and truth. It encourages the seeker of a new way to discard heresies, blind faith, miracles and magic. So scientist Einstein expressed this appreciation of Buddhism, “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experiences of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.”
It is well documented in several books that Buddhism was never and is not a part of Hinduism. Because of its uniqueness and noble teachings Buddhism spread almost all over the world, especially in the South and South-East Asian countries where the peoples still regard “South Asia” as the ‘Land of Buddha’ who had unfolded to them a new path, a new direction for a better life. In fact from the 5th century BC to the 8th century AD India had passed through a golden period of history in all spheres of human activities in ethics, art, architecture, sculpture, trade and commerce, interactions with the peoples of different countries.
Can Hindus compare the Buddha with other leader of India? Puri’s Jagannath Temple belongs to Buddhists. When the Indian Government tested nuclear bombs then the government broadcasted “The Buddha laughs.” Please do not loss your temper in showing your spirit of brotherhood in human rights system. In Buddhagaya even now there is a Shiva Linga hole which is worshipped by Hindu priests every day on the original floor stone just in front of the statue of Lord Buddha main hall of the Mahabodhi temple in Bihar. As the Daily Telegraph of Kolkata dated May 9, 2009 reported that Indian Buddhist community wanted freedom in Buddhagaya. You are ignorant relating to freedom of Buddhists in India. Hindu politicians kidnapped Buddhism and they boast it sings the glory of Hindu politicians and scholars who scarcely reveal an awareness of the delicate difficulty in understanding the faith of other men. Hindu scholars write the Allah Upanisad during the reign of Emperor Akbar- the great. Have you read it? Try your best to read again and again in the Discovery of India by Jawaharlal Nehru “How did Brahmanism absorb Buddhism? Have you found Human Rights in the Bhagavad Gita (in the chapter 18) and slokas: 41, 42, 43 and 44. You are a stupid by your ego and delusion. Please find more from “Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas by Romila Thapar.”
United Nations marks the International Buddha Purnima in Bangkok, Thailand. World Buddhists New year’s Buddha Jayanti of Buddhist Era 2553 in the Asian Heritage Month May – begins with the Buddha’s blessings and tribute of Vaishaki – Buddha Purnima in Asia. Over 2553 years through out the world history, Buddhism was started with boundless tolerance and compassion. The very identity of independent Bangladesh the Charyapada (An Anthology of Buddhist Tantric Songs), emphasize mother Bangladesh abiding Bangla language and its democratic heritage. Buddha Purnima holds most glorious significance for the millions of Buddhists who – comprise half of the world’s total population.
Buddha Purnima commemorates three great events: The Birth, Supreme Enlightenment and the Great Passing Away of Gautama – the Buddha. On this day all Buddhists are expected to reaffirm their faith in the Buddha Dharma and to lead a noble religious life. It is a day for meditation, and radiating loving kindness. In thousands of temples across the world from Tokyo in the East to San Francisco in the west, Buddhists will pay homage to an Indian Prince who renounced the pleasures of a royal household to bring peace and happiness to mankind. The Buddha or the Supremely Enlightened One was born in 623 B.C. on a Boisakhi Full –Moon day. The young Prince was named Siddhartha or “the one who has brought about all good.” The parents, King Sudhodana and Queen Devi Mahamayaa, ruled a Sakya kingdom called Kapilavastu in Nepal.
Finally, on the 35th Anniversary of his (Prince Siddhartha) birth, again on the full moon day of Vesak, and seated under the Bodhi tree in Buddha Gaya the ascetic prince (in Nepal) Siddhartha became the Buddha, the Fully Enlightened One. For the next forty five years the Buddha traveled around Northern India preaching his message of universal loving kindness for all beings and the realization of the nature of existence with the Four Noble Truths (1. sufferings of life 2, causes of sufferings : Desires 3. Removal of sufferings is Nirvana), 4.The Noble Eightfold Path. Scientist Albert Einstein great genius of the 20th century found that among religious only Buddhism emphasizes the importance of the scientific outlook in dealing with the problems of morality and religions. This threat has been leveled against religious conceptions of man and the universe from the time of Galileo, Bruno and Copernicus (17th century) who instrumental in altering erroneous motions of the universe. However, in a world of darkness and distress, the Buddha Dharma still shines across the gulf of twenty five centuries and it is not yet too late for us to follow its guiding beams and emerge triumphant into a brighter and happier future. At no time in history has the message of the Buddha been more relevant than it is now to present day society of the 21st century.
Psychology & Philosophy relating to Right understanding of life, 2. Right Thought, 3.Right Speech, 4.Right Action, 5.Right Livlihood, 6.Right Effort 7.Right Mindfulness & 8.Right Concentration. The Principles of Buddhism concern the Four Noble Truths, the first being that existence of full of sufferings or unsatisfactoriness. The second Boble is that all suffering has a cause. The third noble is that suffering can be made to come an end and the fourth noble Truth that there is a way to end suffering – the Noble Eightfold Path.
According to Buddhism Karma (intentional action) is not predestination imposed on us by any mysterious creator to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. The karma or deed may be mental, oral or physical. Its nature judged by the accompanying volition. The Buddha teaches, “Every living being has karma as its master, its inheritance, its congenital cause, its kinsman, its refuge. It is karma that differentiates all beings into low and high states.
Nirvana, the ideal requires constant spiritual exercise and mind-development. The Buddha imbued the robber Angulimala’s mind with metta (universal love) and the robber was converted into a spiritual wayfarer. In this effect, even in the Nuclear Age Buddhists the world over owe a duty to cooperate and coordinate their efforts in spreading the principles of Buddhism which has love peace, human rights, happiness, and right understanding for all mankind. The Buddha teaches, “A good ruler is delighted in righteousness, a good person is endowed with wisdom, a good friend does not betray his friends and happiness is achieved by not doing evil.”
In the violent world through all dangers and difficulties not a single drop of blood was shed in the name of Buddhism. Human beings are walking with the Dharma light of the Buddha as His followers (monks and Nuns) and pilgrims in the Buddhist Pilgrimages at home (India) and abroad. Spiritual enlightenment develops in our human minds and consciousness systems by practicing universal love with donation, right meditation and insight wisdom. India’s Buddhism invites anyone to come and see for himself and permits him to accept only those facts which agree with reason, logic, and truth.
Buddhism encourages the seeker of a new way to discard heresies, blind faith, miracles and magic. Principles of Buddhism invite criticism and testing. Buddhism is therefore, the most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the East and West. The Buddha then points out that to hold any kind of fixed view about the past or the future is to be trapped in a net like fish. Suffering lies in clinging to views.
Guru Nanak’s birth day is the government holiday in West Bengal government’s calendar. Mr. L. K Advani, former minister of Home Affairs, Government of India, a statement wherein him self had mentioned that Buddhism is nothing but an integral part of Hinduism and Buddha’s teachings were derived from the holy Gita which was, in fact, compiled much later than the advent of Buddhism. Such type of Brahman conspiracy statement has wounded not only the Buddhists of India, but also those of Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Thailand, China, Japan, Korea, Tibet, Mongolia, Burma, (Myanmar), Combodia, Laos, Singapore, Bhutan, Nepal, Mongolia and all over the world where Buddhism is still a living faith. Indian Buddhists have already received from those countries many complaints regarding this statement which has tarnished the image of India there.
The writer is the former librarian, Assistant Editor of the W. F. B. REVIEW, Meditation Advisor and Representative of the World Fellowship of Buddhists to the United Nations
http://mingkok.buddhistdoor.com/en/news/d/2619
More References:
4. Kantowsky, D. 2003. Buddhists in India Today: Descriptions, Pictures and Documents. Delhi: Manohar Publications: 156.
5. Goyal, S.R. 1987. A History of Indian Buddhism. Meerut: 394.
6. Beal, S. 1884. Si-Yu Ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World. London: Trubner & Co., reprint ed., Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation.
During the rule of the Kushanas and the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage. However, the royal patronage had shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions from the beginning of the sixth century A.D. Buddhism began to suffer a decline as Brahmanism veered off into Vaishnavism and Saivism. This was followed by some regional kingdoms subsequently developing into the major sites of power.1,2,3,5
Shashanka, the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal was manipulated by the Brahmins to become a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists. The single original source for all subsequent narratives about Shashanka’s ruinous conduct towards Buddhists was documented by Ven. Hsuan Tsang during his visit to India in early part of the seventh century A.D.
But the exact reasons for his hostile attitude towards Buddhism were not known. It was believed that the Brahminical revivalists had goaded the Hindu kings like him to persecute and even slaughter innocent Buddhists.7 It was reported that Shashanka had destroyed the Bodhi tree of Bodh Gaya and ordered the mass destruction of all Buddhist images and monasteries in his kingdom. This biased and sectarian policy of Shashanka had broken the backbone of Buddhism in India.1,2,3,5,6
Shashanka had also murdered the last Buddhist emperor Rajyavardhana, elder brother of Harshavardhana, in 605 AD. He had marched on to Bodh Gaya and destroyed the Bodhi tree under which the Buddha had attained enlightenment. He forcibly removed the Buddha’s image from the Bodhi Vihara near the tree and installed one of Shiva in its place. Shashanka is alleged to have slaughtered all the Buddhist monks in the area around Kushinagar.1,2,3,7
After the rule of Shashanka, the Pala kingdom was established in Bengal. Though the Palas of Bengal had been hospitable to Vaishnavism and Saivism, but nonetheless they were major supporters of Buddhism. However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223), Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was neglected. 1,2,3 Another hostile Shaivite king like Shashanka was Mihirakula who had completely destroyed over 1500 Buddhist shrines. His hostile action was followed by the Shaivite, Toramana who had destroyed the Ghositarama Buddhist monastery at Kausambi.7
Conclusions
The despotism of Shashanka and his hostile behavior towards the Buddhists was carried forward by the revival of Hinduism that led to the further decline of Buddhism in India. Many scholars often relate this Vedic revival as a tyrannical faith that caused massive destruction of the Buddhist monasteries.
But this matter is however, far more complicated than this. A recent study of the Bengal Puranas proved that the Buddhists were mocked and projected as mischievous and malicious in Brahminical narratives as well as subjected to immense rhetorical violence. This rhetorical violence should be interpreted as both physical and mental violence perpetrated upon the Buddhists. The extermination of Buddhism in India was hastened by the large-scale destruction of Buddhist shrines by the Brahmins. The Maha Bodhi Vihara at Bodh Gaya was forcibly converted into a Shaivite temple.
A contrary view to the thesis of the article is present here by Mattia Salvini
prasajya@gmail.com Submitted on 2013/02/06 at 3:29 am
Please enjoy
I don’t think the information given is completely reliable; in fact, it may be the case that Shankara’s brand of Vedanta has been popular only from the recent past (it owes more to Swami Vivekananda and Indian nationalism than to any philosophical reasons).
Masterpieces of Buddhist philosophy have been composed in India even centuries after Shankara. It seems he was not very successful as a philosopher in his time, since he barely figures in texts about Siddhaanta until much later. The Vedaanta authors quoted by even a late writer like Advayavajra are others – who seem to have been more popular and successful than Shankara.
Nehru’s historical writing is outdated as it relies on a very limited number of sources. And obviously, we cannot use the Shankaradigvijaya so uncritically; not only because it was composed much later than the time of Shankara, but also because we have several alternative accounts that it is unreasonable to discard without reading.
It is sad how a certain specific nationalistic rhetoric has linked India’s past to Shankara and Advaita; even worse is to see how many modern Indian citizens buy into that. Until recently, many different philosophies co-existed in India, and the absence of modern notions of nation-state did not require anyone to come up with this idea of a specific ‘national spirituality’ (=Advaita according to Swami Vivekananda). The close coalescence of nationalism and religion is one of the saddest post-colonial heritages of the sub-continent, which makes any account of India’s religious past become a politically charged landmine. It is as if nobody cares for the actual content of those philosophies and religions – they just wish to assert their social and political identities.
I would like to suggest to the author of this article to consider more carefully Sanskrit philosophical texts (especially Buddhist) composed between the 8th and the 11th century. Anyone reading these texts will be rather surprised to notice how marginal a figure Adi Shankara was, and how marginal his philosophy may have been. Also, you may be surprised to find how many rich and profound Buddhist philosophical texts kept being composed much after Shankara. Basically, he had very limited impact upon the Buddhist world of medieval India (unless we decide to trust the Shankaravijaya texts, the earliest of which was written in the 14th century!).
Buddhist authors did not neglect to refute various forms of Vedanta, but the philosophies they concentrated upon are usually Saamkhya, Nyaaya and Miimaamsaa, which seem to have been much more popular in ancient India. Shankara’s Vedanta is fundamentally an exegetical system (uttaramiimaamsaa) based on the authority of the Veda; the Veda is the only valid means of knowledge (pramaa.na) in order to know the supreme Brahman (please check the Catuhsuutrii if you don’t trust what I just said). It follows that once the authority of the Veda is refuted, the whole system collapses – and Buddhist philosophers have refuted the authority of the Veda time and again.
Let me repeat this; I don’t think Shankara was ever even a threat to Buddhism. Ancient sources do not corroborate this, and offer accounts of his debates with the Buddhist that differ drastically from what we find in later Shankaravijaya texts – which were written 600 years later. The very least that we can say is that we have many divergent account and therefore there is no way to propose such clear-cut historical accounts. Even in recent history, some argue that most of South India was Shaiva Siddhanta rather than Advaita until very recently (basically, until the rise of Indian nationalism). I believe most manuscripts produced in the South up to the 18th century are Shaiva Siddhanta texts rather than Advaita, but you can sure double-check for yourself.
Shankara’s own works suggest that he had very limited concern with Buddhism; he hardly ever refutes the Buddhist systems and when he does so his refutation is rather brief and not rich in arguments – it looks as if he is not even well-familiar with the Buddhist schools he debates with. On the other hand, his main target seem to have been the Puurvamiimaam.saka – probably because they represented a viable and authoritative alternative in the exegesis of the Veda. Most contemporary Indian scholars, unfortunately, miss this point – because they have little or no training in Vaibhaasika, Sautraantika, Yogacara and Madhyamaka. (Of course there are notable exceptions, like my Guruji and others).
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Religions/paths/BuddhismDisappear.doc.
 
Our history starts with our father Prophet Adam and His wife our mother Eve (peace be upon them both)


We have very competent army to beat the india and indians that try to bully us in to submission lol
Sorry for your competent army captain and soldier,RIP.
 
Why does only one side suffer civilian casualties? I understand soldiers being martyred but civilians?

Have some shame you jackals.
 
Raheel Sharif's claim of Indian casualties was openly denied by Indian army.

Denial for fresh Pakistani claim, will come soon enough.

I mean, Pakistan just came up with the claim, Indian authorities havent even had the time come across it, yet.

Funny part, every time Pakistan is forced to accept any cassualties, they always claim 1.5 - 2 times more casualties on Indian side.

Whats with that ?

They have to maintain martial superiority. Earlier it was 1 Pakistani soldier = 7 Indian ones, it has come down now.
 
Here you go

===============================================================================


Islam teaches its adherents to be extremely cruel, murderous, deceptive (Taqiya) and sadistic. When the Buddhists first encountered the Muslims in Central Asia and Afghanistan (remember the Bamiyan Buddhas?), the Buddhist reaction was no reaction at all. The Buddhists tamely submitted to the Muslims. No they did not embrace Islam en masse; they just gave themselves up for being slaughtered en masse by the Muslims. The Buddhists were one of those few who accepted the “Death Option” from the Muslims’ offer of “Islam or Death”.

Hence the Buddhists simply perished in the first flush of Muslim onslaught against them. Many of the Buddhists never learned to resist the Muslims. Even when the Muslims raided famous Buddhist Universities like Nalanda in India’s Bihar province, the Buddhists died en masse when the Muslim swordsmen slaughtered them like hyena would devour a clutch of rabbits in a cage. The Buddhists also did not make any attempt to escape from their murderers. They accepted death with an air of fatalism and destiny. And hence they are not around today to tell their story!

But their mindless slaughter evoked another and extremely opposite reaction from another set of Buddhists. This was also the most dramatic one so far – the Mongol invasion of Iran and Iraq by Chengiz Khan and his son Hulagu Khan. These Mongols were Buddhists by faith, whose homeland had been suffering the depredations of the Muslims for six centuries (from 651 C.E. to 1200 C.E.) when the Buddhist Mongols decided that enough was enough and decided to pay back the Muslims with their own coin – with due premium added! The Mongols slaughtered the Muslims of Iran and Iraq with unremitting cruelty.

The Mongols laid waste the countryside, burnt down cities slaughtered the Muslim population en masse, including the Caliph himself!.

It was only this unexpected reversal of attitudes of the Mongol Buddhists, that resulted in the ravaging Muslims being ravaged themselves by a force that was infinitely more barbarous than the Muslims. And only this could lead to the defeat of the Muslims. This folks is the moral of our story when we try to understand the Muslim attacks on the Buddhists of Indonesia and how the Muslims can finally be defeated in the ongoing War on Terror.


_____________________________________

The face-off between Islam and Buddhism is a study of extremely stark contrasts; contrasts like, actions followed by queer reactions followed again by counter reactions. Confusing is it? Let us explain. Read on.


Physical science tells us that whenever there is an action, there is also an equal and opposite reaction. In the world of human psychology, this rule generally becomes skewed depending on the ethical-moral mindset of the parties involved. The Muslims have encountered varying levels of resistance in their history of rampage spread across three continents of Europe, Asia and Africa up to the 20th century. A rampage which spread in a dramatic manner to America (9/11) and Australia (Bali attacks) in the 21st century.

The Muslim marauders started their rampage (Jihad) by measuring their theologically inspired murderous mentality against the military valor of the Zoroastrian Persians in the 7th century followed by the military valor of the Byzantine Christians. Note here that it was the military valor of the Persians and Byzantines that was pitted against the theologically inspired murderous mentality of the Muslims. This match itself was unequal as theologically inspired murderous mentality can and did easily overcome military valor. The inspiration of the Muslims was to destroy their enemies, while that of the Persians and Byzantines was only to defeat and roll back the Muslim invasion. It was in this battle of objectives itself that the Persians and the Byzantines lost out to the Muslims. To defeat the Muslims, our primary objective should be to destroy Islam. Only then can victory over Muslim be the result!

The Muslim mindset of unremitting violence, cruelty and murder finally defeated the military valor of both the Zoroastrian Persians and the Byzantine Christians. Both the cultures fell before the advance of the murderous Muslim marauders. The Zoroastrian Persians perished and disappeared from history altogether. But the Christians responded differently. After four centuries of unremitting barbarism from the Muslims who overran the Christian nations of the Middle East (known today as Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Turkey) and the Christian nations in Africa (Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia) as also in Europe (Spain for 800 years) France (for 30 years) Italy (for 8 years) the Christians finally decided that enough was enough and determined to return the barbarism of the Muslims with even greater barbarism, tinged with determination to liberate the Holy Land from its infidel occupiers, singed as the Christians had been with four centuries of Muslim horrors across three continents of Asia, Africa and Europe.







________________________________



thai3.jpg


Traditional Pre-Islamic Indonesian Warriors

The Indonesians (under their Shaliendra and Majapahit dynasties) resisted the Muslims, albeit briefly in the 15th century, only to lapse back to a defensive position and submit to the Muslims Jihadis by the 16th century.



Before their forced conversion, the Indonesians themselves were Buddhists and Hindu by faith till the 15th century under their kingdoms of Sri Vijaya (Malaysia and Aceh), Majapahit and Shailendra (Indonesian archipelago). These kingdoms were ardent rivals and were at war with each other and with their northern neighbor – the kingdom of Siam (Thailand) when the Muslim first appeared on the scene.


_____________________________________

On the other hand because of the change of strategy while fighting the murderous Muslims, the Crusaders were stunningly successful, and in their first rush itself overwhelmed the barbarous Muslim with even greater barbarism. The Crusaders not only slaughtered the Muslims, but went further to roast and eat the Muslims in a gruesome barbecue. An exercise that can today be termed as recycling the adversary!


Mind you, these Crusaders were not Head Hunting cannibals when the left Europe. They came from established civilizations in France, England, Germany, Spain, Italy in Mediaeval Europe. But the relentless barbarism of the Muslims had built in the Christians an urge to put an end to it all, once and forever. The result was – The Crusades, and the corollary of cannibalism that was compelled upon the Crusaders by four centuries of near fatal depredations of their countries, culture and civilization. It was only this unexpected reversal of attitudes on part of the Crusaders of the ravaging the ravager Muslims with a force that was more barbarous than the Muslims, could lead to the defeat of the Muslims. This folks is the moral of our story when we try to understand the Muslim attacks on the pre-Muslim, Buddhists and Hindus of Malaysia and Indonesia..


The universal non-violence of Buddhism pitted against the depraved Cruelty of Islam

The Buddhists teach their adherents to be extremely non-violent whatever the provocation, while Islam teaches its adherents to be extremely cruel, murderous and sadistic. When the Buddhists first encountered the Muslims in Central Asia and Afghanistan (remember the Bamiyan Buddhas?), the Buddhist reaction was no reaction at all. The Buddhists tamely submitted to the Muslims. No, they did not embrace Islam en masse; they just gave themselves up for being slaughtered en masse by the Muslims. The Buddhists were one of the few who accepted the “Death Option” from the Muslims’ offer of “Islam or Death”. Hence the Buddhists simply perished in the first flush of Muslim onslaught against them. Many of the Buddhists never learnt to resist the Muslims. Even when the Muslims raided famous Buddhist Universities like Nalanda in India’s Bihar province, the Buddhists died en masse when the Muslim swordsmen slaughtered them as a pack of famished hyenas would devour a clutch of rabbits trapped inside a cage.





________________________________



thai.jpg


A Samurai

Before the advent of Islam, Sri Vijaya and Majapahit were powerful empires from the 13th upto the 15th centuries. Both the Sri Vijaya and Majapahit kings followed an eclectic faith made up of Hinduism and Buddhism. These kingdoms also had their illustrious counterparts in Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia and Burma (Myanmar). They built magnificent cities. The ruins of Angkor are the most dramatic surviving evidences of their glory. Similar cities dotted Malaysia, and Indonesia in the 12 to the 15th centuries. Their decline began with the coming of Arab dhows (vessels) who carried not just merchandise but also the sword of Islam. The king who first embraced Islam was named Parmeswara and he became a victim of circumstances when he was tricked into becoming a Muslim.


_____________________________________

When attacked and massacred by the Muslims, the Buddhists initially did not make any attempt to escape from their murderers. They accepted death with an air of fatalism and destiny. And hence they are not around today to tell their story. But their mindless slaughter evoked another and extremely opposite reaction from another set of Buddhists. This was also the most dramatic one so far – the Mongol invasion of Iran and Iraq by Chengiz Khan and his son Hulagu Khan. These Mongols were some sort of Buddhists by faith, whose homeland had been suffering the depredations of the Muslims for six centuries (from 651 to 1200) when the Buddhist Mongols decided that enough was enough and decided to pay back the Muslims with their own coin – with due premium added! The Mongols slaughtered the Muslims of Iran and Iraq with unremitting cruelty. The Mongols laid waste the countryside, burnt down cities slaughtered the Muslim population en masse, including the Caliph himself!. The Mongols were matched in their reaction to Muslim Barbarism, only by the Crusaders. And interestingly it was only the Mongols and the Crusaders who defeated the Muslims in their own homeland in the last 1400 years of the existence of the Muslims since 622 CE. Other minor aberrations that turned the tide of the Muslims were the Franks at Tours,the Spanish Re-conquistadores, the Hindus under their king Sivaji, the Nubian marksmen and the Thai’s reconquest of Sultanate of Pattani late in the seventeenth century.


How Islam came to Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand

After this longish preamble, we shall see how the we shall see how the Indonesians resisted the Muslims, albeit briefly in the 15th century, only to lapse back to a defensive position and embrace the religion of their tormentors after a century of resistance.

The people of Indonesia themselves were Buddhists and Hindu by faith till the 15th century under their kingdoms of Sri Vijaya (Malaysia), Shailendra and Majapahit (Indonesian archipelago). These three kingdoms were ardent rivals and were intermittently at war with each other and with their northern neighbor – the kingdom of Siam (Thailand).

Interestingly, the entry of Islam in to South East Asia was facilitated by this rivalry and internecine warfare of the three kingdoms of Thailand with SriVijaya of Malaysia and, Shailendra and Majapahit of Indonesia. But the ultimate reason for the conversion of the last Sri Vijaya king, Parmeswara to Islam was deception as we shall see below.







________________________________



thai1.jpg


Buddhist Warriors as depicted at the Bas-Reliefs at Borobudur (Big Buddha) in Indonesia

It was the Arab merchant-Jihadis who deceived the last Sri Vijaya king, Parameswara (of today’s Malaysia) to marry a Muslim damsel and converted him to Islam by promising him help in his fight against his rivals from Thailand. From 1402 onwards Parmeswara increasingly became dependent on the Arabs to stave off attempts from the Thais and the territorial ambitions of his other rival Majapahit of Indonesia. The Arab merchant-soldiers whose position became increasingly stronger at Parmeswara’s court offered to send in more forces to fight alongside him, if he converted to Islam. Initially Parameswara scornfully refused this offer. But as the struggle with Thailand and Majapahit wore on, his position became more precarious. At this juncture the Arab merchants gifted him a princess of Pasai who was a mix breed descendants from an Arab and Indonesian Nikah Mu’tah Marriage. (A Nikah Mu’tah is a temporary marriages allowed for Muslims by the Quran).


_____________________________________

Before the advent of Islam, Sri Vijaya, Shailendra, Mataram and Majapahit were powerful empires from the 13th upto the 15th centuries. The Sri Vijaya, Shailendra and Majapahit kings followed an eclectic faith made up of Hinduism and Buddhism. These kingdoms also had their illustrious counterparts in Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia and Burma (Myanmar). They built magnificent cities. The ruins of Angkor Vat and Borobudur are the most dramatic surviving evidences of their glory. Similar cities dotted Malaysia, and Indonesia in the 12 to the 15th centuries. Their decline began with the coming of Arab dhows (vessels) who carried not just merchandise but also the sword and the murderous mentality of Islam.


The Indonesian-Malay Hindu king who first embraced Islam was named Parmeswara and he became a victim of circumstances when he was tricked into becoming a Muslim. Parameswara was a scion of the Sri Vijaya dynasty and ruled from Palembang. But during Parameswara's time, Sri Vijaya was in decline and Majapahit had become the overlord of Sri Vijaya. Parameswara had a dispute with the Majapahit ruler and was forced to shift his capital from Palembang to the relatively safer Temasek island - now Singapore. There, during a skirmish with the forces of Majapahit, Parameswara killed prince Temagi of Siam, who was allied with Majapahit This angered the Siamese king, who threatened to capture and kill Paremeswara. This led to another string of battles between Sri Vijaya against Siam and Majapahit, in which Parameswara was worsted and he had to flee his new capital the Temasek island (Singapore) island, and seek refuge first in Muar, before fleeing further on to Malacca and deciding to make it his new capital in 1402.



Arabs deceive and browbeat the last Sri Vijaya king Parameswara to marry a Muslim Girl and convert to Islam

Malacca was a trading port frequented by the Arabs, where they had established a colony. At Malacca, the Arabs promised King Parameswara, help in his fight against his rivals from Thailand. From 1402 onwards Parmeswara increasingly became dependent on the Arabs to stave off attempts from the Thais to avenge the slaughter of their prince and the territorial ambitions of Majapahit. The Arab merchant-soldiers whose position became increasingly stronger at Parmeswara’s court offered to send in more forces to fight alongside him, if he converted to Islam. Initially Parameswara scornfully refused this offer. But as the struggle with Indonesia wore on, his position became more precarious. At this juncture the Arab merchants gifted him a princess of Pasai who was a mix breed descendant of the Arab and Indonesian Nikah Mu’tah Marriages (A Nikah Mu’tah is a temporary marriage allowed for Muslims by the Quran).

Pasai, was originally known as Samudera-Pasai later renamed called Samudera Darussalam. Pasai was a thriving harbor kingdom on the north coast of Sumatra in the 13th to the 15th centuries CE. Due to its wealth Pasai had attracted Arab merchants who in the course of time intermarried with local women to create a Muslim community that was half Arab and half Indonesian, as the offspring of these marriages were brought up as Muslims. The area of Pasai is in today’s Aceh province of Indonesia.

Incidentally the term “Pasai” is believed derived from Parsi, or Parsee immigrants from the west coast of India namely Gujarat, some of who migrated for mercantile activities to northern Sumatra in today's Aceh province. Arab and Indian Muslims had also traded in Indonesia and China for many centuries. A Muslim tombstone in eastern Java bears a date corresponding to 1082. But substantial evidence of Islam in Indonesia begins only in northern Sumatra at the end of the 13th century. Two small Muslim trading kingdoms existed by that time at Pasai and Peureulak or Perlak

Coming back to this princess from Pasai, she was from among these half-breed Arab-Indonesian Muslims, and was a maiden of extreme beauty. The militarily weakened king Parameswara fell for her, making his position even more precarious vis-à-vis the Arabs. Parameswara incidentally did not have any heir from his Queen but his new love told him, that she was carrying his child. The lovelorn Parameswara who was becoming increasingly militarily weak wanted an heir desperately. In this desperation and his blind love for his new love, he proposed to her, only to be told that marriage was possible only under Muslim rites for which he needed to convert to Islam . To get an heir Parameswara agreed and recited the Shahada before he could bring his new love from the harem to his palace as his legitimate queen. But according to Sri Vijaya court records, in reality, the child which his Muslim harlot told him she was carrying was not his but was fathered by an Arab as Parmeswara was diagnosed as impotent by his medical practioners. But the urge to become a normal person and have an heir was overwhelming for Parameswara and that urge compelled him to abandon his ancestral religion and convert to Islam.



The Hindu kingdom of Sri Vijaya transformed itself in to the Sultanate of Malacca after the last Hindu king Parameswara, embraced Islam

Thus, in 1414, for reasons which were amorous and desperate in 1414, Parameswara converted to Islam after marrying the princess from Pasai. After his conversion, he assumed the title Sultan Iskandar Shah. After his conversion, his half Arab Queen also encouraged his subjects to embrace Islam and this is how Malacca became a sultanate. Thus Malacca was the first to fall to the Muslims.

This conversion led to waves of conversions in Malaysia and Indonesia, most of whose people converted to the new faith, except in far off Bali which remained Hindu, as it is till this day. The descendants of Parameswara started the first Muslim dynasty and expanded the Sultanate of Malacca. At its height the Sultanate encompassed most of modern day Peninsula Malaysia, the site of modern day Singapore and a great portion of eastern Sumatra and Borneo. The governor of Borneo later seceded from Malacca to form the independent Sultanate of Borneo. For a long time Malacca remained the center of Islam in the Malaysian and Indonesian archipelago (Aceh, Riau, Palembang and Sulawesi).





_______________

angkorwat.jpg


This imposing temple complex is at Prambanan and is dated around the 8th century. It is located on the Island of Sumatra in Indonesia. It looks markedly like Angkor Wat another but more famous temple complex built later in the 11th century in Cambodia.






_______________

It was from Malacca, where imams and ustazes went to all over Malaysia and Indonesia to discuss religion and the like. Muslim missionaries were also sent by the successive Sultans of Malacca to spread Islam to he Hindu and Buddhist communities in the Malay Archipelago, such as in Java, Borneo, and the Philippines (Mindanao). Most of South East Asia at that time was Hindu-Buddhist, except for the Philippines where the population was animist.

In the 15th century the Sultanate of Malacca destroyed the other Hindu kingdom of Majapahit in Indonesia, and weakened Thailand

The Sultanate's most important regional rivals continued to be Thailand in the north and the declining Majapahit Empire in the Indonesian archipelago (Aceh, Riau, Palembang and Sulawesi) in the south. But within the archipelago, Majapahit was not able to control or effectively compete with the Sultans of Malacca with their new found zeal of Islam, and ultimately came to an end during the later 15th century. After the demise of Majapahit kingdom and the conversion of most of its inhabitants to Islam, the Sultans of Malacca alongwith their Arab allies concentrated on the conquest of Thailand with the purported aim of converted the Thais to Islam. The Arabs based in Malacca along with their new converts the Malay Muslims of Malacca repeatedly attacked Thailand and for a time it seemed that they would go storming up the narrow Isthmus of Kra and penetrate up to the Thai capital of Ayuthaya.

During much of the fifteenth century Ayuthaya's energies were directed toward the Malay Peninsula, where the great trading port of Malacca contested its claims to sovereignty. As the erstwhile Hindu-Buddhist states of Malacca along with other Malay states south of Tambralinga had become Muslim early in the century, a resurgent and aggressive Islam served as a symbol of Malay solidarity against the Thais and for a time it seemed that the Thais would also have to submit to Islam. But from the 17th century successive Thai kings allied themselves with the seafaring Western powers – the Portuguese and the Dutch and succeeded in staving off the threat of Islam from the Muslim Malays and their Arab overlords.

Islam in the Philippines

In the Philippines, the Muslims did get remarkable success in converting the population of southern Philippines to Islam.

As far back as 1380, Makhdum Karim, the first Islamic Holy Warrior had brought Islam to the southern tip of Philippine Archipelago (Mindanao). But the efforts to convert the Filipino population en masse to Islam gathered strength after the defeat of the Hindu kingdoms of Sri Vijaya (Malaya) and Majapahit (Indonesia). Around 1414, the war between the Sri Vijaya and the Majapahit Empire ended in favor of the former with the conversion of the last Sri Vijaya king Parameswara to Islam. Following this victory, Muslim Holy Warriors (Jihadis) introduced Islam into the Hindu-Malay empires and converted almost the entire population to Islam.

By the next century, these holy warriors had reached the Sulu islands in the southern tip of the Philippines where the population was animistic and they took up the task of converting the animistic population to Islam with renewed zeal. By the 15th century, most of Visayas (Central Philippines) and half of Luzon (Northern Philippines) and the islands of Mindanao in the south had become subject to the various Muslim sultanates of Borneo and much of the population in the South had been converted to Islam.





_______________

borobudur.jpg


Borobudur – Big Buddha. This temple complex is in Indonesia and dates back to the 8th century






_______________



Subsequent incursions of Muslim Malay Muslim Holy Warriors strengthened the stranglehold of Islam among the frightened animistic pre-islamic Filipinos (today’s Moros) in the extreme south. By the early 15th century, Islam had been established in the Sulu Archipelago and spread from there to Mindanao; it had reached the Manila area by 1565. There was sporadic resistance from the local population that was organized in to Barangays. Barangays was a kinship group headed by a datu (chief). Organized resistance to Islam began only after the coming of the Spanish in 1521. Till then, during the period 1380 up to 1521, a major part of the animist population of Southern Philippines had been converted to Islam.

But Islam was not to be the religion of the Philippines, as it had become in Malaysia and Indonesia. A seminal event that was to halt the advance of slam was the arrival of Ferdinand Magellan in the Philippines in 1521. After this the Filipino resistance to Islam received a new fillip. Magellan landed on the island of Cebu, claiming the lands for Spain and naming them Islas de San Lazaro. He established friendly relations with some of the local chieftains who had been battling the Muslims and converted some of them to Roman Catholicism. Over the next several decades, other Spanish expeditions were dispatched to the islands. In 1543, Ruy López de Villalobos led an expedition to the islands and gave the name Las Islas Felipinas (after Philip II of Spain) to the islands of Samar and Leyte. The name Philippines derived from Felipinas, was later extended to the entire archipelago.

Permanent Spanish settlement was not established until 1565 when an expedition led by the Conquistadores, Miguel López de Legazpi, arrived in Cebu from Mexico (New Spain). Spanish leadership was soon established over many small independent communities that previously had known no central rule. Six years later, following the defeat of the local Malay Muslim ruler, Rajah Solayman, Legazpi established a capital at Manila, a location that offered the excellent harbor of Manila Bay to the seafaring Spanish. Occupation of the Philippine islands was accomplished with relatively little bloodshed, partly because most of the population (except the Muslims) offered little armed resistance to the Spanish, as their main enemy had been the Malay and Arab Muslims seeking to convert them to Islam.

But a significant problem the Spanish faced was the subjugation of the Muslims of Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago. The Muslims, in response to attacks on them from the Spanish and their native allies, raided areas of Luzon and the Visayas that were under Spanish colonial control. But these actions were inconsequential as the fate of Islam in the Philippines was sealed, and Philippines was not to go the way as had Malaysia and Indonesia, save for a southern tip of Mindanao.

Consequently, most of the Filipinos (except for those in the south) later became Christian under the Spanish colonization. By the late 15th century, the Sultanate of Sulu, the largest Islamic Kingdom of South East Asia and the Malay Archipelago, encompassed parts of Malaysia and the Philippines. Ironically the Mongoloid looking members of the royal house of the Sultanate of Sulu claimed descent from the Prophet Muhammad to reinforce their credentials in their new found faith of Islam!

Waves of conversion to Islam had just about begun in the late 15th century and were preparing to sweep north across the Philippine archipelago in the 16th century when the Spanish colonialists reached the shores of the Philippines. What followed was a checkmating of one faith by another and the Spanish repulsed further attempts by the Sultans of Borneo to make inroads, both military and religious in to the Philippine archipelago.

So the coming of the Spanish saved the Philippines from Islam, except for the Southern tip where the population had been converted to Islam. This population was derisively referred to by the Spanish as Moros and Moriscos (Spanish for Moor or Muslim). Till today the Muslim population of Southern Philippines continue to refer to themselves as Moros – the name given to them by the Spanish colonialists!

The coming of the Spanish and the Portuguese was also a breather to the beleaguered Thai kingdom.

For Thailand too, the coming of the Spanish and the Portuguese was a breather. The Thais smartly allied themselves with the Portuguese to ultimately destroy the Sultanate of Malacca during the reign of the last Sultan of Malacca, Sultan Mahmud Shah.

It was in 1509, during the reign of the last Sultan of Malacca, Sultan Mahmud Shah that the Portuguese became the first European power to reach Malacca and Southeast Asia in general. The Portuguese fleet was led by Admiral Lopez de Sequira. Trouble however ensued after the general feeling of rivalry between Islam and Christianity was invoked by a group of Goan Muslims in the sultan's court after the Portuguese had captured Goa. Soon, the Portuguese fleet was attacked by Malacca and was forced to flee. Incidentally Goa was then a Portuguese colony in India that was ruled by the Muslims before the Portuguese conquered it.

In 1511, a larger Portuguese fleet from Cochin, India led by Viceroy Alfonso d'Albuquerque came back to Malacca. The Viceroy made a number of demands - one of which was for permission to build a fortress as a Portuguese trading post near the city. All the demands were refused by the Sultan. Conflict was unavoidable, and after 40 days of fighting, Malacca fell to the Portuguese on August 24.

Sultan Mahmud Shah was forced to flee Malacca. The sultan made several attempts to retake the capital but his efforts were fruitless. The Portuguese retaliated and forced the sultan to flee to Pahang. Later, the sultan sailed to Bintan and established a new capital there. With a base established, the sultan rallied the disarrayed Malay forces and organized several attacks and blockades against the Portuguese's position.

Frequent raids on Malacca caused the Portuguese severe hardship. The raids helped convince the Portuguese that the exiled sultan's forces must be silenced. A number of attempts were made to suppress the Malay forces, but it wasn't until 1526 that the Portuguese finally razed Bintan to the ground. The sultan then retreated to Kampar in Sumatra where he died two years later. He left behind two sons named Muzaffar Shah and Alauddin Riayat Shah II.

Muzaffar Shah was invited by the people in the north of the peninsula to become their ruler, establishing the Sultanate of Perak. Meanwhile, Mahmud's other son, Alauddin succeeded his father and made a new capital in the south. His realm was the Sultanate of Johore, the successor of Malacca. But the Portuguese could not retain the possession of Malacca for long, as it was conquered by the Dutch in 1641. Although Malacca changed hands, the saving grace was that the barbaric Muslims were never able to sink their claws in Malacca and this enabled the straits to remain free for mercantile activities for the next five centuries. The fallout of the coming of the Europeans was that Thailand was saved from the threat of Muslim conquest that was looming over it in the 15th and 16th centuries.

The Thais launch a counter attack against the Muslims

Taking advantage of the weakened position of the Muslims. Taking advantage of the weakened position, the Thais attacked the Sultanate of Pattani and attempted to re-conquer the territories they had lost to the Sultans of Malacca from 1414, when Parameswara the Sri Vijaya king had embraced Islam and his successors had fought relentless campaigns against Thailand and Majapahit (Indonesia). While they were able to destroy Majapahit and absorb Indonesia (Aceh, Riau, Palembang and Sulawesi) in to the Muslim Ummah by converting the Indonesian Hindu-Buddhist population to Islam, they could not get comparative success against their other rival Thailand. The point to note here is that the entry of Islam in South East Asia was facilitated by the rivalry and internecine warfare of the three kingdoms of Thailand with SriVijaya of Malaysia and Majapahit of Indonesia. The proximate reason for the conversion of the last Sir Vijaya king was deception as we saw above.

In the 16th century, after fighting a single-handed battle against the Sultanate of Malacca for a century, (the successor to the Hindu Sri Vijaya empire), the Thais were nearing the end of their tether. But for the arrival of the Portuguese and Dutch in the 17th century, the Thais might have succumbed to the Sultans of Malacca as had their other rivals the Majapahit empire of Indonesia.

In Indonesia, the Majapahit kingdom found itself increasingly unable to control the rising power of the Sultanate of Malacca. Dates for the end of the Majapahit Empire range from 1478 to 1527. After a series of battles with the Sultanate of Demak, the last remaining courtiers of Majapahit were forced to withdraw eastward to Kediri. Even this small state was finally extinguished at the hands of the Demak in 1527. A large number of courtiers, artisans, priests, and members of the royalty moved east to the island of Bali which is still dominated by their descendants who still practise their original Hindu faith. But effectively Majapahit had ceased to be an imperial power and by the early 16th century, the emerging Muslim power had eclipsed the once powerful Majapahit kingdom and many of their subjects across the Indonesian archipelago had been converted to Islam.







________________________________



angkorwat1.jpg


Angkor Wat

This temple complex in Cambodia is the signature of the Hindu-Buddhist dominance in South East before being supplanted by Islam.


_____________________________________

The Thais too could have been forcibly converted to Islam as were the Malaysians in the 15th century when the Sri Vijaya king was converted to Islam following which the Majapahit kingdom of Indonesia was defeated and destroyed by the Sultans of Malacca (successors to the kings of Sri Vijaya who embraced Islam). Thus when Portuguese and Dutch came in to the scene, the Thais received a much needed breather and they gathered their fading strength to garner enough courage to counterattack the Sultanate of Malacca three times, along with their Portuguese allies and finally brought an end to the rogue infidel Muslim power of the Sultanate of Malacca as a threat to themselves (Thais) as well as to the emerging mercantile powers – the Portuguese and the Dutch. The British gave a final end to the pretensions of the other auxiliary Muslim sultanates, that had succeeded the fallen Sultanate of Malacca. These included the Sultanate of Pattani, the Sultanate of Johore, and the Sultanate of Borneo.


In the 18th century, the Thais had an ambition to overrun both the Sultanate of Pattani and the Sultanate of Johore and reclaim the entire Malay peninsula through the lost thai towns of Ligor (Nakhon Si Thammarat) and Kataha up to Singapore (earlier known as the island of Temasek) that they had lost to the Muslims when Parmeswara the last Sri Vijaya king converted to Islam in 1441. But that was not to be however, the Thais checkmated the Muslim ambitions to overrun Thailand and took the war in to Muslim territory as we shall see in the following paragraphs.

The Thais re-conquer the Sultanate of Pattani from the Muslims

In the 13th to the 15th centuries, Pattani intermittently was a part of the Buddhist kingdom of Siam and the Hindu-Buddhist Sri Vijaya Empire. Siam and Sri Vijaya had a keen rivalry for dominating the Isthumus of Kra in order to be able to dominate the strategic straits of Malacca. The Sri Vijaya kingdom was located in Palembang and was a maritime confederation dating back to the 3rd century C.E. During the pre-Islamic era, Sri Vijaya dominated trade on the South China Sea and exacted tolls from all traffic through the Straits of Malacca and the province of Tambralinga (know also as Nakhon Sri Thammarat). The growing power of Siam threatened this lucrative monopoly from the 13th century. This led to a string of battles between the two empires despite close affinities in language, culture and religion. This conflict was the chink that allowed Islam to sneak in to South-east Asia in the 15th century.

After the conversion of the last Sri Vijaya king Parameswara to Islam through deception, and the transformation of the Sri Vijaya kingdom into the Sultanate of Malacca, the rivalry with Thailand became more acute, as the antagonists now belonged to different religions and with Islam, the erstwhile Sri Vijaya (now the Sultanate of Malacca) found greater zeal to pulverize its long time northern rival Siam with the additional aim of converting the Thais to Islam.

Successive Muslim chieftains of Pattani who were surrogates of the Sultan of Malacca tried to attack Thailand from the Isthumus of Kra.

Four successive rulers of Pattani known as Ratu Hijau (The Green Queen), Ratu Biru (The Blue Queen), Ratu Ungu (The Purple Queen) and Ratu Kuning (The Yellow Queen) tried to conquer Thailand from 1584 onwards. But the Pattani kingdom's economic and military strength proved inadequate to conquer Siam single-handedly and the Thais fought off four major invasions, with the last one threatening the overrun Pattani itself. It was then that the Sultans of Patani allied themselves with the eastern Malay kingdom of Pahang and the southern Malay Sultanates of Malacca and Johore. They jointly endeavored to subdue Thailand.

They got an unique opportunity to stab Thailand in its back when in 1563 a massive Burmese attack from the north against the Siamese kingdom threatened to overrun the Thai capital of Ayutthaya. Seizing this opportunity the Sultan of Pattani, Muzaffar Shah took launched an attack on Ayutthaya from the South. The Thai however proved to be no mean opponents, and despite being weakened by their long drawn out war with Burma, they repulsed the Muslim invasion led by the Sultan of Pattani, Muzaffar Shah who was himself slain during the battle.

But the Thais could not push their advantage to overrun Pattani, Johore and Malacca altogether, as they had to still grapple with the Burmese threat from the north of Thailand. The Burmese intermittently occupied the Thai capital of Ayutthaya. Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries Thais were engaged in constant skirmishes with the Burmese and in these see-saw campaigns, the Burmese occupied the Thai capital of Ayutthaya in 1767. The Thais shifted their capital to Bangkok a few kilometers to the south and continued fighting the Burmese invasion. And in the same year, the Thais finally retook Ayutthaya from the Burmese after a devastating campaign. The city was almost entirely destroyed in this war and was rebuilt over the next few years from 1782 onwards when the residence of the king and the royal family during the Rattanakosin period. Following this victory, the Siamese king Taksin succeeded in driving the Burmese invaders from the rest of Siam. His successor, Rama I, established the Chakri Dynasty, which still rules Thailand today.

With the Burmese threat having receded, the Thais turned on their old enemies the Sultans of Pattani, Johore and Malacca. As fate would have it, during this period in the 17th Century, the Sultanate of Pattani had fallen into disarray and was in gradual decline especially during the reign of last queens who ruled Pattani.

Siezing the opportunity, Prince Surasi, Rama I's younger brother and vice-king, invaded Pattani. Pattani's Sultan Muhammad was killed in battle and his capital razed to the ground. According to Pattani sources, about 4,000 Malay soldiers were enslaved as POWs and the most muscular of them were made to work on system of khlongs in Thailand’s new capital Bangkok. To further humiliate Pattani, the symbols of its military strength – the Seri Patani and Seri Negara cannon - were brought to Bangkok. (The Phaya Thani is a prized cannon that once belonged to the Sultan of Pattani This gigantic cannon has a length of 6 meters and today stands in front of the Thai Ministry of Defense in Bangkok. This cannon was confiscated by Thai troops after their conquest of Pattani in 1785 and the defeat of Rattanakosin the Sultan of Pattani. This cannon was brought by the victorious Thais to Bangkok and was presented as war booty to the Thai king Rama I.)

But for the people of Pattani, this war has not ended. The Muslim converts never reconciled to the reconquest of Pattani by the Thais and continued to terrorize the Buddhist population intermittently throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. In the 20th and 21st centuries this rebellion has taken the form of an insurgency. And even to this day there are terrorist incidents in Pattani, in which innocent students, teachers and Buddhist monks are routinely murdered.

You have been reported. Don't you dare go towards religion.
 
Raheel Sharif's claim of Indian casualties was openly denied by Indian army.

Denial for fresh Pakistani claim, will come soon enough.

I mean, Pakistan just came up with the claim, Indian authorities havent even had the time come across it, yet.

Funny part, every time Pakistan is forced to accept any cassualties, they always claim 1.5 - 2 times more casualties on Indian side.

Whats with that ?
Maybe true maybe not.

But it would be laughable to think that we aren't killing many of yours as well. You don't have any hidden superpowers and neither do we.
 
They have to maintain martial superiority. Earlier it was 1 Pakistani soldier = 7 Indian ones, it has come down now.
Well you Indians are getting hammered pretty hard on LOC. As our Army said we claim the martyred soldiers with pride but India don't have same attitude. They try to hide their casualties. And example I give you is India has done nothing for its soldier chandu chohan by forget about him such honor to soldiers is given only in india

Sorry for your competent army captain and soldier,RIP.
Well I also appologize for your brave invisible army who lost three times more troops then Pakistan. And it is war there will be casualties on both sides
 
Why does only one side suffer civilian casualties? I understand soldiers being martyred but civilians?

Have some shame you jackals.


easy .. there is a universal rule... civilian casualities on one side will mount if that side is inflicting heavy military casuality on other side... through shere frustration they will hit civilians.... which is a war crime by the way... and should be responded massively

Pakistan needs to keep conducting a critical review of tactics and weapons as well.... each casuality should be looked into and reviewed.....
evolution is key here
 
Civilian or Soldier what does it matter ? after all both are Humans , and Neither India is Winning Nor Pakistan and nobody is losing Except for Humanity .. People show their Sympathy when Civilians died , but we should not Forget that A soldier is itself a civilian too , or at least he was once, he is not a single person who die but his mother , Father , Wife , Kids , Sister , Brother and whoever loved him ... those all people don't give a Shit about those Keyboard Warrior Cheering for War and asking for Retaliation .. we lost 3 and what it matters how Indians Lost ? they know or will know how many they have in their death count but in the end , nobody is going to win ..
 
Maybe true maybe not.

But it would be laughable to think that we aren't killing many of yours as well. You don't have any hidden superpowers and neither do we.

Yes offcourse, but then you have your days, and we have ours.

Yesterday, you killed 3 Indian soldiers, today India responded in kind.
 
Now let us not talk of grey matter boy. :lol:

Think...if Pakistan can buy one gun, India can buy 8 guns...so it is everyone guess which side will have more causalities. What ever appears on videos is not true. Sometimes using grey matter is matters.

And stop enjoying for lives lost. Come and live near the border, you will know the problems faces by civilians on both sides. Sitting in UK and becoming a key board warrior is easy.
Well let me touch your grey matter kiido, it's not what you have but how you use it.
And remember the old saying, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Also save your damn advise for your own kind who join this forum just to gloat on our deaths.
 
Yes offcourse, but then you have your days, and we have ours.

Yesterday, you killed 3 Indian soldiers, today India responded in kind.
Thanks for your kindness but why all India starts barking when bullets hits your invisible troopers ? ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom