Akbar and other Mughals

[third eye]

no it is not surprising my friend indian media and intelligence agencies insure that countries around india are not left at peace and are hindered from progressing.....

and before you come back with pakistan does it too!!! well yes we do both countries are playing with fire.....and both will eventually suffer....so i hope sanity prevails and both countries act responsibly....

Hmm..

Indian intel agencies seem to be doing better than what Indians think of them.

I too hope sanity prevails - on all sides. Lets get back to the Mughals.

 

[PostColonial]

Why it is rubbish? In the west the Afghans were Budhists before the arrival of Islam. In the east many Bangalis were also Budhists before the arrival of Islam. These Budhists had a clear idea of one God. Hindu Brahmins tormented and forced them to come back to the fold of Hinduism, but only as low class Sudra, although many of these Budhists were not Sudra when a few hundred years back their forefathers accepted Budhism.

Simplistic BS. Afghans were Buddhist and Hindu. Heard of Hindu-Shahi dynasty in Afghanistan?

Secondly, Buddhists don't believe in God you dolt. They believe in Dharma - path of righteousness, just like Hindus.

Thirdly are you telling me that all the Afghans and Bengalis were "sudras" lol. What about all the "sudras" in India, why didn't they convert to Buddhism? What a load of self-serving rubbish. Please tell your government to teach you real history instead of this nonsense.

So, after the arrival of Afghan Turkic Muslims in Bengal under the leadership of Ikhtiar-ud-Din Muhammed Bakhtiar in 1198, these enlightened Budhists took shelter in Islam to safeguard their prestige, as well as their belief in one God. Western part of Pakistan and Bangladesh still have many Budhist Monasteries to prove that one God-centered Budhism was widespread in these regions and these Budhists accepted Islam as their religion.

HAHAHAHA. Are you f*king kidding me? What about all the Islamic conquerers who destroyed the Buddhist monasteries and burnt all the libraries up in smoke that could be seen for hundreds of kilometers, who massacred all the Buddhist monks and chopped off the hands of those who refused to convert to Islam?

And India has no Buddhist monasteries? India has FAR more Buddhist monasteries than Bangladesh+Pakistan combined, even today. What a load of crap.

I understand, your Hindu mythology says that the MLECCHO Muslims forced the Hindus to accept Islam. It is less true, and more true is that mostly the Budhists accepted Islam willingly in Hindustan. I have read also a Bengali poem written in early 13th Century whereby the Budhists are praising Islam, how it has saved them from the Brahminical tyranny and how it is easy for them to understand one-god concept of Islam.

I can show you plenty of poems written by Hindus praising Buddha, by Buddhist praising Hindu gods, and I can also show you dozens of temples and places in India with images of Buddha and Hindu gods side by side.
This is not MYTHOLOGY (i.e. the crap that they teach you in Bangladesh) but real HISTORY.

One God? You dolt, as I said, Buddhists believe in ethical living, not God-worshipping.

 

[PostColonial]

how so did the country fall back under the moghuls? i think moghuls came and civilized the land and ended the constant battle amongst tribes.....and under moghuls arts,culture litreature progressed isn't that what the whole European Renaissance was all about ?

Constant battle between tribes? What mumbo-jumbo are you spouting buddy?
Are you telling me that the Mughals didn't fight any wars? :lol"

Sure, Mughals were great architects and had high taste in music and culture. They were a cultured lot, I'll give you that. But the damage they did to Indian sciences and progress is too deep to forgive.

Infact, under the Mughals, North India was so backward and supersititious that even today the results are showing. South India which managed to hold of Mughal rule for a long period of time, is today the most prosperous, sees less of caste-conflict, and is much better in terms of science and development than the parts that were under Mughal rule.
Infact, there is a direct correlation between the backwardness of a place, and its length under Mughal rule. They are proportional to each other.

 

[eastwatch]

Pathans are a very large tribe....and they are closely related to the central asian people of khorasan.....for that matter people like SHARKUH,SALMAN,SAIF claim to be pathans...even irfan PATANS...or zaheer khan....

Khan is a name that was given to people who collaborated with the BRITISH.....just like the british made there servants wear clothing similar to moghuls in order to ridicule the culture...and heritage.....

so the so called "PATHAN" sample needs to be defined before researched on.

British title was 'Khan Bahadur' and for Hindus it was 'Roy Bahadur.' British had shown many ways to disrespect the natives of India. But, the family title Khan is not one of their gifts.

During the Muslim rule in India, only the very braves and big Mansabders were given this title either by the Delhi Badshah or by the Subedars. However, it could be that many of the receivers of this title belonged to the Pathan stock, because they were indeed braves. So, this title ultimately became a family title of the descendents of those who were bestowed with the title 'Khan.'

However, during and after the British period, all the Pathans started to use this title after their names. This is why people in the subcontinent think that a person with the title of 'Khan' is a Pathan, when, in fact, he may or may not be a pure blooded Pathan.

Pathan Muslim immigrants who have been living in India and Bangladesh are certainly mixed blooded people, and some may not be Pathan at all. But, people in India think of them as Pathan. In BD nobody is aware that some people living among them with the family title of 'khan' are Pathan. Collectively, we regard ourselves as only Muslims of Bengal or Bangali Muslims.

 

[TopCat]

Simplistic BS. Afghans were Buddhist and Hindu. Heard of Hindu-Shahi dynasty in Afghanistan?

Secondly, Buddhists don't believe in God you dolt. They believe in Dharma - path of righteousness, just like Hindus.

Thirdly are you telling me that all the Afghans and Bengalis were "sudras" lol. What about all the "sudras" in India, why didn't they convert to Buddhism? What a load of self-serving rubbish. Please tell your government to teach you real history instead of this nonsense.




HAHAHAHA. Are you f*king kidding me? What about all the Islamic conquerers who destroyed the Buddhist monasteries and burnt all the libraries up in smoke that could be seen for hundreds of kilometers, who massacred all the Buddhist monks and chopped off the hands of those who refused to convert to Islam?

And India has no Buddhist monasteries? India has FAR more Buddhist monasteries than Bangladesh+Pakistan combined, even today. What a load of crap.




I can show you plenty of poems written by Hindus praising Buddha, by Buddhist praising Hindu gods, and I can also show you dozens of temples and places in India with images of Buddha and Hindu gods side by side.
This is not MYTHOLOGY (i.e. the crap that they teach you in Bangladesh) but real HISTORY.

One God? You dolt, as I said, Buddhists believe in ethical living, not God-worshipping.

YOur ignorance can not change the fact. Eastwatch did not say say Bengalis were sudras but the other way around.
Bengal was the last frontier of Buddhism and the last ruler of Buddism ruled Bengal name Mahipal. By the end of Mahipal the whole India except Bengal were cleaned up and the remaining Buddhist all flocked in Bengal. Most of the Buddhist monasteries outside Bengal were taken over or destroyed by Hindus (ofcourse few still remained). Ohh by the way Bengal means current day Bangaldesh, WB and Bihar, Orissa which included Nalinda as well.
Buddhist were always in pressure in the western part of the kingdom and eventually they have more density in the the eastern side of the kingdom.
The end result was when Islam came to India, most ot the Buddhist converted to Muslim and eventually current day Bangladesh turned into Muslim majority and the only place within thousand miles where you can see that many Muslims.

PS: The library of Nalinda University was burnt by Khilji which is one of heinous thing he did on his way to Bengal. But he was a worrior anyways.

 

[eastwatch]

Constant battle between tribes? What mumbo-jumbo are you spouting buddy?
Are you telling me that the Mughals didn't fight any wars? :lol"

Sure, Mughals were great architects and had high taste in music and culture. They were a cultured lot, I'll give you that. But the damage they did to Indian sciences and progress is too deep to forgive.

Infact, under the Mughals, North India was so backward and supersititious that even today the results are showing. South India which managed to hold of Mughal rule for a long period of time, is today the most prosperous, sees less of caste-conflict, and is much better in terms of science and development than the parts that were under Mughal rule.
Infact, there is a direct correlation between the backwardness of a place, and its length under Mughal rule. They are proportional to each other.

What ice_man was telling is that at the onset of Muslim rule that started in 1190 with the conquest of Delhi by the Khilji Turks from Afghanistan (Mughals came in 1526), India was not united as a nation State. There was provincialism and regionalism, and as a result, all the Maharajas were fighting each other.

It symbolizes weak governance since there was no effective central govt. Muslim conquest changed that and India was united in a single nation-State, although it was not universal.

 

[PostColonial]

^What complete nonsense. You do love your fairytales, don't you?

 

[PostColonial]

What ice_man was telling is that at the onset of Muslim rule that started in 1190 with the conquest of Delhi by the Khilji Turks from Afghanistan (Mughals came in 1526), India was not united as a nation State. There was provincialism and regionalism, and as a result, all the Maharajas were fighting each other.

It symbolizes weak governance since there was no effective central govt. Muslim conquest changed that and India was united in a single nation-State, although it was not universal.

Well that's true. Did I dispute that?

However, I'd like to know what "Tribal Warfare" was going on

 

[eastwatch]

Buddhism doesn't have the concept of 'GOD' in sense that other religion perceives - omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-this and omni-that - let alone 'one god'. Buddhism is atheistic at best and pantheistic at worse.

Yes, you are right that Budhism did not emphasize the concept of God, however, it also did not encourage astheism. It said not to bother oneself of the existence of God, because that passive God does not bring 'Nirvana.'

But, because of this religion, people of India stopped idol worshipping of many Gods. Again, of course, worshipping Budha itself can be construed as idol worshipping. But, it was a kind of monotheism, since Budha taught people to regard him as a form of Maha Brahma.

Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul.'

 

[PostColonial]

^My friend, Buddhists in India (except perhaps the monks in the monasteries) have ALWAYS worshipped Hindu gods, even when they were technically "buddhists".

The Hindu gods were always present in their lives, Buddhism wasn't as much a religion as a framework for ethical living, etc.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Yes, you are right that Budhism did not emphasize the concept of God, however, it also did not encourage astheism. It said not to bother oneself of the existence of God, because that passive God does no bring 'Nirvana.'

But, because of this religion, people of India stopped idol worshipping of many Gods. Again, of course, worshipping Budha itself can be construed as idol worshipping. But, it was a kind of monotheism, since Budha taught people to regard him as a form of Maha Brahma.

Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul.'

Actually, Indic philosophies including Buddhism (which is a part of the larger Sanatana Dharma family) are, at the core, Monistic, and not Monotheistic. This is the difference between Buddhism and Advaita on one hand, and faiths like Islam on the other.

Understanding the difference between Monotheism and Monism, and understanding what is sometimes called "idol worship" will take us into deeper waters, and be off-topic on this thread.

 

[toxic_pus]

Yes, you are right that Budhism did not emphasize the concept of God, however, it also did not encourage astheism. It said not to bother oneself of the existence of God, because that passive God does not bring 'Nirvana.'

But, because of this religion, people of India stopped idol worshipping of many Gods. Again, of course, worshipping Budha itself can be construed as idol worshipping. But, it was a kind of monotheism, since Budha taught people to regard him as a form of Maha Brahma.

Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul.'

'Atheism' is not believing in god, which Gautam Buddha did and preach. You are confusing 'spirituality' with 'atheism'. So better start reading on these aspects of Buddhism.

The concept of 'Brahma' itself is unique to Hinduism, and you can rest assured that Buddha didn't teach that he was 'Maha Brahma'. Anyway, can you give a citation of a Pali text that records Buddha making such a claim. I will be damned if you find one.

Last para is your usual BS.

 

[Khajur]

Yes, you are right that Budhism did not emphasize the concept of God, however, it also did not encourage astheism. It said not to bother oneself of the existence of God, because that passive God does not bring 'Nirvana.'

But, because of this religion, people of India stopped idol worshipping of many Gods. Again, of course, worshipping Budha itself can be construed as idol worshipping. But, it was a kind of monotheism, since Budha taught people to regard him as a form of Maha Brahma.

Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul.'

What non sense ??
Stop spreading BS about things u've no idea.Its a old habit that dies hard i guess.

Buddhism is about living by certain principles belief tought by Buddha like non violence and renunciation of material life to achieve the ultimatel goal of salvation or Nirvana.


Its not like one get converted to Buddism to lead a monastic life by discarding hindu drarma.

When Ashoka choose became a disiciple of a Buddist monk...he didnt say he was no more a hindu/Sanatana dharmi.No,all those Buddist monks remained within the hindu caste system though they led a life of a monk irrespectrive of caste.

It Buddist philosophy that spreaded all over india as long as the rulers gave patronage to Buddist monks and its monasteries. still today one can be a hindu and practice buddist way of life.

Its only outside india where there is no prevalence of hindusim in like countires china,japan,vietanam of East Asia where its got the satatus of a distinct religion.

" Since the concept of worshipping a 'Mono' was already deeply rooted among the Budhists, so, it was easy for them to accept Islam as their religion, where the main philosophy is 'There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His Rasul "

Wow, so they all converted to Islam and ofcourse destroyed all signs of Buddism like Stupa and monasteries from their lands.

Fact of the matter is with the muslim invasion in the middle ages ,Buddism dint get the state patronage like before to run its monasteries and educationcal centesr ran ultimately by people who were Sanata hindu dharmis by birth and slowly became extinct from india starting from current day AFPAK region.

 

[eastwatch]

A religion starts like a cult, but the followers choose to move it away further to a distinct religion. It happened to Budhism and it also happened to Sikhism. When a cult spreads and is accepted by many, it then takes the form of a distinct religion.

Your claim is unfounded that Budhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. In philosophy and in practice these two are distinct. Budhism has been allowed a forced death by the Brahmans in India, but it remains distinctly a religion in many other parts of asia.

Muslims surely did not patronage Budhism, but they are not responsible for its demise. It is the Hindu Brahmins who very fondly took care of that long before the arrival of Muslims.

 

[Khajur]

Your claim is unfounded that Budhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. In philosophy and in practice these two are distinct. Budhism has been allowed a forced death by the Brahmans in India, but it remains distinctly a religion in many other parts of asia.

Hats off to u logic... Buddism which has been flourishing for many centuries from King Ashoka to Pala dynasty till 1000AD ,started to disappear starting from the AFPAK region coinciding the muslim invasion in to india frm the west and....u say its due to the forced death by the Brahmins...and u think its the Brahmins of the AFPAK(khamboja) region who destroyed the Buddha Stupas and monasteries and then converted to islam along with the Buddists.


"Muslims surely did not patronage Budhism, but they are not responsible for its demise. It is the Hindu Brahmins who very fondly took care of that long before the arrival of Muslims. "

Hello,check out the history of pala dynasty who were chief patrons of Buddism ruled till the 900AD in AFPAK((khamboja) ) region and till 1120AD in the areas of Bengal ,Assam including current day Bangladesh .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Devapala.jpg