Buddha Head Found amid New Excavation Efforts in Gujarat, India

[scorpionx]

Very true. Some members here believe that because most Buddhists do not worship idols, that Buddhism is exactly like Islam and Christianity. Hence they assume that like Muslims, Buddhists were at odds with the majority Hindu population. But the truth is that buddhism is nothing like the Abrahamic religions. In fact, one does not even have to believe in a deity to be a Buddhist. It is because of this that Buddhism has coexisted with Hinduism and has even been incorporated with many Hindu practices. That also explains why compared to other religions, Buddhism has been less prone to extremism. Of course, there are exceptions, as seen in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

I personally think the only reason so many Pakistani members push this narrative of Hindus persecuting Buddhists is because they want to associate Pakistan with India as little as possible. Henve they view Buddhism more favorably than Hinduism, since Hinduism is associated with modern India. So they can claim Indus Pakistan was always this unique Buddhist civilization that had nothing to do with the Hindu Ganges. Of course they conveniently forget that buddhism is a Gangetic religion or that most Buddhists in South Asia also practiced some form of Hinduism, but that is beside the point.

Just to add little to what you and @Joe Shearer Sahib have already said, in two earliest Hindu philosophies, Samkhya and Yoga which predates Buddhism by a good margin deny the existence of any conventional Hindu God. Both comes under Dualistic Philosophy (both are called Dualistic Realism)where only two absolute, Prakriti and Purusha exist. There are ample signatures of these two Philosophies in Buddhism, for example the eight fold path of Buddhism is nothing but Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga. It is a matter of extreme amusement that when people condemn Hinduism to be a Pagan or often animist one, the core foundational doctrines of these two Godless philosophies are often ignored.

But as Puranic traditions flourished in Hinduism, most probably around 50-100 AD, friction must have arisen between traditional Hindus who pressed more on ritualistic parts of the Vedas and the Buddhists who firmly stressed on the concept of void. It clearly not accelerated to persecution level, as the seeds of destruction of Buddhism was planted from inside, not by any external threat.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Do you have any proof of that? Or do you just want to convince yourself that Pakistan has had nothing to do with India or Hinduism.


I never knew you like tutti frutti so much.
And no, I have never been to Pakistan. I would like to though, since my mother's family migrated from Sindh.

Even if your family is a Hindu from Sindh, we know the realities...

Muslims and Hindus do not intermarry.

And during the British Raj days in South Asia there was much migration between the regions of Pakistan, and Republic of India.

Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Parsi, Sikh only intermarry within their communities.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Just to add little to what you and @Joe Shearer Sahib have already said, in two earliest Hindu philosophies, Samkhya and Yoga which predates Buddhism by a good margin deny the existence of any conventional Hindu God. Both comes under Dualistic Philosophy (both are called Dualistic Realism)where only two absolute, Prakriti and Purusha exist. There are ample signatures of these two Philosophies in Buddhism, for example the eight fold path of Buddhism is nothing but Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga. It is a matter of extreme amusement that when people condemn Hinduism to be a Pagan or often animist one, the core foundational doctrines of these two Godless philosophies are often ignored.

But as Puranic traditions flourished in Hinduism, most probably around 50-100 AD, friction must have arisen between traditional Hindus who pressed more on ritualistic parts of the Vedas and the Buddhists who firmly stressed on the concept of void. It clearly not accelerated to persecution level, as the seeds of destruction of Buddhism was planted from inside, not by any external threat.

The principles in the five noble truths are no different than the core principles in most Hindu texts. the only difference is most Buddhist do not worship idols, but then again idol worship is by no means mandated in Hinduism. The spread of Buddhism as we know it was largely a rejection of corrupt Brahmin practices. As a result, it mostly got re-integrated into Hinduism throughout most of South Asia. The major exception to this is Sri Lanka, and that could have something to do with the Sinhalese's historic aversion to influence from the mainland subcontinent.

It was not until Buddhism was spread to Southeastern and eastern asia by monks at Nalanda that Buddhism became a major religion as we know it today.

 

[Rusty]

Do you have any proof of that? Or do you just want to convince yourself that Pakistan has had nothing to do with India or Hinduism.


I never knew you like tutti frutti so much.
And no, I have never been to Pakistan. I would like to though, since my mother's family migrated from Sindh.

Do you have proof of mass forced converstion of Hindus to Muslims?

If Hindus can claim that muslims were forced to convert despite 80% majority Hindu, why can't we claim that Buddhists were forced to convert since there are 0% Buddhist left in the Indus valley?

I personally have nothing against Hindus or saying that my ansesters were Hindus.
My problem is with modern day toxic Hindus who have twisted history into a fairy tale of forced converstion and fantasy subjigation.

Than how do you explain the fact that Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, and Hyderabad, the only part of India ruled by Muslims for several centuries, have the most Muslims, whereas places like Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Nepal that were almost never ruled by Muslims barely have any Muslim populations?


Most Indians accept Pakistan's existance. I also understand they have had a separate identity from most of India throughout the region's history, and I respect that. But you cannot let present-day biases influence historical analysis. Such revisionism is the cause of many of our disputes. Pakistanis claiming that they have had nothing to do with Hinduism or present-day India are no different than Akhand Bharat revisionists who think everything from Afghanistan to Indonesia was one country.

You must be stupid or something becuase you have answerd your own question. Those places were ruled by Mulsim the longest so people naturally convereted. Now the fact that even in those places the majority population is still Hindu proves that there were no forced conversion.

You know where there was forced converstion?
Goa, which is Majority Christan since the Protugese forced the Hindus to become Catholic.

Again, Indians are the ones doing the revision.
No Pakistani ever denied we come from Hindus.

Hindus on the other hand claim we were forced to convert despite being 80% majority.
I just want to show a mirror to your face and show you what forced converstion actually looks like.
it looks like 0% Buddhists in Indusvalley.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So those buddhits statues, and temples found in the Indus valley must be fake.

Buddhists don't have temples, they have stupas, the structures around their equivalent of a dargah. Hindus have temples. The temples in the Indus Valley are Hindu.

It must be so nice living in a fantasy land like you people do.
No need to listen to facts, just make up things and insist it's true.

Another alternative is to read up on the archaeology and on historical records; there are ample.

FACT: Indus valley was Buddhist but by the time Muslims came, no Buddhists were to be found.

There were Buddhists in the deep south, in the Sindh, and in the north, in the hills; elsewhere, during the 9th century Hindu revival, they had been re-converted. One of the influences of this conversion was Shankaracharya, who went up and down the sub-continent, challenging the major pundits of the Buddhists to open theological debates held by the elaborate rules then prevailing. His arguments prevailed; the rulers started wondering: Buddhism is that paradox, a rational faith, and the rational arguments of Shankaracharya prevailing cut at the root of the faith of the rulers. The rulers reconverted; the people followed.

If you come and visit the Ajanta and Ellora caves, and dig up their history from any useful text, you will find that they were, in succession, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain (@jbgt90). So, too, the temple at Tirupati is seen by scholars as conversion of an originally Buddhist shrine to a Hindu temple. The priests and their followers will not readily agree to this; you have to ask the academics.

FACT: India is still majority Hindu despite 800 years of Muslim domination.

Yes, and has a Muslim population that grows and prospers, in spite of having a majority Hindu administration; the two nation theory that founded Pakistan had predicted that the Muslim population would be depleted under Hindu rule. Strangely, more Muslims died in Pakistan due to terror than died in India.

FACT: India needs more toilets.... Sorry could not help myself

Not a problem: when you gotta go, you gotta go.

Cool strawman bro.

Again, Indus valley was Buddhist until they were forced to convert to Hinduism.
When Muslims came there were only Hindus left.

Seldom, in the entire history of India until the 11th century, has there been any record of religious prosecution.

As to how many Buddhist in Pakistan? 0 because they were forced to become Hindus by the time Muslims arrived.

Please read up on Bakhtiyar Khalji's non-violent approach to the Buddhist universities at Nalanda and Odandapura.

And remember that time the whole world was reporting about the rape crisis in Pakistan?

Yeah, no, because India is rapeistan, not Pakistan.

He doesn't care about this find but is using this news to troll and spite other members.
Typical indian tutty mentality and their lame tactics

Buddhists sided with Muslims in sindh against tutty mentality.

If it isn't too gross a subject for you, please could you mention this to @Rusty, who thinks that all Buddhists had been converted back into Hinduism before the Muslims came?

 

[Rusty]

Buddhists don't have temples, they have stupas, the structures around their equivalent of a dargah. Hindus have temples. The temples in the Indus Valley are Hindu.



Another alternative is to read up on the archaeology and on historical records; there are ample.



There were Buddhists in the deep south, in the Sindh, and in the north, in the hills; elsewhere, during the 9th century Hindu revival, they had been re-converted. One of the influences of this conversion was Shankaracharya, who went up and down the sub-continent, challenging the major pundits of the Buddhists to open theological debates held by the elaborate rules then prevailing. His arguments prevailed; the rulers started wondering: Buddhism is that paradox, a rational faith, and the rational arguments of Shankaracharya prevailing cut at the root of the faith of the rulers. The rulers reconverted; the people followed.

If you come and visit the Ajanta and Ellora caves, and dig up their history from any useful text, you will find that they were, in succession, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain (@jbgt90). So, too, the temple at Tirupati is seen by scholars as conversion of an originally Buddhist shrine to a Hindu temple. The priests and their followers will not readily agree to this; you have to ask the academics.



Yes, and has a Muslim population that grows and prospers, in spite of having a majority Hindu administration; the two nation theory that founded Pakistan had predicted that the Muslim population would be depleted under Hindu rule. Strangely, more Muslims died in Pakistan due to terror than died in India.



Not a problem: when you gotta go, you gotta go.



Seldom, in the entire history of India until the 11th century, has there been any record of religious prosecution.



Please read up on Bakhtiyar Khalji's non-violent approach to the Buddhist universities at Nalanda and Odandapura.





If it isn't too gross a subject for you, please could you mention this to @Rusty, who thinks that all Buddhists had been converted back into Hinduism before the Muslims came?

You are correct, Stupas. I mispoke. Yes there are both Sutpas and Temples found in the Indus Valley.
After Muslims came there were still Hindus. But what happend to the Buddhsts before the arrival of Muslims?

Joe do you see my problem with your paragraph of "re-converte" ?
I have no problem with Buddhists being "re-converted"
I do have a problem with Hindus claiming Muslims were "forcibly convereted" and Buddhits were "re-convereted"

Hindus like to think that their poop is sunshine and rainbows and Muslims are the evil invaders.
Yet, at the end of the day 80% of India is Hindus despite 800 years of Muslim rune. And 0% of Indus valley is Buddhists after less than 400 years of Hindu rule.

I disagree with your claim that Muslims have prospered in India.
Muslims are one of the poorest demographics in India. They rutinely face communal violence.
Just yesterday news reports are coming out of violence against Kashmiri muslims in mainland India.

When Hindus carry our lynching or terrorism, they never face any such violence, but when Sikhs, Muslims or other minorities do, they face tramendous backlash.

Paksitan has no such problem. Yes, we are majority muslim, but our minorites never face a backlash from the public like they do in India.

Remember Joe, I am a reaction to millions of Hindu trolls online.
If Hindus can claim forced conversion with no evidence, then so can I.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You are correct, Stupas. I mispoke. Yes there are both Sutpas and Temples found in the Indus Valley.
After Muslims came there were still Hindus. But what happend to the Buddhsts before the arrival of Muslims?

They existed. In Sind, the Arabs received considerable support from them.

Joe do you see my problem with your paragraph of "re-converte" ?
I have no problem with Buddhists being "re-converted"
I do have a problem with Hindus claiming Muslims were "forcibly convereted" and Buddhits were "re-convereted"

Emphatically NOT my claim. I'm not prepared to wipe someone else's arse; let them handle their own lota. I'll take care of my own sunshine and rainbows.

Hindus like to think that their poop is sunshine and rainbows and Muslims are the evil invaders.

Well, the Muslims were invaders, as it happened; whether they were evil or not is a point of view. My own point of view is that before them, and they represent a religion, not an ethnicity, the Ephthalites, the Kushana, the Scytho-Parthians, the Bactrian Greeks, the Persians, the Indo-Aryan speakers themselves, all 'invaded'. Presumably each wave thought the next following wave to be evil.

Yet, at the end of the day 80% of India is Hindus despite 800 years of Muslim rune. And 0% of Indus valley is Buddhists after less than 400 years of Hindu rule.

Actually, that is not true. There are historical records of the Buddhists in Sind.

I disagree with your claim that Muslims have prospered in India.
Muslims are one of the poorest demographics in India. They rutinely face communal violence.
Just yesterday news reports are coming out of violence against Kashmiri muslims in mainland India.

That is partly true; Muslims are among the poorest demographics in India due to their professional classes having migrated en masse for Pakistan. Remember that the Muslim League was the body that represented the Muslims in general but its moving spirits were what one (Muslim) author has described as the 'salariat'. India was left with the poorest of the poor.

The second factoid that might astonish you is that a national commission on communal riots recorded its astonishment at more than half the number having been initiated by the smaller community. Muslims in India are anything but weak and subservient; I cannot, being secular and antipathetic to religious extremists myself, walk in any of these except on sufferance: the Malappuram area in Kerala; Russell Market and Johnson Market in Bengaluru; the Char Minar area in Hyderabad; Watgunge, Park Circus and Topsia in Calcutta; almost all of Malda district.

When Hindus carry our lynching or terrorism, they never face any such violence, but when Sikhs, Muslims or other minorities do, they face tramendous backlash.

In fact, the Hindus have faced a backlash, but this has become increasingly rare from the 1960s. There is no doubt that the Sangh Parivar has organised itself against Muslims on a systematic basis; the possibility of a Muslim riot is still possible, but retribution is swift and vicious.

Paksitan has no such problem. Yes, we are majority muslim, but our minorites never face a backlash from the public like they do in India.

I have no idea.

Remember Joe, I am a reaction to millions of Hindu trolls online.
If Hindus can claim forced conversion with no evidence, then so can I.

Well, I don't remember deleting your testimony from the record!!!!!

Neither @Cobra Arbok nor myself think of ourselves as trolls, we do not want any part of the trolls, and we are - I hope I may speak for @Cobra Arbok - not trolls. I despise them heartily.

 

[padamchen]

They existed. In Sind, the Arabs received considerable support from them.



Emphatically NOT my claim. I'm not prepared to wipe someone else's arse; let them handle their own lota. I'll take care of my own sunshine and rainbows.



Well, the Muslims were invaders, as it happened; whether they were evil or not is a point of view. My own point of view is that before them, and they represent a religion, not an ethnicity, the Ephthalites, the Kushana, the Scytho-Parthians, the Bactrian Greeks, the Persians, the Indo-Aryan speakers themselves, all 'invaded'. Presumably each wave thought the next following wave to be evil.



Actually, that is not true. There are historical records of the Buddhists in Sind.



That is partly true; Muslims are among the poorest demographics in India due to their professional classes having migrated en masse for Pakistan. Remember that the Muslim League was the body that represented the Muslims in general but its moving spirits were what one (Muslim) author has described as the 'salariat'. India was left with the poorest of the poor.

The second factoid that might astonish you is that a national commission on communal riots recorded its astonishment at more than half the number having been initiated by the smaller community. Muslims in India are anything but weak and subservient; I cannot, being secular and antipathetic to religious extremists myself, walk in any of these except on sufferance: the Malappuram area in Kerala; Russell Market and Johnson Market in Bengaluru; the Char Minar area in Hyderabad; Watgunge, Park Circus and Topsia in Calcutta; almost all of Malda district.



In fact, the Hindus have faced a backlash, but this has become increasingly rare from the 1960s. There is no doubt that the Sangh Parivar has organised itself against Muslims on a systematic basis; the possibility of a Muslim riot is still possible, but retribution is swift and vicious.



I have no idea.



Well, I don't remember deleting your testimony from the record!!!!!

Neither @Cobra Arbok nor myself think of ourselves as trolls, we do not want any part of the trolls, and we are - I hope I may speak for @Cobra Arbok - not trolls. I despise them heartily.

Finally.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Rusty]

They existed. In Sind, the Arabs received considerable support from them.



Emphatically NOT my claim. I'm not prepared to wipe someone else's arse; let them handle their own lota. I'll take care of my own sunshine and rainbows.



Well, the Muslims were invaders, as it happened; whether they were evil or not is a point of view. My own point of view is that before them, and they represent a religion, not an ethnicity, the Ephthalites, the Kushana, the Scytho-Parthians, the Bactrian Greeks, the Persians, the Indo-Aryan speakers themselves, all 'invaded'. Presumably each wave thought the next following wave to be evil.



Actually, that is not true. There are historical records of the Buddhists in Sind.



That is partly true; Muslims are among the poorest demographics in India due to their professional classes having migrated en masse for Pakistan. Remember that the Muslim League was the body that represented the Muslims in general but its moving spirits were what one (Muslim) author has described as the 'salariat'. India was left with the poorest of the poor.

The second factoid that might astonish you is that a national commission on communal riots recorded its astonishment at more than half the number having been initiated by the smaller community. Muslims in India are anything but weak and subservient; I cannot, being secular and antipathetic to religious extremists myself, walk in any of these except on sufferance: the Malappuram area in Kerala; Russell Market and Johnson Market in Bengaluru; the Char Minar area in Hyderabad; Watgunge, Park Circus and Topsia in Calcutta; almost all of Malda district.



In fact, the Hindus have faced a backlash, but this has become increasingly rare from the 1960s. There is no doubt that the Sangh Parivar has organised itself against Muslims on a systematic basis; the possibility of a Muslim riot is still possible, but retribution is swift and vicious.



I have no idea.



Well, I don't remember deleting your testimony from the record!!!!!

Neither @Cobra Arbok nor myself think of ourselves as trolls, we do not want any part of the trolls, and we are - I hope I may speak for @Cobra Arbok - not trolls. I despise them heartily.

Agiain, if they did exist, they were small in numbers. They used to be a large popualtion of them, then over the course of a few hundread years of Hindu rule they mostly vanished.

You know who else invaded? The indo-European (Aryans) who brought what would be come Sanskrit and developed Hinduism.
If you want to look at the world through invaion, then no one is safe. Only true indiginous peoples are the Anamists tribal peoples and the sentalanies. Everyone else is an invader. Just because your people invaded first, doesn't make the following invasions more or less evil.


If what you are saying about Muslims in India is true then that means that India has failed to incorporate them into thier fabric of society. No-go zones are indicative of failure of governemnts and societies, not minorities.

As for trolls. When 9/11 happend the world rightly asked Muslims to rein in their crazy people. Which we have done (youtube countless imams condemning terrorism).

Now there are millions of Indian trolls advocating the most heines of things from rapes to genocides.
It is your duty as sane Indians to publicly condemn these people and show the world that they do not represent India.

(To be fair, I did see one Indian condemn them, one time and that was on reddit)

 

[Joe Shearer]

Agiain, if they did exist, they were small in numbers. They used to be a large popualtion of them, then over the course of a few hundread years of Hindu rule they mostly vanished.

Let's look at personalities, dates and numbers.

The spread of Buddhism was restricted to east India, Magadha and its surrounding states, for the first two to three hundred years, roughly, 600 BC to 300 BC. Chandragupta came to rule in 320 BC or so, roughly five years after Alexander came through. The sequence and the circumstances of their rule is fascinating.

1. Chandragupta - (r) 320 BC to 293 BC - religion probably Hindu to start with, claimed to be Jaina in Jain scripture; Indus Valley controlled by him, but no propagation of any faith known to have been done by him. They stayed Hindu.
2. Bindusara -(r) 293 BC to 272 BC - religion probably Ajivika; no known record of promotion of religion;
3. Ashoka - (r) 272 BC to 232 BC - religion originally not known; converted to Buddhism in 262 BC; promoted the faith vigorously.
4. Brihadratha (last Maurya King) - (r) 187 BC to 180 BC; succeeded by revivalist Shunga dynasty, who did not rule over the Indus Valley.

So Buddhism began to be preached in the Indus Valley only around 250 BC; it is worth estimating what effect such preaching might have had beginning in this year, until such preaching ceased to have official support, that is, certainly no later than 180 BC. A maximum of 70 years, and in the state that portions of the empire were lost to the invasion of the Bactrian Greeks even earlier than 180 BC.

1. CONCLUSION 1: PREACHING OF BUDDHISM BY STATE-SUPPORTED MISSIONARIES BEGAN NO EARLIER THAN 250 BC.
2. CONCLUSION 2: PREACHING OF BUDDHISM BY STATE-SUPPORTED MISSIONARIES SPONSORED BY THE MAURYA EMPIRE ENDED NO LATER THAN 180 BC.

TO BE CONTINUED.....

You know who else invaded? The indo-European (Aryans) who brought what would be come Sanskrit and developed Hinduism.

#37 LINE 6

If you want to look at the world through invaion, then no one is safe. Only true indiginous peoples are the Anamists tribal peoples and the sentalanies. Everyone else is an invader. Just because your people invaded first, doesn't make the following invasions more or less evil.

If what you are saying about Muslims in India is true then that means that India has failed to incorporate them into thier fabric of society. No-go zones are indicative of failure of governemnts and societies, not minorities.

Yes, and no. An oppressive regime would have had these no-go zones under the jackboot.

As for trolls. When 9/11 happend the world rightly asked Muslims to rein in their crazy people. Which we have done (youtube countless imams condemning terrorism).

Now there are millions of Indian trolls advocating the most heines of things from rapes to genocides.
It is your duty as sane Indians to publicly condemn these people and show the world that they do not represent India.

(To be fair, I did see one Indian condemn them, one time and that was on reddit)

What about us, and the countless furious battles that we have had with khaki chaddis? All in full view of yourselves as witnesses, usually neutral, sometimes supportive, sometimes also (thankfully seldom) jeering and mocking both sides?

One of them is right here. Ask @padamchen about the time when he broke ranks with my tormentors and supported me.

It hasn't been easy, but it has been done. Right here.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Rusty

I hope you will notice that I am carefully avoiding contradicting any point you have made, directly, and am instead putting up the facts before you, in the fairly certain belief that these, presented the way I have, will persuade you to review your conclusions.

Much of the difference in positions between you and @Cobra Arbok seems to me to be due to divergences in information. I am addressing those divergences.

 

[padamchen]

One of them is right here. Ask @padamchen about the time when he broke ranks with my tormentors and supported me.

It hasn't been easy, but it has been done. Right here.

I'm a misunderstood boy. Currently doing battle with all the chicks of my batch who are after my blood.

Some cute ones are reaching out to me in private ...

It happens.

One cannot live in fear.

One cannot live for others.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm a misunderstood boy. Currently doing battle with all the chicks of my batch who are after my blood.

Some cute ones are reaching out to me in private ...

It happens.

One cannot live in fear.

One cannot live for others.

Cheers, Doc

Surrender, Doc.

No use struggling against such odds.

 

[padamchen]

Surrender, Doc.

No use struggling against such odds.

Please man.

My wife simply rolls her eyes.

She knows a fight is what I live for.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm a misunderstood boy. Currently doing battle with all the chicks of my batch who are after my blood.

Some cute ones are reaching out to me in private ...

It happens.

One cannot live in fear.

One cannot live for others.

Cheers, Doc

Ah, while you're at it, please remind jbgt90 about the significance of your formula
Age/2 + 10
It kinda resonates with me.

Please man.

My wife simply rolls her eyes.

She knows a fight is what I live for.

Cheers, Doc

DON'T fight it. Geez, what a loser who refuses to lose.