Buddha Head Found amid New Excavation Efforts in Gujarat, India

[padamchen]

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

Age/2 + 7 Joe.

I'm currently strongly resisting one such without the +7 ...

Cheers, Doc

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

What is this? Amateur hour?

Please man. In college, they used to come to me for hours of counseling on boy and parent troubles.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Godman]

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.

Buddhism is different from Abrahamic religions as Abrahamic religions are based on laws mainly the 10 Commandments while Buddhism is based on teachings with how to follow them entirely falling to the person.Dhamma should be open for scienctific thought and Buddha's words must never be believed blindly. Thus Buddhism tends to be more philosophical and some even debate on if it should be considered a religion

 

[Chhatrapati]

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

That's an interesting answer . I don't know if this should be considered a religious prosecution, in fact there have been conflicts between different schools of Hinduism, namely Vaishnavites and Shaivites. At times, this escalated when the King himself gets involved in the politics. Such as Chidambaram temple in TN, when the Chola king removed the Vishnu image forcibly from the temple. But the division was subtle and never went into a swordfight. There's been two different versions of this story, i.e Kulothungs Chola wasn't a sectarian King. Maybe you can clarify @Nilgiri

Partly the reason Buddhism went into decline is Adi Sankara. Who through debates defeated many prominent leaders of the time who then followed teachings of Sankara. (The one who loss usually ends up being the follower of the winner and hence a lot of them reverted/converted (politically correct term?) to Hinduism)

 

[Joe Shearer]

That's an interesting answer . I don't know if this should be considered a religious prosecution, in fact there have been conflicts between different schools of Hinduism, namely Vaishnavites and Shaivites. At times, this escalated when the King himself gets involved in the politics. Such as Chidambaram temple in TN, when the Chola king removed the Vishnu image forcibly from the temple. But the division was subtle and never went into a swordfight. There's been two different versions of this story, i.e Kulothungs Chola wasn't a sectarian King. Maybe you can clarify @Nilgiri

Partly the reason Buddhism went into decline is Adi Sankara. Who through debates defeated many prominent leaders of the time who then followed teachings of Sankara. (The one who loss usually ends up being the follower of the winner and hence a lot of them reverted/converted (politically correct term?) to Hinduism)

Almost precisely the answer I had in mind.

When Kulothunga II Chola pushed too hard (was he the same as the Kulothunga you mention?), there was an emigration of Srivaishnavites (the technically correct term) into the next door kingdom of the Hoysalas, into the kingdom of Bitti Deva, who later took the title of Vishnuvardhana. Vishnuvardhana was a Jain, it is interesting to note. Ramanujacharya stayed there for 14 years before returning (he had originally been high priest of the temple at Srirangam, the Periya Koil of the Vaishnavites).

There was no bloodshed. The Iyengars who followed him into exile settled in a number of villages and formed those who are today Hebbar Iyengars.

 

[Nilgiri]

This is a bit of a breaking down of an open door.

Essentially, the conclusion that Buddhism flourished in Gujarat over the centuries seems to be opposed to an unseen 'alternate hypothesis' that Buddhism never came to Gujarat; all right, that is extreme, let us say that the alternate hypothesis was that Buddhism was never popular in Gujarat, it might have been practised but in pockets and by stray individuals.

Such an alternate hypothesis points to a peculiarity that I have noticed about discourse on history on PDF; a tendency to move to extreme positions.

Why do people habitually assume that Hinduism and Buddhism fought with each other and there were great victories won by either system of faith over the other? If we examine the record carefully, there was nothing in Buddhism that a Hindu could not practise with a perfectly easy conscience. Buddhism didn't require the worship of a different and antagonistic god hostile to the Hindu pantheon; it did away with the need for god at all, and showed the path to salvation that could be worked out by individuals on their own. 'Salvation' needs some parsing; the reference is to salvation from the eternal cycle of rebirth, to be born on earth again and again and again and go through one life after another, sinking in one due to the misdeeds of the previous one, rising in another due to the good works of a previous one. A sort of treadmill machine for the soul.

There were 'hostile' elements; there was no longer any need to go into elaborate sacrifice rituals, and the elaborate gaggle of priests rapidly ran out of gainful occupation. There was no longer any need to go to the temple; bang went another gaggle. And finally, there was that notorious mantra,
Buddham saranam gachhami
Dhammam saranam gachhami
Sangham saranam gachhami

In essence, it called for all the rest to be forgotten, and for refuge to be taken in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. That was decidedly not ambiguous; accepting it was a final abandonment of the old way.

Conversely, there is no prevention, no bar against following the moral way shown, while not reciting the mantra of acceptance and taking refuge.

What this is leading to is that there was nothing to mark the end of one and the beginning of another. It is wrong to make a statement of the sort that Ashoka brought Buddhism to A, or B, or C region, with the air of finality that might accompany the accomplishments of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia. When Buddhism was 'brought in', nothing, and nobody was 'sent out'; the glib and superficial implication that the old way was abandoned is utterly unfounded.

Our nearest Hindu temple to where I lived in Singapore....was named after its holy tree in its premises....under it was a murti of the Buddha where all visitors would pay obeisance to and offer incense etc....in fact many Chinese would come to the temple for that.

Many people often do not comprehend the influence Jainism and Buddhism have had on Hinduism itself (and vice versa). It is well written subject in Tamil history actually.....the Hinduism we practice has not only vedic + puranic + agamic roots, but also significant grounding in Buddhism, Jainism and local Tamil folk religion (latter which includes "kantu" type of worship as referenced as far back as Pattinappalai + earliest copper plate inscriptions).

There was a great synthesis (and I only know most about it in Tamil cultural sense, but it has to be more or less the same in all other parts of subcontinent). For example, Appar, one of the great 4 (nalvar saints) was a jain monk before he merged into fold of Saivism....his works bring lot of important and different perspective because of it....and his unique simple+direct style to the verse. This is well known to even the most Secular, Agnostic, Atheist etc.. of tamil cultural scholars today.

The "conflict" between Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism (compared to the synthesis that is found) is way overblown thing that is just another material for the typical revisionism found today. Even during the height of it (Adi Shankara era)...this was overwhelmingly a debate/consensus/synthesis based approach to "defeating" the "fringes/radicals" of either side....just like Shankara had with other belief structures found within the Hinduism of the time. In fact a lot of the more violent stories sometimes referenced later are or likely are examples of revisionism (for political purposes of that time period) themselves.

There is after all reason to why we go with word "Hinduism" which is geographically oriented by its definition rather than "Vedic/Puranic" etc.

 

[Placemat]

This is a bit of a breaking down of an open door.

Essentially, the conclusion that Buddhism flourished in Gujarat over the centuries seems to be opposed to an unseen 'alternate hypothesis' that Buddhism never came to Gujarat; all right, that is extreme, let us say that the alternate hypothesis was that Buddhism was never popular in Gujarat, it might have been practised but in pockets and by stray individuals.

Such an alternate hypothesis points to a peculiarity that I have noticed about discourse on history on PDF; a tendency to move to extreme positions.

Why do people habitually assume that Hinduism and Buddhism fought with each other and there were great victories won by either system of faith over the other? If we examine the record carefully, there was nothing in Buddhism that a Hindu could not practise with a perfectly easy conscience. Buddhism didn't require the worship of a different and antagonistic god hostile to the Hindu pantheon; it did away with the need for god at all, and showed the path to salvation that could be worked out by individuals on their own. 'Salvation' needs some parsing; the reference is to salvation from the eternal cycle of rebirth, to be born on earth again and again and again and go through one life after another, sinking in one due to the misdeeds of the previous one, rising in another due to the good works of a previous one. A sort of treadmill machine for the soul.

There were 'hostile' elements; there was no longer any need to go into elaborate sacrifice rituals, and the elaborate gaggle of priests rapidly ran out of gainful occupation. There was no longer any need to go to the temple; bang went another gaggle. And finally, there was that notorious mantra,
Buddham saranam gachhami
Dhammam saranam gachhami
Sangham saranam gachhami

In essence, it called for all the rest to be forgotten, and for refuge to be taken in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. That was decidedly not ambiguous; accepting it was a final abandonment of the old way.

Conversely, there is no prevention, no bar against following the moral way shown, while not reciting the mantra of acceptance and taking refuge.

What this is leading to is that there was nothing to mark the end of one and the beginning of another. It is wrong to make a statement of the sort that Ashoka brought Buddhism to A, or B, or C region, with the air of finality that might accompany the accomplishments of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia. When Buddhism was 'brought in', nothing, and nobody was 'sent out'; the glib and superficial implication that the old way was abandoned is utterly unfounded.

You can talk history to rational people. This forum has become juvenile.

 

[Republic]

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.

Now is the time to start giving a thought again to this theory.

Actually this theory that Veda, Sankhya, Yoga and other philosophies are older than Buddhism is based on some fiction like stories which itself have no solid proof of its existence. Certainly there is no archeological proof. Nothing at all.

And that is why there are many anomalies exsits on this theory.

First of all, No inscription in Sanskrit has ever been found older than Pali, Brahmi and Aramaic. Not even of hundred or two hundred years later.

The answer which was given by proponents of antiquity of Vedas that these have been preserved through oral recitation and not in written form.
How it is possible that every thing around you is being written in inscription and you are constantly not using written form of language ?

Every puzzle is solved if you accept that Sanskrit is a pidgin language like Urdu and Hindi and is evolved after second century CE. It is a mixture of old Persian and Pali. Pali and Prakrit have not evolved from Sanskrit, it is just opposite. Sanskrit has evolved from Pali and Prakrit.

One more thing. Buddhist theology is for for older than Gautam Buddha. It goes upto Indus civilization. There are several solid archeological evidence scattered around Indian subcontinent of this fact. But Aryan historians have constantly overlooking/suppressing/intentionally misinterpreting and destroying these evidences to peddle the theory of antiquity of Vedas and other Aryan mythologies.

 

[Rusty]

@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.

I should not admit this, but I acually don't think there was mass force converstion of Buddhists. I do think there was some coersion, but that happens anytime society does a fundamental shift.

I am an educated man so I can tell the difference between actual history and facts and jingoism.
Unfortunatly, I feel I need to use jingoism against the Hindu side since that is the only language they seem to understand.

They still don't accept the aryian invasion, or the fact that Sanskrit branch of the Indo-European language bracnch (and not the origin of it).

 

[Republic]

I should not admit this, but I acually don't think there was mass force converstion of Buddhists. I do think there was some coersion, but that happens anytime society does a fundamental shift.

I am an educated man so I can tell the difference between actual history and facts and jingoism.
Unfortunatly, I feel I need to use jingoism against the Hindu side since that is the only language they seem to understand.

They still don't accept the aryian invasion, or the fact that Sanskrit branch of the Indo-European language bracnch (and not the origin of it).

Sanskrit is not an ancient language. It is a pidgin language like Urdu and Hindi.
It has attained it's classical status much much latter, around fourth and fifth century CE. Infact, most of its literature was written during British period itself and propagated as sixth and fifth century BCE literature.

 

[Arulmozhi Varman]

Accounts from the first Muslims in around the 700 AC says that the Indus was Hindu.

We know it used to be majority buddhist.
What happened?

Obviously forcibly converted to Hinduism.

Even South India had a major proportions of people belonging to Jain and Buddhism. It all started with Bhakti movement which started in ancient Tamil land and spread to the whole of India. Most of Bhakti sage philosophers were Shiva worshippers and there are lots of accounts where kings converted enmasse to Shaivism (I call it that cos there was nothing called as Hindu or Buddhist or Jains in that period. People called themselves as worshippers of this particular God. And religious practises of all there religions were basically same). There was some overzealousness in Bengal region for sometime. That's about it.

About the same time, we were receiving refugees from around the world where Islam expanded. Parsis, Syrian Christians, Jews to name a few. And guess who were they escaping.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I should not admit this, but I acually don't think there was mass force converstion of Buddhists. I do think there was some coersion, but that happens anytime society does a fundamental shift.

Oh, you should, you should, for starters, in order to build a ring-fence around yourself and distinguish yourself from the education-challenged. One bright guy,Aitzaz Ahsan, thought in depth about history, and stumbled upon a common link for all (existing) Pakistanis, and delved around and found that a reasonable hypothesis existed for supposing a commonalty among them from times immemorial. He based it on the tendency for older civilisations and cultures to grow around a major river, and the movement that it encourages. On this forum, another bright guy, @AtanZ, aka @Kaptaan, aka @Indus Pakistan, deepened it, then simplified it and reduced it to pills that could be swallowed by the less-endowed. Finally, the less-endowed swallowed these pills dutifully, and try to emulate these far better people, making a hash of it in the process.

It is at that point of their making a hash of it that I find a role. I have made no secret of the fact that I find @Indus Pakistan to be making a substantial case, with frills and trimmings that do not belong, and that he adds to address 'the box office'. It is the distortions that his acolytes stumble into that bring me out in musty old pedagogue mode.

I am an educated man so I can tell the difference between actual history and facts and jingoism.
Unfortunatly, I feel I need to use jingoism against the Hindu side since that is the only language they seem to understand.

If you talk to @Indus Pakistan, you will each find yourself able to complete the sentences started by the other. Why do you think he charges headlong into the lists, swinging his arguments like flails?

They still don't accept the aryian invasion, or the fact that Sanskrit branch of the Indo-European language bracnch (and not the origin of it).

Kindly show me the finding that Pakistan has a monopoly of morons on the sub-continent; I will be most obliged. We have our share, we are larger in number, about six times larger, and we have that number of morons more than you do.
------------------------------------------------
What you have pointed out, about major swings in political belief, and in religious belief, holds true of other transformations as well, for instance, the large swing to Islam that occurred starting from the 11th century onwards. It was driven by these two major impulses, a herd mentality in some cases, a renewal of faith in other cases, and a protest against their wretched conditions in a third set of cases. Putting numbers and percentages to these segments is a futile exercise.

 

[Tshering22]

I hate to break it to you, but there are still millions of Buddhists in India. Unfortunately, buddhism has become extinct in Pakistan and Afghanistan due to 1000 years of Muslim rule in those regions, which is very sad. It's a good thing Muslims only ruled parts of Northern India for less than 500 years, or else Buddhism would have met the same fate in India as it had in Pakistan and Buddhism.

As you can see, there are still several districts where Buddhists are the majority. How many such districts exist in Pakistan?


Buddhism simply got absorbed into Hinduism do to all the similarities they share. As I already explained, many South Asian Buddhists also incorporated Hindu practices as well. There was never any conflict between Hindus and Buddhists like there was between Hindus and Muslims.

You're preaching to someone who considers another sect's mosques as a different religion's place of worship - let alone people of other faiths.

They have been far too Arabised to know the native fabric of even their own land, and think that we are 'religions'.

Even South India had a major proportions of people belonging to Jain and Buddhism. It all started with Bhakti movement which started in ancient Tamil land and spread to the whole of India. Most of Bhakti sage philosophers were Shiva worshippers and there are lots of accounts where kings converted enmasse to Shaivism (I call it that cos there was nothing called as Hindu or Buddhist or Jains in that period. People called themselves as worshippers of this particular God. And religious practises of all there religions were basically same). There was some overzealousness in Bengal region for sometime. That's about it.

About the same time, we were receiving refugees from around the world where Islam expanded. Parsis, Syrian Christians, Jews to name a few. And guess who were they escaping.

Nailed it, Anna.

Sanskrit is not an ancient language. It is a pidgin language like Urdu and Hindi.
It has attained it's classical status much much latter, around fourth and fifth century CE. Infact, most of its literature was written during British period itself and propagated as sixth and fifth century BCE literature.

You clearly don't know the history of Sanskrit.

Nice flags there by the way.

 

[Republic]

You clearly don't know the history of Sanskrit.

Nice flags there by the way.

OK genius, then teach me.

Now tell me which is the oldest Sanskrit inscription found in the entire planet earth. Where it has been kept.

And which are the oldest Pali inscription ??
For the flags, look at my profile, go through my posts, and you will know my flags.
Hell, you will certainly even tag me a nice title.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Proof is that the remaining buddhists sided with Muslims against tutty mentality.

Nah. Don't think so.
Usually butparast people flock together.
We are the usual enemy.

There may be exceptions.

 

[Tshering22]

OK genius, then teach me.

Now tell me which is the oldest Sanskrit inscription found in the entire planet earth. Where it has been kept.

And which are the oldest Pali inscription ??
For the flags, look at my profile, go through my posts, and you will know my flags.
Hell, you will certainly even tag me a nice title.

I don't have to. You're doing it yourself.

I am not going to waste my breath on someone who thinks that Sanskrit literature was written in British era and propagated.

FYI, Mahayana sutras itself were written in Sanskrit and this was at a time when the Brits were wearing bear skins and ravaging each other like two-legged animals in tribes. Let alone the language of Sanskrit.

First of all, No inscription in Sanskrit has ever been found older than Pali, Brahmi and Aramaic. Not even of hundred or two hundred years later.

You seem to be confusing Devanagari with Sanskrit.

Sanskrit for most of its history was a verbal language - knowledge was passed down from teacher to student and onward.

If you're talking about written Devanagari, I agree that the script is not as old as Pali itself.

But to say that Sanskrit is newer than Pali as a language, sorry mate. That is incorrect.

Buddhism is different from Abrahamic religions as Abrahamic religions are based on laws mainly the 10 Commandments while Buddhism is based on teachings with how to follow them entirely falling to the person. Dhamma should be open for scienctific thought and Buddha's words must never be believed blindly. Thus Buddhism tends to be more philosophical and some even debate on if it should be considered a religion

They won't understand what this means. They are far too lost in their world, trying to interpret a ruling system into a faith system which is practically impossible.

All the Buddhas themselves said that every fact, every discussion and every source of knowledge must be tested before believing in them.

Totally agree with you on this