What's new

Disappearance of Buddhism from "Non Violent India": An Untold Story

Status
Not open for further replies.
Buddhism is unable to gain popularity in India, mainly due to two reasons:-

FIRSTLY, People realised that, in this era of EXTREMISM.....a non-violent religion like BUDDHISM has no chance of survival.......
The BUDDHISTS learnt their lesson from history well.......

SECONDLY,All religions of the world originated from Hinduism........
Therefore it is quite illogical to practice any other religion.......
Lord Buddha is also regarded as an AVATAR of Lord Vishnu.......
People realized this.....hence the so called "decline" of Buddhism in India......
Even, sensible MUSLIMS in India and all over the world are adopting Hinduism after realizing their "mistake" ;)
lord budha as avtar of vishnu is just a stupid manipulation by puranics....it is better for hindus to not believe in this....it is highly stupid and ridicules budhism which actually does not believe in theory of god(creator)
 
.
:wave:Most historians and scholars agree to the fact that Buddhism was already on the verge of extinction when the Islamic invasions took place and these invasions did no good to this religion. Islam was a late entrant into India, and Buddhism was showing unmistakable signs of its decline long before Islam became established in the Gangetic plains, central India, and the northern end of present-day Andhra and Karnataka.During the Muslim Invasion, Bengal and Sind were ruled by Brahminical dynasties but had Buddhist majorities. Buddhism was in a state of decline by that time.The lower caste and outcaste Hindus, who had recently taken refuge in Buddhism, were again subjected to discrimination by the upper caste Hindus.

By the time Islam came to sub contient, Buddhism was only confined in Bengal. After the last emperor Mahipal of Pala dynasty the bengal completely gone under Senas (orthodox hindu). There were force conversion to Hinduism was widespread in the name of purification.
The time Khilji invaded Bengal, it was believed that the population was split 50/50 between Hindus and Buddhist. Buddhist had no social and political standing that time. Buddhist just took Islamic invasion an opportunity and all converted to Islam.
 
.
don't confuse ashoka's conversion only with grief of killing people...read the book link above...
jainism(ajivika and nirgrantha) was extremely non violent than budhism and was present since long before budhism...then why did ashoka choose budhism??(read that page in the book)

ashoka is also called as strong protector of sangha who showed no mercy to those who offended budha and budhism...so the kiiling of ajivikas and nirgranthas..
OK!

Even if we assume that.......a person who adopted BUDDHISM after realizing the futility behind killing people.....again does the same mistake.(sounds quite illogical though).

BUT, if he did kill people after converting to BUDDHISM....then he wasn't a real follower of Lord BUDDHA, as BUDDHA'S teachings do not support violence at all........

Therefore you cannot term the entire religion as violent, on the basis of individual act.
 
.
Buddhism is unable to gain popularity in India, mainly due to two reasons:-

SECONDLY,All religions of the world originated from Hinduism........
Therefore it is quite illogical to practice any other religion.......
Lord Buddha is also regarded as an AVATAR of Lord Vishnu.......
People realized this.....hence the so called "decline" of Buddhism in India......
Even, sensible MUSLIMS in India and all over the world are adopting Hinduism after realizing their "mistake" ;)

And Indians try to convince Pakistanis that we are religious bigots ? :what:
 
.
Loool! Bullcr*p!

Why talk about something you don't know nothing about? Technically speaking every Vaishnav Hindu (Majority of North Indians) is Buddhist since, Lord Buddha is ninth avatar of the supreme being Lord Vishnu!!!

And strong-hold of Buddhism was Afghanistan, Balochistan, Parts of Iran, Fata, Central Asia, East Asia and South East Asia like Indonesia and all while sub-continent was predominantly Hindu.

But given the fact that Buddhism is even more liberal and tolerant than Hinduism, it slowly faded after the arrival of Islamic invaders in these areas.
 
.
OK!

Even if we assume that.......a person who adopted BUDDHISM after realizing the futility behind killing people.....again does the same mistake.(sounds quite illogical though).

BUT, if he did kill people after converting to BUDDHISM....then he wasn't a real follower of Lord BUDDHA, as BUDDHA'S teachings do not support violence at all........

Therefore you cannot term the entire religion as violent, on the basis of individual act.

Ashoka was a buddhist ruler. He was not the Buddha himself. He needed to kill to run his empire.
 
.
OK!

Even if we assume that.......a person who adopted BUDDHISM after realizing the futility behind killing people.....again does the same mistake.(sounds quite illogical though).

BUT, if he did kill people after converting to BUDDHISM....then he wasn't a real follower of Lord BUDDHA, as BUDDHA'S teachings do not support violence at all........

Therefore you cannot term the entire religion as violent, on the basis of individual act.

i do not agree that ashoka converted to budhism solely because he thought it was non-violent...it also had to do with rise of brahminism....i did not mean whole budhism in violent...but ashoka portrayed it like that....if you still do not believe then read ashokavadna...which is like his biography and part of divyavadana...
 
.
Loool! Bullcr*p!

Why talk about something you don't know nothing about? Technically speaking every Vaishnav Hindu (Majority of North Indians) is Buddhist since, Lord Buddha is ninth avatar of the supreme being Lord Vishnu!!!

And strong-hold of Buddhism was Afghanistan, Balochistan, Parts of Iran, Fata, Central Asia, East Asia and South East Asia like Indonesia and all while sub-continent was predominantly Hindu.

But given the fact that Buddhism is even more liberal and tolerant than Hinduism, it slowly faded after the arrival of Islamic invaders in these areas.

Budhism is not about god...it is about suffering....saying that lord budha is avtar is great insult to lord budha...and have you ever read why puranics called budha as avtar?? just search on net...
 
.
Hinduism IS the only oldest organised religion still practiced on earth. Unlike other religions, it is not only a set of written dogmatic beliefs but a way of life for its followers, the Hindus.
This 'way of life' a.k.a Hinduism was widespread, it not only included modern day Pakistan but Afghanistan as well.

Hundreds of years before the Muslims invaded India, Buddhism was formed out of Hinduism(Lord Buddha was the son of a Hindu king-Suddhodana) and if Hindus persecuted Buddhists then it could not have spread so far and wide throughout India where Hinduism already prevailed.....from Buddha's birth place Lumbini(modern day Nepal) to Afghanistan(the presence of Buddha statues-destroyed by Talibans in Bamiyan-Afghanistan is the proof).

It is the Muslims who persecuted thousands of Hindus and Buddhists when they first invaded India from the north-east.
They totally wiped out the Hindus and Buddhists in those areas (there is a mountain named HINDU KUSH in Afganistan- - - -acc. to Persian-English dictionary, A Practical Dictionary of the Persian Language, by J.A.Boyle, Luzac & Co., p.129, 1949) indicates that the word 'Kush' is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. Kush related to the verb Koshtan meaning to kill. In Urdu, the word Khud-kushi means act of killing oneself (khud - self, Kushi- act of killing). Hindu Kush means "slaughter of Hindus", referring to the genocide committed by Islamic invaders.)They continued their invasion towards central India and in the process killings thousands of Buddhists and Hindus. The Buddhists, being non-violent were completely wiped out from these areas, the Hindu kings proved somewhat more resistant in eastern and southern India and they survived the Muslim onslaught, thus helping Buddhism from total extinction in eastern and southern regions of India, consequently from the eastern region, Buddhism spread to countries like china, japan etc and from southern India it spread to countries like Sri-lanka etc.

So you see, who were the actual killers!!!!!!
 
.
By the time Islam came to sub contient, Buddhism was only confined in Bengal. After the last emperor Mahipal of Pala dynasty the bengal completely gone under Senas (orthodox hindu). There were force conversion to Hinduism was widespread in the name of purification.
The time Khilji invaded Bengal, it was believed that the population was split 50/50 between Hindus and Buddhist. Buddhist had no social and political standing that time. Buddhist just took Islamic invasion an opportunity and all converted to Islam.


LOOOOOOOOOL That was the funniest and most ridiculous thing (at the same time) I've ever heard! I know you're doing it to justify your forefathers' conversion but it's not true!

Buddhists were never forcefully converted to Hinduism!! Show me one source to back up your false allegation and I'd eat my hat!!! Hindus/Buddhists always got along since the time of Ashoka! Buddhism is believed to be an offshoot of mainstream Vaishnav Hinduism. We pray to the same god! How can we forcefully convert Buddhist? It is believed to be a more liberal form of Hinduism!

If anything dalit leaders (most notably Ambedakar) appealed all the dalits to convert to Buddhism in the mid-20th century since it is the same religion but caste doesn't play major role in Buddhism. You're telling me Hindus and Buddhists hated each other, Buddhists were forcefully converted and a Buddhist is more likely to convert to Islam than to Hinduism (btw did you know that Buddhists don't need to convert to Hinduism? They're classed as Hindus legally and by public as well. We don't think Buddhism is any different from Hinduism and it's not just me ask Buddhist as well. They'll tell you the same.) Buddhism was especially vulnerable to Islamic invaders because it lacked strong roots in society as most of its adherents were ascetic communities. That's the reason why Buddhism declined in the world.

In attempt to justify your forefathers' forced conversion (probably they were afraid of execution) doesn't mean you'd put wrong allegations. :)
 
.
Budhism is not about god...it is about suffering....saying that lord budha is avtar is great insult to lord budha...and have you ever read why puranics called budha as avtar?? just search on net...

Mate I think you're the one who needs to do his research.

Dasavatar%2C_19th_century.jpg


See ninth avatar as Bhagawan Buddha!!

Gautama Buddha in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dashavatara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lumbini (the place where Bhagawan Buddha was born) is also a holy shrine for us Hindus as much as it is to Buddhists.
 
.
Hinduism IS the only oldest organised religion still practiced on earth. Unlike other religions, it is not only a set of written dogmatic beliefs but a way of life for its followers, the Hindus.
This 'way of life' a.k.a Hinduism was widespread, it not only included modern day Pakistan but Afghanistan as well.

Hundreds of years before the Muslims invaded India, Buddhism was formed out of Hinduism(Lord Buddha was the son of a Hindu king-Suddhodana) and if Hindus persecuted Buddhists then it could not have spread so far and wide throughout India where Hinduism already prevailed.....from Buddha's birth place Lumbini(modern day Nepal) to Afghanistan(the presence of Buddha statues-destroyed by Talibans in Bamiyan-Afghanistan is the proof).

It is the Muslims who persecuted thousands of Hindus and Buddhists when they first invaded India from the north-east.
They totally wiped out the Hindus and Buddhists in those areas (there is a mountain named HINDU KUSH in Afganistan- - - -acc. to Persian-English dictionary, A Practical Dictionary of the Persian Language, by J.A.Boyle, Luzac & Co., p.129, 1949) indicates that the word 'Kush' is derived from the verb Kushtar - to slaughter or carnage. Kush related to the verb Koshtan meaning to kill. In Urdu, the word Khud-kushi means act of killing oneself (khud - self, Kushi- act of killing). Hindu Kush means "slaughter of Hindus", referring to the genocide committed by Islamic invaders.)They continued their invasion towards central India and in the process killings thousands of Buddhists and Hindus. The Buddhists, being non-violent were completely wiped out from these areas, the Hindu kings proved somewhat more resistant in eastern and southern India and they survived the Muslim onslaught, thus helping Buddhism from total extinction in eastern and southern regions of India, consequently from the eastern region, Buddhism spread to countries like china, japan etc and from southern India it spread to countries like Sri-lanka etc.

So you see, who were the actual killers!!!!!!

Did you write it???
The chronology just does not adds up specially the later part of the paragraph.

First, Buddhism is not non violent. Buddhist kings built the biggest military in India and till today Indias current soldier strength could not match the army of Dharma Pala. There were constant fighting between Buddhist and Hindu kings throughout the history. Senas did not take over Palas non violently.

By the time Islam came, in none of the places Buddhist were ruling. It was all Hindus who were ruling India. So fight between Muslims and Buddhist are totally out of context and irrelevant. Buddhist were kicked out of political arena before Islam even set foot in India. By that time, Buddhism almost extinct from Northern and central India and only surviving Buddhist were at the eastern bank of Ganga which were immuned to invasion due to Ganga.

The author also tried to suggest that eastern Indian Buddhist spread Buddhism to south east asia after driven out of easter India which is very laughable. It was Pala dyanasty who were responsible for spreading Buddhism to far east.

The most funniest thing of all, Souther Indian buddhist gone to Srilanka to save their a$$ from Muslims. When did Muslim invaded sothern India? And the Buddhist Sinhalis resembles more to Bengalis than Tamil of south. By the way Srilankan Tamils are Hindus.
 
.
Mate I think you're the one who needs to do his research.

Dasavatar%2C_19th_century.jpg


See ninth avatar as Bhagawan Buddha!!

Gautama Buddha in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dashavatara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lumbini (the place where Bhagawan Buddha was born) is also a holy shrine for us Hindus as much as it is to Buddhists.

ok then ask any other budhist if he/she believes that lord budha is avtar of lord vishnu..

mohanārthaṃ dānavānāṃ bālarūpī pathi-sthitaḥ । putraṃ taṃ kalpayām āsa mūḍha-buddhir jinaḥ svayam ॥
tataḥ saṃmohayām āsa jinādyān asurāṃśakān । bhagavān vāgbhir ugrābhir ahiṃsā-vācibhir hariḥ ॥
—attributed to Brahmanda Purana, quoted in Bhāgavatatātparya by Madhva, 1.3.28

Translation: To delude the demons, he [Lord Buddha] stood on the path in the form of a child. The foolish Jina (a demon), imagined him to be his son. Thus the lord Sri Hari [as avatara-buddha] expertly deluded Jina and other demons by his strong words of non-violence.

this is utter crap and insult to budhists....

=====================================================================
B. R. Ambedkar, who revived Buddhism in India, denied that Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu. Among the 22 vows he gave to the neo-Buddhists, the 5th vow is "I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.
=====================================================================
 
.
LOOOOOOOOOL That was the funniest and most ridiculous thing (at the same time) I've ever heard! I know you're doing it to justify your forefathers' conversion but it's not true!

Buddhists were never forcefully converted to Hinduism!! Show me one source to back up your false allegation and I'd eat my hat!!! Hindus/Buddhists always got along since the time of Ashoka! Buddhism is believed to be an offshoot of mainstream Vaishnav Hinduism. We pray to the same god! How can we forcefully convert Buddhist? It is believed to be a more liberal form of Hinduism!

If anything dalit leaders (most notably Ambedakar) appealed all the dalits to convert to Buddhism in the mid-20th century since it is the same religion but caste doesn't play major role in Buddhism. You're telling me Hindus and Buddhists hated each other, Buddhists were forcefully converted and a Buddhist is more likely to convert to Islam than to Hinduism (btw did you know that Buddhists don't need to convert to Hinduism? They're classed as Hindus legally and by public as well. We don't think Buddhism is any different from Hinduism and it's not just me ask Buddhist as well. They'll tell you the same.) Buddhism was especially vulnerable to Islamic invaders because it lacked strong roots in society as most of its adherents were ascetic communities. That's the reason why Buddhism declined in the world.

In attempt to justify your forefathers' forced conversion (probably they were afraid of execution) doesn't mean you'd put wrong allegations. :)

I was talking about the history. You dont need to be personal. The rest of your posts are just blahblahblah... and shows your mere insecurity and frustration. Does ot deserve a reply.
 
.
Did you write it???
The chronology just does not adds up specially the later part of the paragraph.

First, Buddhism is not non violent. Buddhist kings built the biggest military in India and till today Indias current soldier strength could not match the army of Dharma Pala. There were constant fighting between Buddhist and Hindu kings throughout the history. Senas did not take over Palas non violently.

By the time Islam came, in none of the places Buddhist were ruling. It was all Hindus who were ruling India. So fight between Muslims and Buddhist are totally out of context and irrelevant. Buddhist were kicked out of political arena before Islam even set foot in India. By that time, Buddhism almost extinct from Northern and central India and only surviving Buddhist were at the eastern bank of Ganga which were immuned to invasion due to Ganga.

The author also tried to suggest that eastern Indian Buddhist spread Buddhism to south east asia after driven out of easter India which is very laughable. It was Pala dyanasty who were responsible for spreading Buddhism to far east.

The most funniest thing of all, Souther Indian buddhist gone to Srilanka to save their a$$ from Muslims. When did Muslim invaded sothern India? And the Buddhist Sinhalis resembles more to Bengalis than Tamil of south. By the way Srilankan Tamils are Hindus.
Then how would you explain the existance of great Buddhist Monasteries/Universities(Nalanda and Takshashila) during the rule of HINDU kings in the Indian subcontinent?????????
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom