Nader Shah - The second Alexander

[Joe Shearer]

What is this reference to the Maha Bharat? Is it a reference to the epic, or to some historical or social domain, or political entity?

Maha Bharat as political entity never existed, after all its a myth. Im talking about @INDIC definition of Indic culture which before was anything east of Indus and now he say Afghanistan was also part of it.

There was an epic now called the Mahabharata. The reply seems to indicate that the reference is NOT to the myth. Now @INDIC is the author of this concept. What does this mean? if anything?

Further, is this about Indic culture? Indic culture, the way it is defined by those who use it, is about a composite culture which prevailed over the entire south Asian geography and points beyond, to its north-west, into Afghanistan, perhaps even further, as well as into south-east Asia, at least as far as Cambodia, with tokens of its presence occuring in the far East as well.

Indic is therefore quite right in his definition: Indic culture did prevail in Afghanistan until the overthrow of the last 'Hindu' rulers, the Shahi dynasty, by Mahmud of Ghazni. That is not to say that Indic=Hindu; merely that the last 'Indic' dynasty in control over parts of eastern Afghanistan was apparently Hindu.

Your intention in using the term 'Maha Bharata' is still not very clear.

"....Indians hate Pashtun rulers....."

rather a sweeping generalization, wouldn't it seem?

Hardly sweeping generalization, Indians hate muslim pashtuns rulers and love hindu kings who basically did the same to rule other regions in Subcontinent.

In case nobody has mentioned this before, a generalisation does not become a factual statement by it being repeated.

Punjab and Sindh was invaded by Gupta Empire, so of course it has to do with them in part but not completely.

"The decline of Buddhism in what is now Pakistan closely follows the fall of the Kushan Empire. The empire bifurcated in 225 CE, and the western half, in present-day Afghanistan, was swallowed by the Persian Sassanid empire less than a quarter century later. The eastern half, based in Punjab, survived for another 100 years before it was conquered by the Indian Gupta empire. The Central Asian Indo-Hephthalites, or White Huns as they are sometimes called, invaded Gandhara and Punjab in the late fifth and early sixth centuries, and wiped out the little that remained of the Kushans, destroying numerous Buddhist monasteries and shrines in the process."

800 years of Buddhism in Pakistan | Pak Tea House

First, as an old-timer from Pak Tea House, and as a personal friend of several of the editors, I will take the liberty of warning readers to take any historical mentions there as entertainment, other than the magisterial comments of YLH on issues relating to the Indian struggle for independence, the final negotiations, the role of Jinnah and so on.

Second, your quotation itself proves you wrong. It states clearly that it was the Ephthalites, not the Gupta Empire, that swept away the last remnants of Buddhism.

Reading your own quotations might improve your posts.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

There was an epic now called the Mahabharata. The reply seems to indicate that the reference is NOT to the myth. Now @INDIC is the author of this concept. What does this mean? if anything?

Further, is this about Indic culture? Indic culture, the way it is defined by those who use it, is about a composite culture which prevailed over the entire south Asian geography and points beyond, to its north-west, into Afghanistan, perhaps even further, as well as into south-east Asia, at least as far as Cambodia, with tokens of its presence occuring in the far East as well.


That make a lot more sense, basically by common culture one mean South Asian religions.

In case nobody has mentioned this before, a generalisation does not become a factual statement by it being repeated.

He is quite clearly portrayed as monster while other Indian kings get free pass because of religion.

First, as an old-timer from Pak Tea House, and as a personal friend of several of the editors, I will take the liberty of warning readers to take any historical mentions there as entertainment, other than the magisterial comments of YLH on issues relating to the Indian struggle for independence, the final negotiations, the role of Jinnah and so on.

Second, your quotation itself proves you wrong. It states clearly that it was the Ephthalites, not the Gupta Empire, that swept away the last remnants of Buddhism.

Reading your own quotations might improve your posts.

It clearly mention Gupta Empire, after all current day Punjabi-Sindhi Hindus are result of Gupta Empire invasion. Gupta Empire may not have destroyed it completely but conversion to Hinduism was important factor in to decline of Buddhism

 

[Joe Shearer]

I understand your question of Gandhara being important for India but not now , however it is absolutely incorrect to say that any land beyond Punjab wasn't important for ancient India. The very Mahabharat that you cited has references to almost all parts of India.

As for the Gandhara and Indic question and why they aren't a part of the Indic culture today, I will allow the more knowledgeable Mr. @Joe Shearer to answer. Sir please take this one.

For the simple reason that by conquest, the then Gandhara region, which formed part of the Shahi Kingdom, or, more accurately, the kingdom of the Shahi Dynasty, was severed from the domain of the Indic civilisation, and became part of Khurasan.

By contrast, the Shahis also lost, in stages, the areas today known as KP and Kashmir and then, Punjab, the Doab and the Gangetic Plain, along one axis. These never were severed from the rest of the cultural area of Indic civilization because they formed part of the Indian political system known as the Sultanate of Delhi.

The last reminder of Afghanistan having been part of the Indic cultural domain was the Buddha of Bamian.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It clearly mention Gupta Empire, after all current day Punjabi-Sindhi Hindus are result of Gupta Empire invasion. Gupta Empire may not have destroyed it completely but conversion to Hinduism was important factor in to decline of Buddhism

It does, in passing, and without diluting the truth, that it was the Ephthalites that destroyed Buddhism. Do read your own passage.

Current day Punjabi and Sindhi Hindus had absolutely nothing to do with the Gupta Empire. That misconception is perhaps due to the notion that Buddhism wiped out Hinduism. In fact, it did nothing of the kind, and very large tracts of south Asia saw Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism coexisting peacefully side by side. There was no overt re-conversion to Hinduism needed.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Correct,the decline of buddhism in the west was mostly because of the widespread destruction of buddhist monasteries under the hepthalites or white huns,especially under mihirkula and toramana.
As for the decline of buddhism due to conversions to hinduism has again nothing to do with the gupta age.This began in the 8th-9th century under shankaracharya who revived hinduism.

 

[Asian.Century]

 

[Joe Shearer]

What a clever idea, to revive a seven-year old thread.