Nalanda University reopens after hundreds of years!

[Sriram]

Well, I do not know what kind of priests you have met, but most of the Buddhist monasteries were being taken care of by Brahmin priests including the Maha Bodhi shrine before the neo-Buddhist Ambedkarites wrested control of the sites in 1992.

U have to ask them, from my interactions they seemed critical of him..

Buddha is a reformist, Hinduism minus all the cobwebs accumulated during its history.. I sometime wish India was fully buddhist so that caste system and its history of discrimination dies out..

 

[chand ch]

The whole library of nalanda university was fired for eleven long days by an islamic ruler because it doesn't have a quran in it. He is really unwise at this. Atlast we we reclaimed our glory to the world. Thanks to APJ Abdul kalam a wise scientist today

 

[Indrani]

@Indrani should have used the word agnostics instead of atheists;Hindus who are into spirituality(educated ones)mostly are philosophical. The curiosity in philosophy starts with bhagavadgita;engaging in philosophy is not unproductive;it brings in a lot of peace irrespective of the fact whether one believes in God or not.

I used both. A lot of PDF Indians claim to be atheists which is what I pointed at. Also I said a lot of practicing Hindus are agnostic.

 

[DarkSeid]

If i am correct, Sri Lanka was pivotal in the spread of Thervada Buddhism throughout most South East Asia. I think there are cultural affinities between Sri Lankan Thervada Buddhism with those of past south east asian empires such as: the Sri Vijaya Empire, Majapahit Empire, Khmer Empire, Champa Empire, Kingdom of Sukkothai, Kingdom of Lan Xang, Kingdom of Ayudhaya, Burmese Tongou Empire et al. Since most of these sovereign states/ empires had adopted a Buddhist philosophy after supplanting Hinduism.

Yes, we had a great relationship with South East Asia in history. That friendship continues to flourish even today. Hope, in future too. You can find more information about SL's role behind the spreading of Buddhism from following article. It's sad that we can't find many/any South East Asians (Thai, Burma, Laos, Cambodian) here.
Sri Lanka's role in the spread of Buddhism in South East Asia

 

[dravidianhero]

That is exactly the point, co-existing does not mean that you would have no difference of opinion at all. Even in a family of 5 all 5 may have different view points on any subject matter, does not make them rivals. Arguments and debates are the very essence of an intellectual society where every view point is critically looked at. Do you call a science symposium a meeting of rivals and of bad faith? Of course the way Shankaracharya went about was to intellectually debate with people around, if they could defeat him intellectually, he would have converted to Buddhism. It was not a one-way street. They had the intellectual honesty to concede and agree when they lost the debate. This is being in good terms.

How can that be compared to the intolerance of Abrahamic faiths?

Hmm,I got your point but isn't it true that shaivaites and vaishnavas were at each others throats even until recently?then isnt it reasonable to think that brahmans were violent towards Buddhists too when buddhism didn't have royal patronage?

 

[Indrani]

U have to ask them, from my interactions they seemed critical of him..

Buddha is a reformist, Hinduism minus all the cobwebs accumulated during its history.. I sometime wish India was fully Buddhist so that caste system and its history of discrimination dies out..

Well then you are not meeting the right kind. Buddha may or may not have been a reformer considering 99% of the philosophical base of Hinduism and Buddhism are same and how the people of these 2 faiths practice it is also similar as has been proved by this thread even to this date.

There were many many reformers in Hinduism all along since Hinduism is not a static religion.

 

[Aepsilons]

Yes, we had a great relationship with South East Asia in history. That friendship continues to flourish even today. Hope, in future too. You can find more information about SL's role behind the spreading of Buddhism from following article. It's sad that we can't find many/any South East Asians (Thai, Burma, Laos, Cambodian) here.
Sri Lanka's role in the spread of Buddhism in South East Asia

There are some: @somsak , @Angkorianwarrior , @Viet , @xesy , @Battle of Bach Dang River , @Indos , @madokafc , @nufix , @Reashot Xigwin , @Cambodia Spirit , @burmese python, @Ayan81 , @Zero_wing , @JayMandan

 

[Indrani]

Hmm,I got your point but isn't it true that shaivaites and vaishnavas were at each others throats even until recently?then isnt it reasonable to think that brahmans were violent towards Buddhists too when buddhism didn't have royal patronage?

No it never got to the point where they were killing each other or looting each other. Show me the cities and villages of Shaivas burnt down by the Vaishnavas and vice versa. A lot of misinformation was spread by the Marxists Indians to belabor the point that Hindus were barbarians and it is only with coming of Islam civilization came to India.

 

[DarkSeid]

How?

Agnosticism: "I don't think so. I don't think in
that way or otherwise. I don't think not or not not."
Suspension of judgement.

“Chethanaham bikkawe kamman wadami.
Chethaithwa kamman karothi kayena wachaya manasa”

Dear Bikkhus, I introduce thought as karma. It is after having thought that we engage in action physically, verbally and mentally.
( Nibbedhika sutraya)

 

[Indrani]

Agnosticism: "I don't think so. I don't think in
that way or otherwise. I don't think not or not not."
Suspension of judgement.

It is being open minded until having incontrovertible proof. They do not reject anything either. So there is no not going to the temple or there is no not following science either.

 

[Indischer]

Hmm,I got your point but isn't it true that shaivaites and vaishnavas were at each others throats even until recently?then isnt it reasonable to think that brahmans were violent towards Buddhists too when buddhism didn't have royal patronage?

Whoa! Haven't come across a single instance of Shaivite-Vaishnavite violence so far. Can you provide a few instances? Vaishnavites and Shaivites were at each other's customs and practices maybe(still are in some places), but certainly not at each other's throats!

 

[dravidianhero]

Well, if they weren't coexisting peacefully, you wouldn't have those lengthy debates which Shankara apparently won, would you?

Those peaceful debates might have taken place when Buddhism had royal patronage but as soon as it ceased the brahmins might have started using violence to take revenge in Buddhists whose philosophy deprived them of their previous status.That may or may not be the case but there was a possibility.so to dismiss someone's claims of brahmans harassing Buddhists is not so fair.That argument indeed has solid case

 

[Indrani]

then isnt it reasonable to think that brahmans were violent towards Buddhists too when buddhism didn't have royal patronage?

Also you need to consider this that the patronage was being provided in the first place by Hindu kings who were advised by their Brahmin priests. This was not for a short course of time but for hundreds of years. The waning of those empires themselves could have been the reason for the discontinuance of patronage.

Whoa! Haven't come across a single instance of Shaivite-Vaishnavite violence so far. Can you provide a few instances? Vaishnavites and Shaivites were at each other's customs and practices maybe(still are in some places), but certainly not at each other's throats!

What they will present is the Naga babas of various akharas fighting for the prime slot on the bathing ghats at Varanasi as a sign of intolerance.

 

[Indischer]

Those peaceful debates might have taken place when Buddhism had royal patronage but as soon as it ceased the brahmins might have started using violence to take revenge in Buddhists whose philosophy deprived them of their previous status.That may or may not be the case but there was a possibility.so to dismiss someone's claims of brahmans harassing Buddhists is not so fair.That argument indeed has solid case

So with NO proof that Brahmins started killing Buddhists when royal patronage ended, you're ready to believe in the story.

In case you didn't notice, Shankaracharya winning debates against Buddhist scholars meant that Brahmins were capable of preserving their importance and role in society through their intellect too.

 

[dravidianhero]

Also you need to consider this that the patronage was being provided in the first place by Hindu kings who were advised by their Brahmin priests. This was not for a short course of time but for hundreds of years. The waning of those empires themselves could have been the reason for the discontinuance of patronage.

Roman kings converted to Christianity long time after people first started converting.later on those very kings contributed to the spread of christianity;why couldn't the same have happened in case of Buddhism?