Oldest Buddhist shrine holds clues to Buddha's birth

[Nassr]

Ashoka is praised as much because without his patronage, Buddhism might not have survived and spread far and wide (and found newer safe havens). His children, Mahendra and Sangamitra, spread it to Sri Lanka while the many Bhikshus and ambassadors sent by Ashoka propagated Buddhism to China,Persia,Greece, Egypt, South East Asia etc. How do you think this would happen without the patronage of someone as Politically powerful as Ashoka? Similar movements like Charvak and Ajivika died out for lack of State patronage.

Besides this, isn't it for similar reasons that prophet Muhammad is revered today? He not only preached Islam, but led conquests, united the Arabian tribes and helped Islam spread, didn't he?

Agreed.

 

[Indischer]

It is interesting for me how majority of Sri Lankans are buddhist and not hindu. I guess Sri Lankans are the the only major ethnic group of south indian subcontinent who are not hindu.

They were Hindu once. They converted to Buddhism after Ashoka's children brought the message of the Buddha to the island. But while the Indian mainland saw the resurgence of Hinduism in the 4-5th Century AD under Hindu kings, Sri Lanka had a Buddhist king and hence bypassed it to remain Buddhist.

 

[rmi5]

Thanks @Azizam , @Indischer

 

[Azizam]

They were Hindu once. They converted to Buddhism after Ashoka's children brought the message of the Buddha to the island. But while the Indian mainland saw the resurgence of Hinduism in the 4-5th Century AD under Hindu kings, Sri Lanka had a Buddhist king and hence bypassed it to remain Buddhist.

Religion in pre-Buddhist Sri Lanka is uncertain even up to this point. Why are you lying?

 

[Nassr]

What do you have to say about this?
An excerpt from “History Of Magadha” by L.L.S. Omalley; J.F.W. James (Veena Publication, Delhi, 2005, pp. 35: “ The Buddhism of Magadha was finally swept away by the Muhammadan invasion under Bakhtiyar Khilji, In 1197 the capital, Bihar, was seized by a small party of two hundred horsemen, who rushed the postern gate, and sacked the town. The slaughter of the “shaven-headed Brahmans,” as the Muslim chronicler calls the Buddhist monks, was so complete that when the victor searched for someone capable of explaining the contents of the monastic libraries, not a living man could be found who was able to do so. “It was discovered,” it was said, “that the whole fort and city was a place of study.” A similar fate befell the other Buddhist institutions, against which the combined intolerance and rapacity of the invaders was directed. The monasteries were sacked and the monks slain, many of the temples were ruthlessly destroyed or desecrated, and countless idols were broken and trodden under foot. Those monks who escaped the sword flied to Tibet, Nepal and southern India; and Buddhism as a popular religion in Bihar, its last abode in Northern India, was finally destroyed. Then forward Patna passed under Muhammadan rule.”

This can be countered with a different citation:

It is worth noting here that Shashanka fought an inconclusive war with Buddhist ruler Harshavardhana and retained his territories. After Shashanka's death, Bengal saw a period of political turmoil between Hindu and Buddhist aspirants for ruling the country. When Palas took control of Bengal, they patronized both Mahayana Buddhism and Shaivite Hinduism. They were later replaced by the Hindu Senas (1097-1203) before Ikhtiaruddin Bakhtiyar Khilji's conquest of Bengal in the early 13th century. When Bengal came under the rule of the Senas, Shaivism was promulgated and Buddhism was pushed out -- towards Tibet. A study of the Bengal Puranas indubitably shows that the Buddhists were mocked, cast as mischievous and malicious in Brahminical narratives, and subjected to immense rhetorical violence.

Why Buddhism Declined?

Actually it is very interesting to read the different versions which explain the same events within the same historical context, but with a different historical analysis.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Religion in pre-Buddhist Sri Lanka is uncertain even up to this point. Why are you lying?

Well, no, the factions under Prince Vijaya were certainly practicing vedic religions.

Sri Lankans not influenced by Prince Vijaya's clans were probably practicing other things.

 

[Indischer]

Religion in pre-Buddhist Sri Lanka is uncertain even up to this point. Why are you lying?

Both Indian records and the Mahavamsa corroborate that Sri lanka was inhabited by a tamilized group known as the Nagas before the arrival of Prince Vijaya from Bengal/Orissa in around 600BC. Both the Nagas and the coterie of Prince Vijaya are attested to have been part of the Dharmic faith. What does this make them?

 

[Azizam]

Both Indian records and the Mahavamsa corroborate that Sri lanka was inhabited by a tamilized group known as the Nagas before the arrival of Prince Vijaya from Bengal/Orissa in around 600BC. Both the Nagas and the coterie of Prince Vijaya are attested to have been part of the Dharmic faith. What does this make them?

There are many versions of the story of Indo-Aryan migrants in Sri lanka and without solid evidence you can't be certain about one theory. The fact is that not a single pre-Buddhist religious site was discovered in Sri Lanka so your claim can't be considered as the truth. From what I've heard the migrants practiced a Verdic religion that you cannot necessarily be considered as Hinduism.

Well, no, the factions under Prince Vijaya were certainly practicing vedic religions.

Sri Lankans not influenced by Prince Vijaya's clans were probably practicing other things.

I've heard at the time migration of Indo-Aryans the Tamils were Buddhists and the Sinhalese were following a Verdic religion.

 

[Nassr]

@Indischer,
https://defence.pk/members/indischer.149442/
Interestingly, this was not the only time Nalanda University was destroyed. It was also destroyed earlier by the Huna King Mihirakula in a war fought between Narasimha Gupta and Mihirakula.

This was a declaration of war on the part of the Gupta sovereign. The Huna king accepted the challenge, entered the kingdom of Magadha and pursued Narasimha Gupta till the bay of Bengal. In the course of this campaign Mihirakula at the head of his army had to pass very near the university of Nalanda, for he first undoubtedly marched on Pataliputra, and only when he realized that the Gupta sovereign had fled towards the sea then he continued his march till the bay of Bengal. This inroad of the Huna army was bound to be fatal to the kingdom of Magadha and specially to the Buddhist religion then protected and patronized by the Gupta monarchs. Mihirakula, beyond doubt, in his hatred of Buddhism destroyed all its buildings that he found in his way, and killed all its priests-- cruelties which he was shortly afterwards to repeat in his exile of Kashmir. Nalanda University was not far from the capital, Pataliputra, and its fame had also reached Mihirakula's ears. The buildings of Nalanda were then probably destroyed for the first time, and its priests and students dispersed and perhaps killed.

The Royal Patrons of the University of Nalanda

 

[Indischer]

There are many versions of the story of Indo-Aryan migrants in Sri lanka and without solid evidence you can't be certain about one theory. The fact is that not a single pre-Buddhist religious site was discovered in Sri Lanka so your claim can't be considered as the truth. From what I've heard the migrants practiced a Verdic religion that you cannot necessarily be considered as Hinduism.

If it was a Vedic Religion, it can be nothing but Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma. I'll be happy to update my knowledge on this if you can provide any credible source material to back up your claim.

 

[Contrarian]

I posted this in another thread. Let me post it here as well so that you could understand our surprise when Indians like you claim that they love Buddhism which is part of the Dharmic, Indic and Hindutva based faiths.

To lend legitimacy to their campaign against Buddhism, Brahminical texts included fierce strictures against Buddhists. Manu, in his Manusmriti, laid down that, ‘If a person touches a Buddhist […] he shall purify himself by having a bath.’ Aparaka ordained the same in his Smriti. Vradha Harit declared that entry into a Buddhist temple was a sin, which could only be expiated for by taking a ritual bath.

Chanakya, the author of Arthashastra, declared that, “When a person entertains in a dinner dedicated to gods and ancestors those who are Sakyas (Buddhists), Ajivikas, Shudras and exiled persons, a fine of one hundred panas shall be imposed on him.

The Brahannardiya Purana made it a principal sin for Brahmins to enter the house of a Buddhist even in times of great peril. The Vishnu Purana dubs the Buddha as Maha Moha or ‘the great seducer’. It further cautions against the ‘sin of conversing with Buddhists” and lays down that ‘those who merely talk to Buddhist ascetics shall be sent to hell.

Prakash, Buddh,in his book "Aspects of Indian History and Civilisation", Agra 1965, states that Nalanda was dDestroyed by Hindu zealots. He adds that, even after the Islamic invasions of India, Brahmanist bigotry and hatred for Buddhists was not subdued. According to Sharmasvamin, a Tibetan pilgrim who visited Bihar three decades after the invasion of Bakhtiaruddin Khilji in the 12th century, the biggest library at Nalanda was destroyed by Hindu mendicants who took advantage of the chaos produced by the invasion. He says that "they (Hindus) performed a Yajna, a fire sacrifice, and threw living embers and ashes from the sacrifice into the Buddhist temples. This produced a great conflagration which consumed Ratnabodhi, the nine-storeyed library of the Nalanda University".

According to the historian S. R. Goyal (author of A History of Indian Buddhism), the decline of Buddhism in India is the result of the hostility of the Hindu priestly caste of Brahmins. The Hindu ruler Shashanka of Gauda [Gaura in Bengali] (590–626) destroyed the Buddhist images and Bodhi Tree, under which Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) is said to have achieved enlightenment. Pusyamitra Sunga (185 BC to 151 BCE) was hostile to Buddhism. He burned Sutras, Buddhist shrines, and massacred monks in large numbers.

The Brahmins were hostile to Budhists at that point since they challenged the authority of Brahmins over religion in India.

That said, the University was still sacked by the Muslims. There are dozens of citations that say so and for you to peruse. Even one of those you quoted says that after the Muslims sacked, the Brahmins finished the pushing of Budhists.

However, how is any of that relevant today.
Or are you trying to divert the topic by showing how ancient Brahmins disliked Budhists so today Hindus dislike Budhists?

Today, Budhism and Hinduism are merely sides of the same coin as are Jains. Most Hindus look at Budhism as something not very far from Hinduism only.

And thousands upon thousands jump within the Dharmic Religions each year! That is how they are related. Almost every Hindu household that can afford it in India has atleast one statue of Budha in his/her house. That is how connected they are.

And consquently, I repeat again for your benefit - the fact that you could not catch on that Indians look at Budha and Ashoka as their own and connected legacy and you drew very weird conclusions based on your Muslim/Pakistani upbringing shows lack of better education facilities in Pakistan and a very tribal and primal mindset.

 

[Gibbs]

Agreed that teachings are not practical in modern world but from what I know about Buddhism, it doesn't have any rules that prohibits anything, nothing at all. Not to mention the last meal of Buddha was beef. I think what he talked about was that the intention is much more important than the action or the result.

Correction.. The last meal of the Buddha is said to have been pork

They were Hindu once. They converted to Buddhism after Ashoka's children brought the message of the Buddha to the island. But while the Indian mainland saw the resurgence of Hinduism in the 4-5th Century AD under Hindu kings, Sri Lanka had a Buddhist king and hence bypassed it to remain Buddhist.

While there may have been considerable influence of Hinduism on the island pre Buddhist era, Majority of archaeological evidence point to Animist beliefs

 

[Armstrong]

It is interesting for me how majority of Sri Lankans are buddhist and not hindu. I guess Sri Lankans are the the only major ethnic group of south indian subcontinent who are not hindu.

There are quite a few ethnic groups in the Subcontinent who are predominantly Non-Hindus !

Correction.. The last meal of the Buddha is said to have been pork

Really ? Can't be - Doesn't the Reincarnation Principle effectively excludes animals from Buddhist (religious/monk) dietary habits ?

 

[Gibbs]

Both Indian records and the Mahavamsa corroborate that Sri lanka was inhabited by a tamilized group known as the Nagas before the arrival of Prince Vijaya from Bengal/Orissa in around 600BC. Both the Nagas and the coterie of Prince Vijaya are attested to have been part of the Dharmic faith. What does this make them?

There is no evidence what so ever to correlate that the inhabitants pre Vijaya was a "tamilized" group as you say.. Not even the Mahavamsa suggests that.. That is not to say That their may have been Dravidian population on the island keeping the proximity to Southern India

There are quite a few ethnic groups in the Subcontinent who are predominantly Non-Hindus !



Really ? Can't be - Doesn't the Reincarnation Principle effectively excludes animals from Buddhist (religious/monk) dietary habits ?

Well being a Christian i may not be an expert on the religion but from what i know, Buddha never prohibited any thing, His teachings always gave an option to make the right choice and in this case it is said that Buddha accepted the pork as Dana(Alms) since that was the only thing the person who gave it could afford.. Monks have to accept what ever given by the lay people as alms without discrimination

 

[rmi5]

There are quite a few ethnic groups in the Subcontinent who are predominantly Non-Hindus !

Actually, That's why I said SOUTH of indian subcontinent.
Obviously, I know that you guys are not hindus and are mostly from northern parts of subcontinent, with some minorities in other cities in other parts like hyderabad, ...