Wapsi (The Returning)

Regarding the penchant of Islamic people towards destroying statues, I personally don`t think they are doing something wrong religiously, thats what Mohd did and would have done. They are just following him. So they are just doing their duty by targetting the Giza pyramid, Bamiyan statue.

Re: # 168
MaheshG2, {``Then why are you so reluctant in admitting they were partially responsible in destroying buddhist monastries and massacring buddhist monks?``}

Yes, obviously Muslims have destroyed all kinds of holy places. Right down to this day, the Tally Ban, if one calls them Muslims, have destroyed at least the great statue of Buddha in Bamiyan. This was a senseless act of vandalism and barbarity that was probably more damaging than the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Fanatics and their stupid means of purification make no sense to me.
My only point was one of historical chronology. When the Muslims started their massive incursions in the 11th and 12th centuries, their adversaries and the objects of their pillage, plunder, and destruction were Hindu and probably not Buddhist. Not that it would have made any difference to the marauders. I think by this time, Buddhism had long been replaced by Hiinduism as the faith in India. That was my only point.

Kardesh #167,

Muslims were very enthusiastic in destroying any kind of idol worship. That you admit, right? Then why are you so reluctant in admitting they were partially responsible in destroying buddhist monastries and massacring buddhist monks?

The good news is that maybe Muslims were not responsible for the disappearance of Buddhism from India.
The bad news is that possibly the responsibility for this disappearance lies with the Rajputs.

I can`t win :)

Salim Ahmed Chauhan.

Manto, I have never attacked you personally and never will. So, don`t adopt this holier than thou attitude with me.

Re: # 164
Rsridhar,
Thanks for your information. As far as destruction of historical sites (buildings, statues, paintings, holy places, manuscripts, graves, etc), I find such practices to be utterly barbaric, myopic, and a testament to the vandals` own state of civilization. I abhor what the Tally Ban did at Bamiyan or whatever the Paki Mullahs want to do with ancient relics in Pak.
I just like to know the truth and preserve knowledge and treasures from the past.
I appreciate your help.
Salim Ahmed Chauhan.

Re: # 163

Its not a good source, its like looking for Jewish information on a Jehovas Witness site. You will get more such info on dalitstan site too.

I replied to your post because you had inferred that Buddhism had vanished from India even before the muslims had arrived, which is not true.
As listed earlier, there are many reasons for the disappearence of Buddhism from India. Infact from North India. I don`t think Buddhism had more impact on Southern India. It spread more towards North Inida, then present Pak, Afg, Central Asia. Infact the Kushans from Central Asia were Buddhists. As you are wondering about the disappearance of B from India what do you think about its disapp from the other states. Infact Nepal which is the only hindu country in the world is a good example to look at the hindu-buddhists dynamics. Swayambhunath temple exists as shrine for both hindus and buddhists. The Kumaris are buddhist girls. I think as the challenge from Buddhisms became grave against the Vedic rituals, Buddha was considered as one of the incarnations of Vishnu himself. Its like saying that Ahura Mazda is just an incarnation of Mohd/Allah. Hence the buddhists were basically absorbed back into the hindu fold. THe same thing is being observed in Mahrashtra. After Ambedkar embraced Buddhism, millions of dalits became neo-buddhists. But culturally they were still hindus. Hence even after several decades they still are counted as hindus. Also Jains are against Vedic rituals/caste system/violence (they blame Krsna for the Maha war, since they think he could have averted it) but still come under the fold of hinduism. They have survived everything even though they existed even before the birth of Gautam.

Here an additional article I found interesting


Pakistanis favour destruction of statues
Lahore |By Abdullah Iqbal | 05-04-2001

In a reflection of the impact the actions of the Taliban regime are having on Pakistanis, surveys carried out by local newspapers and most recently by a non-official survey body, found that most Pakistanis believe statues within the country should be destroyed.

Pakistan has one of the world`s largest collections of ancient art, dating back to the Buddhist age and the Indus Valley Civilization, which is one of the oldest known civilizations in the world.

Asked for his comments, Fahim Abdul, a Lahore businessman, told a newspaper ``What the Taliban have done is right. If we are truly an Islamic state, that we should also follow this practice, and not just allow these un-Islamic idols to stand.``

Though huge stone statues of Buddha, carved into rock faces in the Swat valley and at Taxila in the northern Punjab have in some cases been defaced by zealots, they have not been smashed. Museums at Lahore, Peshawar and Taxila also house large collections.

``Pakistan has one of the richest Gandhara art heritages in the world, dating back to the Buddhist era, and it would be a very real tragedy if any attempt was made to damage it,`` said Dr Fidaullah Sehrai, who has written a book on the Gandhara collection at the Peshawar museum, and is a leading authority on such art.

He also said he saw ``no immediate threat`` but believed the tide of extremism ``could rise and present a far greater danger in the years ahead.`` He also felt that one of the reasons that ``there is so much negligence of ancient art`` was because there is this ``feeling that it is un-Islamic.``

A leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Munnawar Akram, said that ``these structures are not desirable in Islam, but are tolerable as they represent a era before the dawn of Islam.`` Other religious authorities have also stated that the misconception that the statues of Buddhas are idols, worshipped by followers of the religion, has added to the ``people`s sense of hatred against them.``

The widespread belief that the statues within the country should be destroyed, shared by 40 out of 61 students questioned at the Punjab University by Gulf News, however marks the impact of a lack of awareness.

``The government should play a role in educating people about our art and our heritage, so that what happened in Afghanistan, where ancient treasures were literally reduced to rubble, can never happen here,`` Dr Sehrai said.

However not many are convinced by these arguments. ``The Holy Quran, and the examples of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) clearly state that depictions of the human figures are unacceptable. The statues should be destroyed, because Pakistan is an Islamic state. It is sad our government has taken no action,`` said Faiza Jameel, a school teacher.

Her views are backed by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam of Maulana Fazlur Rehman (JUI). The Party has said the ``Taliban did the right thing, and the reaction of the west indicates they care nothing about human life in Afghanistan, but a lot about figures made of dead stone.``

Netizen, Rsridhar, and MaheshG2,
Guess what? This author is now blaming my people, the Rajputs, for the disappearance of Buddhism. OK OK, I`ll take the blame. But it was done in the name of Hinduism.


Here is the crux of the article:

``Rise of Rajputs is too big a subject to be discussed here. It could form a subject matter of a separate work. Suffice it to say here that these people were made prominent by the Brahmins, for the specific purpose of suppressing Buddhism by use of force...``


http://www.ambedkar.org/books/dob8.htm

DECLINE AND FALL OF BUDDHISM
(A tragedy in Ancient India)

---

Chapter 8

---

RAJPUT PERIOD WAS DARK AGE OF INDIA
Rise of Rajputs was for suppressing Buddhism
After the fall of Harshavardhana was the time when a new people i.e Rajputs were coming up on horizons, in North India, who were subsequently to dominate the history of India, for some centuries to come. Rise of Rajputs is too big a subject to be discussed here. It could form a subject matter of a separate work. Suffice it to say here that these people were made prominent by the Brahmins, for the specific purpose of suppressing Buddhism by use of force, from among the remnants of Hunas and other foreign hordes which had been broken down by the activities of kings like Baladitya and others, and the local tibals.

The following account is mainly drawn from a school text book, ``History of India (Hindu period)`` by Prof. L. Mukherjee, M.A., 26th edition., p 198 ff.

It was a transition period marked by a new grouping of states due to Hun invasions

The series of invasions by the Huns and other associated foreign tribes in the fifth and sixth centuries shook the fabric of the society and brought a rearrangement of the caste system and of the ruling dynasties. The destructive effects of the Hun inroads were, to a certain extent, arrested by Harsha but as soon as his strong hand was removed, they manifested themselves in a regrouping of states. Hence the latter half of seventh century, during which this new grouping of states took place, is regarded as a period of transition from early to medieval India. The most prominent feature of this transitional period is the rise of the Rajput Clans. Henceforth the Rajputs began to play a prominent part in the history of Northern and Western India. Almost all the kingdoms were ruled by families of Rajputs. Hence the period from the death of Harsha to Muslim conquest is called the Rajput period.

India split up into numerous states due to absence of a paramount power

Another feature of this period is that during this long interval, India was not permanently occupied by any foreign people. The country was split up into a large number of states ruled by local kings, often at war with each other. There was no paramount power to unite together under one rule the various kingdoms each of which pursued its own course quite independently. Hence the history of this period lacks unity and can not be conveniently presented as a continuous narrative.

The Rajput were mostly of foreign origin

``The term `Rajput` does not occur in early Sanskrit literature nor do we hear of Rajput clans before the eighth century A.D. This proves that they were a later addition to the population of India. During the troubled times that followed the breakup of the Gupta Empire, many foreign races such as the Huns, the Gurjaras, etc. settled in the Punjab and Rajputana and became Hinduised in course of time. The upper ranks of these foreigners, whose main occupation was war, came to be known as Rajputs, while the humbler folks ranked low in social status and developed into inferior castes such as Gurjaras, Jats and others. As we have already seen Brahmins were clever enough to see that number of princes should be within limits as mentioned by Nair.

They were descended from Hinduised Gurjars and other foreign tribes

Therefore, the division of the same class of people into different social grades was based not on birth but on occupation. Of the Hinduised descendants of the original invaders, those who belonged to ruling classes, with war and government as their chief business, came to be treated as Kshatriyas. The common people, on the other hand, given the rank of lower castes.

Some of the Rajput clans are descended from low caste native tribes raised to importance

Thus many of the most distinguished Rajput clans such as the Chauhans, the Pariharas, the Pawars (Paramaras), the Solankis (Chalukyas) are descended mainly from foreigners, called Scythians by Tod. While others are descended from indigenous tribes of inferior castes elevated to the rank of Kshatriyas. The Rashtrakutas of the Deccan, the Rathors of Rajputana, the Chandels of Bundelkhand are examples of the Rajput clans formed by the promotion of the indigenous tribes of inferior social status. Thus, the huge group of the Rajput clans include people of the most diverse descent.

Re: # 159

Dear Rsidhar,

Please consider my post 160 as an apology from my side as well.

If you recall on the other board... I dangled that ``The Hindu`` article as a carrot... so that you and I could reach an agreement but you blasted me. Mani Shankar Aiyer said something I completely believe.

You sir are a good person. The last thing I want is to hurt a passionate patriot and a fine human being like you... the attacks and tactics I reserve for people like MaheshGs and Harish Hyds end up landing on you as well...

There are several points we disagree on ... but my dear Sidhar sahab... if we trust each other .... beyond perhaps our heroes did... maybe we would come to realize the similarities of our positions.

I apologize in advance for the pain I might cause you when I take on Harish and his goons again.

Netizen, rsridhar, and MaheshG2,

In summary, the following articles seem to indicate that there was a clash between Brahmanism and Buddhism and by the early medieval centuries, Brahmanism had supplanted Buddhism - some causes:
1. Rejection of caste sysem by Buddhism
2. Almost an anti-idolatrous nature of early Buddhism.

Read on:

ON THE DISAPPEARANC OF BUDDHISM IN INDIA.

I know that you won`t agree with my view point, but here are some reasons offered by others:

http://www.khandro.net/Bud_context.htm

Why is Buddhism not widespread in India today?

Though traditionally the decline of the Dharma in the land of its birth is attributed to foreign incursions in the 11th century, others have found a different reason. It may be possible to draw a parallel between the extinction of the dinosaurs and the disappearance of Buddhism in India: There is strong evidence to show that the great saurians did not disappear but evolved into the birds. Hinduism absorbed the tenets of Buddhism to a large degree, but the rise of the caste system may have subverted its ultimate, egalitarian nature.


ALSO:
http://www.cass.net.cn/chinese/s14_zxs/facu/chengjianhua/11.htm
Buddhist relations with Brahmanism and Hinduism

Cheng Jianhua

In December 1999, scholars of Indology from different parts of the world (China, Indian, Belgium and the United States) met in New Delhi: at issue lay their different approaches to the Buddhist relations with Brahmanism and Hinduism. One might assume that the differences may be explained by either Buddhism was an anti-ritualistic tendency of Vedic origin or an independent religion of different tradition: the reality is more complex, for some of them, especially, Indians have expressed with a strong mind of faith of religion, whereas other scholars would demonstrate only from the theoretical and historical point of view, and still others face major problem in their misinterpretations of the prehistoric study. The existence alone of those world scholars argues for the complexity of the issue.

For over four decades, these differences in approaches have caused many problems in the issue of academic study of religion and subsequently much literature written in different languages (English, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, French and German) has been produced on these particular issues. In the foreword of the work of 2500 Years of Buddhism (New Delhi, 1956), the most prominent Indian scholar, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan has described Buddhism as: an offshoot of the more ancient faith of the Hindus, perhaps a schism or a heresy. Since the Brahmanical standpoint has possessed India`s scholastic field for about a millennium, it is no doubt and quiet certain that Indian scholars, such as Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, have sought to sum up the history of Buddhism in India largely from this particular standpoint.

The conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism, the transformation of the Buddhist heritage in India and the disappearance of Buddhism as a living faith from Indian soil during the early medieval centuries, were largely responsible for the growth of misconception on ancient Indian civilization and for the propagation of the Brahmanical standpoint during the medieval through modern times. Nevertheless, Buddhism should be studied from the Buddhist standpoint and its relations with Brahmanism and Hinduism should be studied from the historical standpoint and the scientific line. In this paper, I will focus on my disagreement with those current theories of the origin of Buddhism, of its early relation with Brahmanism and of its position with regard to Hinduism.

II. The origin of Buddhism

It has been told that in India it is a fashion to speak and to write: Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism, Buddha was a Hindu, and Hinduism is so catholic as to tolerate and worship a heretical and anti-Vedic teacher like the Buddha. This comfortable theory has been so thoroughly propagated in the Indian soil that it will take a long years for scholars and historians to sweep away its illusions and clear the way for the growth of Buddhist study from historical standpoint and on scientific senses. These current theories, presented India`s prevailing standpoints towards the origin of Buddhism, refer mainly to the Indian general faith, their attitude towards Buddhism, and the scholastic interpretations of Buddhism.

The Indian general faith means that almost from all circles of life of Indian people has a strong faith of belief in Hinduism rather than Buddhism at the present stage of the Indian society even though Buddhism has given deeply an influence to Hinduism either theoretically or practically. It`s a common sense of Indian that Hinduism (actually a newly born religion in the Indian soil), having converted most of Indians to its own faith, monopolizes not only the India`s ideology, but also the India`s way of life and thinking either in the political or economic or scientific fields. However, this kind of tendency

---

the fundamentalist way of thinking

---

set the Indians apart from the people of the world even today in the 21st century.

The Indian attitude towards Buddhism means that in the mind of the ordinary Indian people, they do concede that Buddhism merged into Hinduism, that the Buddha was a great Hindu reformer and that the Buddha was a great Hindu master. This last is important because it leads us, from beginning to end, to examine carefully and to think differently that Buddhism, as a separate and independent world religion cannot be studied beyond the historical and scientific perspectives. We may see that the people of India today are so sensitive and admired of their most beloved religion, their Vedic culture, and their mythological doctrines when we happened to meet them and have a further discussion with them.

The scholastic interpretation means that some Vedic and Brahmanical minded Indian scholars (modern Indian historians, national leaders and ideologists) have described: Buddhism as an off-shoot of the more ancient faith of Hindus, perhaps a schism or heresy. A few educated Hindus

---

have specialized in Buddhist studies or studied something of Buddhism or some book on Buddhism

---

do concede that Buddhism was deeply influenced by the Vedic thought in its origin and it was a heresy of Brahmanism. Archaeologically, at least, we cannot treat Buddhism merely as a heresy against a prevailing Brahmanical orthodoxy, but, on the contrary, Buddhism should be considered as a historical and independent practice

---

the way of life

---

and that has nothing to do with the so called the more ancient faith of Hindus.

As we see from the above, the current theory on the origin of Buddhism tells us that the Vedic and Brahmanical standpoint of tendency has possessed and monopolized not only the field of Indian ideology, but also the field of social and historical studies of Buddhist relation with Brahmanism. The story of the origin of Buddhism, told in one sentence, is a matter of street-talk for every grown-up Hindu irrespective of his or her knowledge of ancient Indian religious history and archaeology. In order to reveal and clarify the true features of Buddhism, we may figure most notable question of how Buddhism related itself with the more ancient faith

---

the orthodox

---

Brahmanism of its time.

III. Buddhist relation with Brahmanism

We shall refer to the view of the most eminent Indian scholar, Dr. S. Radhakrishan, whose viewpoint might be considered as a prevailing Indian standpoint towards Buddhist relation with Brahmanism. Dr. S. Radhakrishan`s most mature opinion on this point is summarized: the Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion; he was born, grew up, and died a Hindu; he was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo-Aryan civilization. The ideological tendency of the Indian scholar towards Buddhism refers mainly to the traditional interpretation, the materialistic interpretation, and the fundamentalist interpretation of Buddhism related with Brahmanism.

The traditional interpretation means that Buddhism arose out of anti-ritualistic tendency within the religion of the brahmanas, held by those the Brahmanical standpoint possessed scholars. The fact is that the history of ancient India is a record of the two opposite ideologies, that of world-affirmation represented by the priestly brahmanas of the Vedic tradition (Brahmanism) and that of world-denial and world-transcendence represented by the ascetic sramanas of non-Vedic tradition (Buddhism). It is no doubt, historically, both Buddhism and Brahmanism represent two separate traditions, the Vedic tradition and the Sramanic tradition respectively, therefore, it is irrelevant to establish the theory of Vedic origin of Buddhism.

The materialist interpretation means that some scholars, under influence of the materialist interpretation of history of popularized by Karl Marx have sought to correlate the rise of ascetic and intellectual thought-currents of the age of Buddha (624-544 B.C.) to the rise of capitalism and mercantile middle class economy. This, however, is entirely speculative, for there is no clear evidence to prove the existence of capitalism in the Marxian sense nor of a money-economy controlled entirely by an organized middle class of society in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Moreover, it is impossible to demonstrate that the spiritual ideas of Bodhisattva (potential Buddha) are determined by that social consciousness being consequent on material progress; indeed, the materialist interpretation of Buddhism is an evidence only of the philosophical crudity of theories of theirs.

The fundamentalist interpretation means that in some Hindu`s minds, the Buddha was the destroyer of Brahmanical idolatry because the most fundamental elements of pre-Buddhistic Brahmanism, the doctrine of sacrifice and the doctrine of four castes were criticized and rejected totally by the Buddha. In spite of its preaching of mercy to animals, in spite of the sublime ethical religion, and in spite of the hair-splitting discussion about existence or non-existence of a permanent soul, the whole building of Buddhism, ultimately, had tumbled down and was ruined at last. The criticism and condemnation made to the Buddha and his religion is not merely due to the study of philosophy and history of the religion but the fundamentalist tendency towards other religions as well.

As we see from the above, Buddhist relation with Brahmanism, elaborated by some Indian scholars represent the traditional standpoint of monopoly of India`s scholastic field extended in the aspect of dialogue among different religions, ideological tendency of the Indian society and the academic study of religion. Some modern Indian scholars, with a strong Vedic and Brahmanical mind has attempted to make an assimilation of the doctrine of Buddhism with that of Brahmanism. Boldly stated, they wanted to show that Buddhism, as deeply influenced by Vedic thought, arose out of anti-ritualistic tendency within the religion of brahmanas; in other words, it is a heresy or a heretic of Brahmanism.

IV. Buddhist relation with Hinduism

Either in the eyes of the ordinary Indian or in the eyes of the scholastic Indian people, both Buddhism and Hinduism are considered as one, because there are some similarities within each of their doctrines and practices, even though Buddhism and Hinduism are absolutely two different systems or religious traditions. Dr. P. V. Kane, a famous Indologist has observed: Buddha was only a great reformer of the Hindu religion as practiced in his time; he did not feel or claim that he was forming a new religion, nor did he renounce the Hindu religion and all its practices and beliefs. However, when we talk about Buddhist relation with Hinduism, we should observe and examine carefully the term of ``Hindu`` from the historical perspective, the linguistic perspective and the archaeological perspective respectively.

The historical perspective means that Buddhist relation with Hinduism should be studied from historical standpoint and on scientific line; the study of Buddhism from the Hindu View would be a study of Hinduism but not Buddhism. It has been wrongly employed to support the modern Hindu view that Buddha himself claimed to teach the path of the ancient ``Hindu`` sages and to show that Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. The word ``Hindu`` does not occur in the statement of Buddha; nor does he refer to Vedic sages or Indo-Aryan seers or brahmanas (priests) as the teachers of that ancient path which he followed and practised.

Re: # 156

Rsidhar... since you`ve shown a bit of your human side, let me put this up as an aside. You`ve known me what... 5 years on Chowk? Have you seen me go after Gandhi or India unprovoked? I want you to answer this question very honestly.

You certainly and perhaps only can understand my feelings for the Quaid-e-Azam as the founder of the nation... since you too admire Gandhi as your father of the nation right? If you recall Jinnah, the unbendable, was trying to save Gandhi statue in India... and to one American Banker in private described Gandhi as a great friend of the Muslims... do you think I have any desire to bash Gandhi? Ofcourse Gandhi had flaws... some of them gigantic from my point of view... but he was human just like Jinnah was human... This latest Jinnah-Gandhi war started because some idiot started bashing Jinnah on my article about Ranade... and then it got out of hand. Finally I decided to teach you chaps a lesson and made a news story out of Gandhi`s ``racist south african past``.... I had no idea it would become so famous. But it did.

Now this is the last time I am going to explain my actions to you... consider it a human moment... a south asian moment... because with Harish Hyds around... and MaheshGs around there is going to be no end to this ... and we will see who can sling what mud...
As for the history of direct action day... there is no way you can pin it on Jinnah... and I think I adequately proved it on the other board whether Harish Hyd likes to admit it or not.

re:#148 by Mantolives
I am sorry for saying offensive things to u in this forum or in another forum. I also commend u for the fact that u have not done the same. Perhaps i was wrong about u.
I will urge u and many others in Chowk (interested in Gandhi, Jinnah etc) to view history objectively and not be biased. we do not lose anything if we are to take on the ``mighty`` and objectively dissect their personalities and learn from the process.
Did i ever say Gandhi was infallible?
I was only giving Gandhi his due. He indeed was a man of peace (however funny he might have looked or whatever his eccentricities were). Many of his other ideas (about nature cure, population control) were archaic and clearly not practical.
Sridhar

Shridar .... I have no time for your blah-blah-blah...but to respond to a pointed question...

``Ask your dad: does he pay Income Tax? ``

Yes. Unfailingly. Has no choice on the matter.Tax deducted at source. Highest tax bracket.

re: Time`s tribute to Gandhi
For the intellectually challenged Indians like Prashant (or Gujjubania) , this article in Times may be an eyeopener:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/gandhi.html
Sridhar

re:#153 by Prashant123
This is why India is still a third world (and a third rate) country and US is such a great place to be.
Corruption in India is so all-pervasive that it will eventually rot away at everything. You don`t care because u are making merry on your papa`s money (or enjoying the pocket money from BPO or some such SH!T). People of your age in US put in hard work and earn their daily living the hardway, getting life`s lessons in the process.
And, what are u doing? Blowing away your papa`s money, the money which i am sure was earned through bribes. Was it not u who once boasted on Chowk that your papa`s earnings, if revealed, would get him into trouble with IT. Ask your dad: does he pay Income Tax? Less than 10% Indians pay income tax. No wonder, India is so poor, what with leeches sucking its blood daily.
The great thing about US is that the money i earn here is for all to see. There is no shame in being rich and have plenty because i have earned it. I am a law abiding citizen and i pay my taxes.
If i have not shamed u enough, u are beyond redemption.
Your comments on Gandhi was shameful. If u can`t respect the father of your nation, i am sure you do not respect your own father. What a shame! People like u even exist. With Manto, i can have discussion, even criticise him, and i can understand his antipathy to Gandhi but why do present generation Indians not pay respect to the leaders who brought them their freedom? Baffles me.
Sridhar

Re: # 154

*wasn`t