Persecution of Buddhists by Hindus

[The Occult]

Hi folks ,I came across a video which seems to claim that Hindus persecuted Buddhists which led to fall of Buddhism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmCgdQ5xGZk

I would like have your thoughts on it

Personally I believe that these allegations are false but I dont have a strong knowledge to back my assertions.So just like to know your thoughts on this

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste Occult,

I noticed there are no references to any specific sources, either in the video or in the description. The only things that are referred to in the video are "Buddhist religious scriptures" and "Buddhist sources". That is a major problem right there.

I don't know much about this subject, but I know that a major factor in the decline of Buddhism in India was Sri Adi Shankara, who spread the teachings of Advaita Vedanta throughout India and converted many people back to Hinduism at a time when much of India was going Buddhist. This was done through logic and discussion, not through any forced conversions or killings.

Of course, different people have different interpretations as to what is persecution. (I literally laughed out loud when the Pope said a few weeks ago that Christians are the most persecuted group in the world.) IMHO, using logic to peacefully bring people back to their original religion is not persecuting. But the video mentions killings and rapes done by Hindus to Buddhists, to which no specific outside reference is given.

Jai Sri Ram

[Eastern Mind]

Hi folks ,I came across a video which seems to claim that Hindus persecuted Buddhists which led to fall of Buddhism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmCgdQ5xGZk

I would like have your thoughts on it

Personally I believe that these allegations are false but I dont have a strong knowledge to back my assertions.So just like to know your thoughts on this

Vannakkam: Personally, I think such accusations are more political than religious. Its far more likely that a minority political group that happens to be of a particular faith feels persecuted. For example There is little argument that Tamils in Sri Lanka are persecuted by the predominantly Buddhist government. But the Tamils there are a mixture of Hindu, Christian, and Islam. So although it may appear to be religious, its often another factor such as historical borders, or linguistic, or race.

Aum Namasivaya

[realdemigod]

Like Eastern Mind mentioned it has always been a political motive behind such persecutions around the world.

[Sahasranama]

The Christian music on the background gives everything away. This is another pathetic attempt of Christian missionaries to falsely accuse Hindus.

[realdemigod]

The Christian music on the background gives everything away. This is another pathetic attempt of Christian missionaries to falsely accuse Hindus.

Same Christian missionaries introduced the concept of racism and slavery (backed up what's written in Bible; Noah's curse on his son Ham and his descendants) and virtually wiped out thousands of age old races from Africa, the cradle of civilization - an inhuman, grotesque act.

Missionaries from Spain, conquistadors massacred native Americans. There are many more atrocities carried out by Christians in the name of God.

But you can't blame every Christian or Muslim responsible for any atrocity some people of their sect carry(ied) out. Every human being is so driven by ego and so ignorant and most aren't capable of thinking rationally. For what is written in Bible and Koran that God would love you if you spread his religion, Christianity or Islam to others, some humans act just to please God and gain his favours.

I believe the religious tolerance of Hinduism turned out to be its worst enemy. It's an irony that people from some religions and even cults who do not have answers to all the problems of life.. make fun of Sanatana Dharma, the only religion which has answer to each and every problem of life. These accusations will continue till the last man is wiped out from the face of earth.

[Sahasranama]

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/pushyamitra.html

[PARAM]

Not only Muslims and Christians, Buddhists also accuse Dharma, for their decline

Yes Dharma is responsible for the decline of Adharm, but Adharm is also responsible for the decline of Dharma.

Just like Maxmullar and others, many have placed lie as facts, while it is not true there are many false stories made by Buddhists to defame dharma.

The Shunga Dynasty is one of the examples.

It is known that Pushyamitra Shunga was responsible to review Dharma after Asoka. Buddhists blames that He was a Brahmin; he destroyed Maurya Dynasty and persecuted Buddhists. Check History how lire they are.


Buddhist texts calls Pushyamitra a 'Maurya' and not Brahmin. They accuse him for persecution of Buddhists, but again Satupa of Bharhut which was build during Shunga period is the proof that, there was no such persecution.


Great Hindu writers like Kalidas have praised Pushyamitra. History records clearly show that, during last time of Brihdatt Maurya, Greek / Bactrian invaded India, they conquered Western parts. King Brihdatt who was a Buddhist was in no match to challenge them so Pushyamitra seized the thorn and defeated the invaders. This action was for defence, but buddhists wants to show it as persecution.




King Menander who was a Buddhist convert was supported by Buddhists, and their opponent Indian rulers were shown as Persecution of Buddhists.

[kstrosper]

one must experience much persecution to understand it well and not parrot the politically correct point of view. the majority of people around me could never even believe the amount of it i have experianced in my life. i have had people i thought were friends insult me to my face dozens of times and not even know they were doing it. their racial and religious beliefs blinded them because they saw me as a white american and not a human that many not see like like they do and mimic their peers and parents and relatives.
in the modern american world i am seen as a average american and the judge a book by its cover. but inside I am something very different. that is the western way. the west has filters that make them so hateful and elitist they do not even know their prejudice and hate even when they are doing it. they say i am tolerance yet speak hate and harm on everyone around them and far from them. the sadness of not knowing what they say and how they effect people is sad.

i am of indian and jewish desent and i have heard things you would not believe.

[mohanty]

Here's how it happened.

Hinduism never went out to proselytise. Buddhism, on the other hand, was spread far and wide, through peaceful means. This happened because the Buddha's path had state patronage by zealous kings like Asoka. Asoka was always an expansionist and the streak never went out of him. He was a military expansionist at first, but then that ended due to guilt. So he directed his energies towards religious expansionsm (that's not a word I know).

Buddhism penetrated far into the middle-east and as far as Japan and some say even into parts of the West. There are theories that say Jesus himself was influenced by Buddhism.

But in this whole process, Buddhism also degenerated. The Buddha was against idol-worship, but the whole Buddhist area of influence is full of shrines that worship gigantic statues of him. Furthermore, the Buddha was against the hierarchical complexities of Hindu orthodoxy, but today, Buddhist shrines are full of monk orders that amount to an orthodoxy by itself.

When the Islamic hordes appeared and started conquering, their obvious target was the many Buddhist shrines spread all over the region. In fact, some scholars say the word for idol in Arabic "BUT" is a distortion of "BUDDH".

A good read in this matter is an essay by Koenraad Elst: Why Pushyamitra was more "secular" than Ashoka
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/pushyamitra.html

Even today, there are Marxist historians in India who push the lie about large-scale Hindu persecution of Buddhists. Sure there was some animosity, but it was most definitely a "wipe-out mission" like it was with the hordes from Arabia. In fact, the famed Nalanda university, home to much learning of Buddhist nature, was destroyed by Muslims and not Hindus. The fact that it was there when the Muslims came around is testimony enough that Buddhism was prevalent in India when they came.

[kstrosper]

mohanty, True, the Muslim more so as you said. Islam is a mix of judism, christianity and Zoroastrianism and their perverse Hadist supersitions they are a islamic nationaism.
buddhhism covered india , through to the caucus mountains and into greece.

the biggest threat to religions and especially Buddhism is Islam.

I personalty think Islam is a fraud and is just a political movement.
They brainwash small children to become extremeists and sufism is the militant arm of Islam, westerners seem to thing Sufism is peacefull and most all jihadis are sufi.
http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?115345-Sufi-Mujahideen in the words of sufis not westerners.
i studied islam from the inside for 6 months and they know that converts usally can not stomach the superstition of hadiths and at first thing it is logical and scientific and it far from it. they wait till you feel to deep into it to turn back and then they throw the hadiths at people and they are the freakiest and superstitious filth there is . fart and you have to do wodu, the rituals of Islam are so complex and silly (it has a lot of Zoroastrian in it and is so close that it could fool the Zoroastrians and anyone that will listen to there islam missionaries to convert to the weirdest religion there is), their prayer system has to be said in Arabic and they expect everyone to learn a language that is impossible to understand the quran has words that are totally different then the original meanings and it is just backward Hinduism. look at the Islamic symbol it you move it around it is the symbol of Hinduism. it is the averse backward version of Hinduism basically the Satanism of Hinduism. The Kabba in Mecca is the left over of middle eastern sivaism and the kabba holds a siva linga. they circle the kabba and kiss a vagina shaped rock. the way they pray is from Zoroastrianism and all their hadith are from xian and Jewish converts.
they are smart tricksters to say the least. because no sane person would shun dogs and think women should live by the sick rules of the corrupted quran and hadiths. The quran is impossible to understand almost, your not even supposed to pray according to the quran and modern Islam is nothing like what is written in the quran.
they are so blood thirsty and hate any path other then their own. what they do to apostaes in islamic nations is psychotic

[mohanty]

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists#India


Various personages involved in the revival of Buddhism in India such as Anagarika Dharmapala and the The Mahabodhi Movement of 1890s as well as Dr. B. R. Ambedkar hold the Muslim Rule in India responsible for the decay of Buddhism in India[33][34][35][36][37]
In 1193, Qutb-ud-din Aybak, a Turkish commander, seized control of Delhi, leaving defenseless the northeastern territories that were the heart of Buddhist India. The Mahabodhi Temple was almost completely destroyed by the invading Muslim forces.[34] One of Qutb-ud-Din's generals, Ikhtiar Uddin Muhammad Bin Bakhtiyar Khilji, invaded Magadha and destroyed the great Buddhist shrines at Nalanda.[38] The Buddhism of Magadha suffered a tremendous decline under Khilji.[34]
In 1200 Muhammad Khilji, one of Qutb-ud-Din's generals destroyed monasteries fortified by the Sena armies, such as the one at Vikramshila. Many monuments of ancient Indian civilization were destroyed by the invading armies, including Buddhist sanctuaries[39] near Benares. Buddhist monks who escaped the massacre fled to Nepal, Tibet and South India.[40]
According to the Isdhoo (Laamu Atoll), monks from monasteries of the southern atoll of Haddhunmathi were brought to Malé and beheaded.
Timur destroyed Buddhist establishments and raided areas in which Buddhism had flourished.[41][42]
Mughal rule also contributed to the decline of Buddhism. They are reported to have destroyed many Hindu temples and Buddhist shrines alike or converted many sacred Hindu places into Muslim shrines and mosques.[43] Mughal rulers like Aurangzeb destroyed Buddhist temples and monasteries and replaced them with Islamic mosques.[44][verification needed]
The Ladakh Buddhist Association has said: "There is a deliberate and organised design to convert Kargil's Buddhists to Islam. In the last four years, about 50 girls and married women with children were taken and converted from village Wakha alone. If this continues unchecked, we fear that Buddhists will be wiped out from Kargil in the next two decades or so. Anyone objecting to such allurement and conversions is harassed."[45][46]

The reason Buddhism is shown as having been persecuted by Hindus is partly also to whitewash the record of Islam in India.

When the Ayodhya Ram temple issue took an ugly turn, the Muslim side first tried to prove that there had never been a Ram temple at the site of the Babri mosque. When that failed and the Archeological survey of India showed the remains of a structure below, they started claiming that the temple itself had been built on the remains of a Buddhist shrine. To bolster this argument, they tried to prove with odd instances here and there, that there had been wide-scale persecution and iconoclasm against Buddhists by Hindus in older times.

Thankfully, none of these theories took hold. While it is true that Brahmins and Bhikshus were at odds with each other at various periods of time in India's past, the record can not be equated with the widespread destruction and killing that Muslim invaders brought.

[kstrosper]

My grandfather said that the Tal Mahal is a Siva temple as do many construction crews.

[dogra]

Well this the usual trot a trot garbage, now lets see the truth:

http://agniveer.com/5936/were-buddhists-persecuted-by-hindus/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Agniveer+%28Agniveer%29



Myth #3: Hindu rulers systematically uprooted Buddhism.
This is a very generic myth and to counter it we are going to use chronicles of Chinese travelers, some of whom, where students of Buddhist theology. When Hieun Tsang (the Chinese traveler and a student of Buddhist theology) was in India, king Harshavardhana organized the Kanauj assembly (643 AD). This king was a patron of both Shaivism and Buddhism and in fact Harshavardhana has written plays integrating legends from Puranas and Jataka. The invitees to the Kanauj assembly included King Bhaskaravarman of Kamrupa (Assam), many Buddhist monks, Hindu and Jain scholars. And where did Hieun Tsang pursue further studies? He did it in Buddhist University of Nalanda. Had Hindu rulers were so intent on finishing off Buddhism, how did this University survive? And a couple of centuries prior to this assembly at Kanauj, another Chinese traveler Faxian (330 – 420 AD) had chronicled the hold of Buddhism in India. Even in the two centuries between these two Chinese travelers, Buddhism did not wither away, which, clearly indicates that across this land ruled by Hindu kings, the growth of Buddhism was never curtailed.

[kallol]

Some questions as layman :

1. How much different is Buddhism from Hinduism ? Today's Buddhism - is it the same what Buddha realised or it is a modified version of that ?

2. Will Ramakrishna philosophy, Sai baba philosophy, Ramana Maharishi philosophy, have everything as common and exactly matching Hinduism ? If now then can we term those as separate religion ?

What little I know that most of his ideas matches with what Hinduism said - upto a certain point beyond which they has no answer. That is why there is a misconception that it encourages Aethism.

This is a phenomenon which also engulfs many Advaitins. However going beyond the point through inference lead to a higher perception of the system and thus brings back the Theism.

[wundermonk]

Some folks believe that Buddhism and Hinduism are "similar". Both Advaitins as well as Dvaitins have attempted to establish equivalence between their own conception of Brahman and Buddhist "Shunya".

I think Buddha himself was heavily influenced by the Upanishads. Buddha himself wouldnt deny the existence of the soul. He came up with some set of "unanswerables" and forbade his followers from attempting to speculate on these. These things include questions of cosmogony, etc.

However, later Buddhist logicians wouldnt stop here. They ended up building an entire structure on the "no self" theory. Therefore, this lay the foundations for a lot of intellectual conflict between Hindu Darshanas and Buddhism.

That being said, the "no self" theory doesnt seem to be completely believed by all Buddhists schools of thought. Some believe in Karma and Reincarnation. If Buddhists didnt believe so, we would never have the Jataka Tales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jataka_tales).

So, in summary, there are some schools of Buddhism that are close to Hinduism. Some others are diametrically opposed to Hinduism.

The historical Buddha may or may not have approved of all such schools. As I said before, he refused to deny the existence of the soul.

Edited to add: IMHO, a belief system that doesnt believe in an afterlife [like some schools of Buddhism] cannot be classified as a religion. So, I tend to look at Buddhist schools that deny an afterlife as more of an atheistic philosophy. Such schools of Buddhism should properly be considered as a branch of psychiatry. But these Buddhists sometimes are more dogmatic about their beliefs than the faithful. That is a different story altogether. ;)