The banner reads:

Sri Brahmatantra Swatantra Parakala Swamy Mutt

Homam for Students Success in Examinations

On Feb 28-2010 @ 8.00am

…

As most of you would know, a “Homam” (also referred to as Havan, Yagya, Yagna, Homa) is a ritual involving offerings into a consecrated fire.

Behind the ritual is the spirit of sacrifice and the thought of well-being of the entire society and all forms of life. “Homam” constitutes an important part of most Sanskaras in Hindu belief system. The ritual also finds echoes in certain forms of Buddhism.

On a related note, see this picture (courtesy: fundoozone):

It reads (in Hindi):

The Mandir of Miracle-Visa Hanuman-ji

Mandir has special pooja to get visa for (going) abroad

…

Also read: Divine Intervention? Indians Seek Help From the ‘Visa God’ (may need subscription)

Additional resources:

What is a Hindu Havan?

Wikipedia entry on Homa

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

Pictures that say a thousand words

*** What is “Dharma”? – Concluding Part by K Harapriya ***

Can one fight a dharma yudh against adharma?

The Mahabharata gives a pretty clear answer —-yes, we can fight a dharmic war mostly although some acts of adharma will be committed.

This will seem like equivocation to most people because we tend to believe two prevailing myths:   one, that dharmic people should be held to much higher standards than the totally adharmic;   and two,  that the forces of  evil (adharma) are naturally weaker than the forces of the righteous (dharm).

Both of these are not true. Firstly, holding the dharmic to much higher standards than the adharmic, will weaken the righteous.

Secondly, the  Mahabharata tells us that the adharmic are often as strong as or stronger than the dharmic.   This may be because they are not constrained by any moral code,  and  may in fact,  be victors in most battles and wars. It is therefore necessary to evolve strategies to fight them, taking advantage of their weaknesses.

Several examples are given in the Mahabharata but the three most poignant ones are the killing of  Bhisma, Drona and Karna.

Bhisma

In the Bhisma Parva of the Mahabharata,   the battles between the Pandavas and Kauravas are documented.  According to  Kisari  Mohan  Ganguli’s  translation of the Mahabharata,   the war raged on for many days with Bhisma decimating many of the Pandava forces.  Arjuna always has the  moral reluctance to kill his Guru and uncle. He repeatedly brushes of Krishna’s exhortation to kill Bhisma.  He says, “ How… shall I fight in battle with the grandsire who is my senior in years, who is possessed of wisdom and intelligence, who is the oldest member of our race?”  He even recounts how he used to climb onto Bhisma’s lap as a child and call him father to which Bhisma replied, “I am not thy father but thy father’s father”.

Arjuna  is at many times (as evidenced in the Gita) ready to give up the kingdom if it would stop the fighting.  Here, he is very similar to Yudhishtra.

It is Krishna who provides the moral compass and the correct perspective. He says “one should slay even an aged person endowed with every merit and worthy of reverence if he cometh as a foe, or indeed any other who approacheth for destroying oneself”

Bhisma on the other hand, does not suffer from such doubts and conflicts.  He puts every effort into killing as many of the Pandava army as possible.  When Duryodhana repeatedly approaches him and questions him on his  inability to kill the Pandavas,  Bhisma is very offended because he knows that he has put all his effort into killing them.  In fact, Arjuna goes from his half-hearted attacks to a full blown attack on Bhisma, using Shikandin only after realizing that the Kauravas have no moral angst in destroying him or his sons.  It takes Arjuna ten days of battle to come to this realization.

Drona

Similarly, Drona too has no affection for the Pandavas when he approaches them as a foe.  We can tell this from the episode of the killing of Abhimanyu.  In that incident, both Drona and Karna lead the Kauravas against the sixteen year old warrior.   Abhimanyu was surrounded by eight warriors.  When  Abhimanyu  loses his horses and is on the ground,   Dushasana’s  son hits Abhimanyu on the head with a mace.  None of these actions trouble Drona.  As a guru of the Pandavas, and the son of the great Rishi , Bharadwaj,  one would  expect Drona to have a clear sense of dharma;  yet  associating with the  immoral Duryodhana has perhaps changed Drona.  We see time and again the overwhelming doubts the Pandavas have over their actions while none of the Kauravas have even the slightest troubling of the conscience.  This includes Karna who actively participated in the killing of his own nephews Ghatotkacha and Abhimanyu.

Karna

One of the enduring stories  about Karna, is the inherent nobility and grace of Karna.   Here was the true son on Kunti, the first born, the son of the resplendent Surya,  the one unjustly disowned by his mother at birth, yet one who valorously gives his kavacha (armor) and kundala (earrings) to Indra who appears in the form of a mendicant.  True, Karna is all these.  In fact, he comes across as a more likable person than Arjuna, because he had to struggle so much in life to achieve anything.  Yet, he is also one who stands by and watches Duryodhana cheat in a game, and has his brother’s wife dragged out by the hair. Karna is one of those who attack Abhimanyu when Abhimanyu has lost his chariot and weapons. He has no problem asking for Indra’s weapon when he gives him his armor and earrings and asks for Indra’s weapon to kill Indra’s son Arjuna.  Karna’s hatred of Arjuna was so great that he hesitates to use Indra’s  shakthi against Ghatotkacha until Duryodhana pleads with him, since Ghatotkacha is decimating the Kaurava army.

Krishna’s advice to Arjuna during the fight with Bhisma and Karna are often held up by modern critics as inciting violence.  It is often said that the violence Krishna supports to remove the adharmic from power is in itself the very embodiment of adharma.

This understanding of the Mahabharata is fundamentally flawed. To claim that Krishna’s advice is immoral is to claim that a human has no moral authority or obligation to defend himself. In fact, even animals understand the moral imperative to defend themselves.  It is useless to talk of ahimsa when confronted with the violent foe; likewise to claim that one should follow the strictest of rules when confronted with an enemy who is stronger and follows no rules is ultimately suicidal.

It is in this context that we have to understand Krishna’s advice.  Bhisma, Drona and Karna are invincible. This is how Krishna views them.  There is no way to kill them except through the use of strategy which exploits their weaknesses.  Bhisma’s weakness was that he would not fight against Shikandin because Shikandin was born a woman.  The  fact  that Shikandin in now a man fails to impress Bhisma.  When Arjuna uses Shikandin as a shield, he does not do so through trickery.  Bhisma knowingly refrains from fighting. This then is Bhisma’s choice.

Likewise, in the death of Drona, there is no other way to defeat him.  Yes, Yudhishtra lies that Ashwattama is  dead, knowing that Drona will think it is his son and not the elephant.  That is indeed an act of adharma.  Yet, Drona in fact commits a greater sin in refraining from fighting after he hears this. Has he not pledged his duty and loyalty to Duryodhana?  Should he not have continued fighting, unhampered by emotions as a true warrior should? Unfortunately, Drona is further hampered by his own karma - his humiliation of King Drupada and his demanding guru dakshina from Ekalavya without even teaching him. Ultimately, his death is caused by his own actions, including his support of  Duryodhana.

In the case of Karna, it is a combination of Karna’s own karma coming to haunt him. Karna acquires his skill partially by lying to Parasurama that he is not a Kshatriya.  When Parasurama finds out, he curses Karna with a memory lapse at a crucial period.  He is further hindered by the fact that he has given his divine armor and earrings which protected him.  However, even these need not have affected him, if he had not supported Duryodhana.

In these three examples, there is the underlying message that ultimately, those who commit adharma and those who support the adharmic (even if they themselves do not commit any adharmic acts) are considered equally culpable .

Mahatma Gandhi’s interpretation of the Gita

In our post-independent times, Gandhi has emerged as an alternative interpreter of the Gita.  His focus on Ahimsa, where one never resorts to violence, no matter what the provocation, is considered a legitimate interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita.  However, there is a fundamental flaw in such an interpretation. Ahimsa, as a concept when there is reference of it in the Mahabharata and other Indian texts, mostly refer to the non-killing of the vulnerable (children, women, unarmed men and animals).    There is no reference to ahimsa when one is confronting forces that seek to destroy one.  In fact the Gita clearly states that is one’s moral duty (dharma) to protect oneself and one’s dependents. Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa is from Jainism and more in line with the Christian concepts of martyrdom, where one dies for the cause and is immediately elevated.

In Hinduism, one may fight a battle and die in it, but the death for one who refuses to fight on the battlefield holds no special greatness.  Hindus do not embrace martyrdom.  Martyrdom only exists in religions where heaven is promised only to those true believers and people who die for the religion.  In Hinduism, swarga was attained not on the basis of belief but in performing duty. Thus, we see in the Mahabharata, Bhisma, Drona etc. all go to swarga since they did their duty as kshatriyas, even though they supported the adharmic.

In conclusion, the concept of dharma alone is pradhaana (prime importance) in our religion. Ithihaas, Purananas, and the Vedas help us determine what is  dharma because we truly understand that if we uphold dharma, it will protect us.

Dharmo Rakshathi rakshithaha – he who protects dharma will be protected by dharma.

*** End***

Follow the links to Part 1 and Part 2.

Related Posts:

A humble attempt at understanding “Dharma” – Part I

Understanding Raj-Dharma

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

What is “Dharma”? – Concluding Part

*** What is “Dharma”? – Part II by K Harapriya ***

Lessons of the Mahabharata

One epic which still holds profound lessons for us,  is the Mahabharata.  Here is an epic where a central character, Duryodhana, is an ambitious king who seeks wealth and power.  These desires, in themselves,   are the hallmark of a kshatriya and therefore befitting a king.  He, as the first born son of the first born Dhritarashtra ,  considers himself the rightful heir to Hastinapura.  Leaving aside the practice of the time in which the most dharmic prince  usually rules,  we can see that Duryodhana  has a legitimate  claim.  His desires and ambitions in themselves are not adharmic.  The adharma flows when he tries to usurp his cousins’ kingdom of Indraprastha.   His ambition has become greed and he cannot tell the difference.   Instead of seeking war outright, which as a Kshatriya would have been dharmic, he tries to burn down the Pandava’s palace of wax, then cheats them at a game and finally decides to go to war since he cannot honour his own promise to grant the Pandavas Indraprastha if they fulfilled the conditions of the bet.

Thus, the war of   Kurukshetra   starts with a war within Duryodhana’s   personality—his desire to do what is wrong conflicting  with  his knowledge of what  is  right.

Dharma and individual psychology – How to determine what is dharma

Duryodhana, and in fact all antagonists in Hindu epics, are a useful study of human psychology. The human psychology,   as understood by Hindus, is one that is dominated by raga and dwesha – objects, experiences that the individual desires to have (raga) and objects and experiences that the individual seeks to avoid (dwesha).  This eternal conflict of seeking the pleasurable and avoiding the painful informs the individual’s actions.  They impact the individual’s seeking of wealth (artha) and pleasure (kama).  Thus, wealth is desired not only for what it can bring us (material possessions) but also for what it helps us avoid (the pain of poverty).

Within the Mahabharata, various characters present us with the raga,  dwesha conflicts which governs   their actions.  Just as Duryodhana wants to compound his wealth by cheating his cousins out of their share, Yudhishtra has his own set of raga – dwesha issues.  Here is a man whose desire for being perceived as dharmic becomes more important than actually preserving the dharma in society and fighting for it, which is his duty as a kshatriya.  This is what allows him to pledge his wife after he had lost himself in the betting. This is what allows him to witness his wife being molested in public by Dushasana without raising a finger to defend her.  (Here he fails both as a king and as a husband).

Determining what is the correct path is often very difficult; when conflicts arise within oneself as to which path to pursue, the path of duty (what one should do) takes precedence over what one wants to do.  Yet even in this, we see that it is not an easy decision.  Referring to the Mahabharata, should Yudhishtra have agreed to go to the forest in exile, or should he have fought immediately?  The correct path is probably one that is suggested by Bhima, going to war immediately.  Agreeing to exile, as Yudhistra did,  went against his Kshatriya dharma, as well as Raj dharma, since he needed to protect the people of Indraprastha and not spend years in the forest.

The problem with Yudhistra is one that plagues most dharmic people and societies.  Does one fight to defend oneself  when confronted with the adharmic actions of another or does one try to negotiate one’s way out of it?

Preserving dharma

In times such as these – when Hinduism (as in the inclusive term of civilization and cultural ethos and world-view) appears to be under attack – while we ponder on how to protect this unique culture and civilization, one important point is that no dharma can be protected unless we protect the dharmi (one who practices the dharma). The only way to preserve a living culture is to make sure that those who practice it, are able to do so freely and that all threats to them are removed permanently.  It is important to remember that the threats to dharma are not only those forces which actively try to destroy the dharmi and his way of life,  but also those forces who  give support to the adharmic.

This is not a new problem though. The threat to the Pandavas , who are  embodiment of dharma,  were not only the Kauravas, but also all the allies of the Kauravas.   Even though some of those allies are good and dharmic in themselves, the very fact that they support Duryodhana means that they need to be destroyed.

One of the most valiant heroes of the Mahabharata was Bhisma.  Here was a man who should have been the King of Hastinapura.   In fact, he was the only true descendent of King Shantanu.  Yet, to please his father, he not only makes a promise to give up the throne and embrace celibacy, he also promises to protect the throne of Hastinapura.  Yet, when he supports Duryodhana, knowing that Duryodhana is wrong and a cruel man, Bhisma loses his moral compass—he becomes a party to adharma.

There are others who don’t recognize that when they have become supporters of adharma, they become adharmic themselves.    Both Karna and Drona, recognize the illegitimacy of Duryodhana’s claim, yet support him.   They fall into the common misconception that loyalty is more important than preserving dharma.

It is important to note that Duryodhana might never have gone to war without the support of these three; in fact, if Bhisma, Drona and Karna had refused to back him, he might have been forced to negotiate.

Watch out for the concluding part this weekend: Can one fight a dharma yudh against adharma?

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

What is “Dharma”? – Part II

*** What is “Dharma”? by K Harapriya ***

In the last great battle of the Kurukshetra war, Bhima is engaged in a fight to death with the wicked Duryodhana, whose greed and jealousy alone were responsible for the entire war.  After many days of fighting, a bruised and tired Bhima looks over at Krishna, the spiritual guide of the righteous Pandavas. While the rightful king Yudhishtra, the embodiment of dharma, who has staked the kingdom on the outcome of this fight, looks on, Krishna taps his thigh. The hint is to do the unthinkable, to break the warrior code and hit Duryodhana below his waist where he is weakest. Bhima does exactly that, Duryodhana is killed, and the battle is won.  Was this dharmic?  What is dharma? Is it worth preserving?  More importantly, is it even possible to have a dharma yudh (righteous war) against the forces of adharma?

Multi-layered definition of dharma

Sanatana Dharma, also known as Hinduism, has been described as a religion or a family of religions. It has a common thread of beliefs including the belief in karma and samsara, and the belief in the Vedas as pramana (a means of knowledge).  However, there is an even more basic principle which connects all the branches and beliefs of Hinduism and unites all Hindus.  This is the concept of dharma.

Dharma is the single uniting theme which informs Hindu beliefs and can be considered the foundation on  which Hinduism rests. It is defined as  “ that which upholds”.

In common parlance, it has multiple meanings depending on the context used.  It means duty (one’s obligations and responsibilities);   the right action in a given situation;    that which is in conformity with Rta (God’s /Natural laws); and also one’s religious role. Dharma is the first of the four purusharthas (the goals of man). It is followed by artha, kama and  moksha.  However, none of the other three are considered legitimate if one pursued them without reference to dharma. Artha (prosperity/security) obtained without reference to dharma is considered a crime.  Kama (pleasure) pursued without reference to dharma is considered debauchery. As for moksha, the adharmi could go nowhere near it.

Mere duty or righteous action does not, however, explain the depth of word.  Dharma exists within the Hindu world-view at several levels.  There is individual dharma, Svadharma,   which pertains to individual action which is undertaken to satisfy individual needs.  Within Hindu thought, desire and ambitions were not considered sinful or wrong and individuals were encouraged to satisfy their needs and desires through righteous actions.

Then, there is the dharma pertaining to family, society and the nation.   The concept of duty changes according to the situation and there is a clear precedent in deciding the correct course of action when there  is a conflict in the roles one plays.  Thus, duty to oneself is subordinated to one’s duty to family; one’s duty to one’s own family is subordinated to one’s duty to one’s community; and one’s duty to one’s own community is subordinated to one’s duty to the nation.

Dharma was further defined in terms of caste or community. Caste identities did not only refer to religious practices but also vocational practices.    Caste and community based dharma reveals the true pragmatic nature of the Hindu world-view.  For Hindus, values need not be universal (held by all members of society or pertaining to all situations).   By that,   Hindus understand that a value may be held by the majority of people at a given time, but it does not necessarily hold true for all times or all communities.  Thus,  ahimsa (nonviolence)  was a value that was held important.  It is extolled in the Mahabharata and in the Thirukkural.  Yet, there were communities, such as the Kshatriyas, who were entrusted with protecting society and had to use force  for this purpose.  Likewise, while religious texts like the Vedanta scorned material wealth and possessions, there were communities engaged in businesses and trade who were considered important for the economic prosperity of the entire nation—this then was their dharma

Since the concept of Dharma accommodated different life paths and practices, determining what Dharma is, in a given situation becomes very important to the Hindu.

Role of Ithihasa in Hindu values

Since the right course of action has to be determined according to dharma (righteousness) and the present situation, Hindus have throughout the ages pondered on how to determine what dharma is.  One of the primary teaching methods used has been the oral transmission of Ithihaasa and the Puranas.  Within the Hindu tradition though, only the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are considered Ithihaasa (historic). These two epics consider the life events of specific individuals and allow the reader to glean insight from the characters of these stories and their lives and situations.  The purpose of Ithihaasa is to teach the individual and the community how to determine what dharma is and how to act on it.  Our epics have played a central role in presenting us with paradigms in the form of characters whose behaviour and conflicts mirror our own situation.   Even though the stories are of a different time, we see that in our epics, the characters are motivated by the same desires that govern us— the desire for wealth, fame, pleasure, status and finally liberation.  The characters in these epics have choices in their actions and choices in how to respond to their own desires.

*** End of Part I ***

Tomorrow: Lessons from the Mahabharat

Related Posts:

A humble attempt at understanding “Dharma” – Part I

Understanding Raj-Dharma

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

What is “Dharma”? – Guest Post by Harapriya

RC has already done a masterful dissection of Vir Sanghvi’s seemingly clever play with words. So I will limit myself to a specific flippant remark made by Vir Sanghvi viz. “…Hindu kings destroyed Buddhist monasteries, more or less throwing Buddhism out of India”

Before I begin, I must stress that I am neither a historian nor have any academic pretensions. My response to Sh Sanghvi is therefore based on a diligent search of publicly discoverable material – mostly sourced via the world-wide web. Having said that, I do not have an army of researchers at my command – so if there have been any omissions/mistakes, please do highlight them via the comments section below and note that the added emphasis is mine, throughout.

In the remark I have cited above, Sh Sanghvi makes two distinct points:

1. Hindu kings destroyed Buddhist monasteries (as a consequence)
2. …throwing Buddhism out of India (more or less)

I will address the first point in this post and the next point in the concluding part. So let’s examine the basis for asserting that “Hindu kings” destroyed Buddhist monasteries.

In his article, Sh Sanghvi (somewhat predictably) has been careful not to mention any names of such “Hindu kings” who were actually involved in destruction of monasteries. But what does history tell us?

From a Wikipedia entry, we learn that

The Buddhism of Magadha was finally swept away by the Islamic invasion under Muhammad Bin Bakhtiar Khilji, during which many of the viharas and the famed universities of Nalanda and Vikramshila were destroyed, and thousands of Buddhist monks were massacred in 12th century C.E.

References? Amongst others, “History of Magadha” by L.L.S. Omalley; J.F.W. James (Veena Publication, Delhi, 2005, pp. 35)  that mentions:

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 some one 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.

But what about the Hindu kings, you may ask? Once again, let us peer into the past.

Here is Alexander Berzin in “The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the Mongol Empire“:

Although the Mithila rulers were Shaivite Hindus, they continued the Pala patronage of Buddhism and offered strong resistance against the Ghurids. They stopped, for example, an attempted drive to take Tibet in 1206.

and

The Sena king (Hindu) installed defensive garrisons at Odantapuri and Vikramashila Monasteries, which were imposing walled citadels directly on the Ghurids’ line of advance.

While Berzin believes Nalanda escaped the fate of Odantapuri and Vikramshila monasteries, he notes that

When the Tibetan translator, Chag Lotsawa Dharmasvamin (Chag Lo-tsa-ba, 1197 – 1264), visited northern India in 1235, he found it (Nalanda) damaged, looted, and largely deserted, but still standing and functioning with seventy students.

Who were these 70 students? How did they survive the massacre? Parshu Narayanan has some details. From “The last lesson at Nalanda:

As I browsed, a terribly poignant account of the last lesson at Nalanda emerged. Incredibly, it was by Nalanda’s last student: A Tibetan monk called Dharmaswamin. He visited Nalanda in 1235, nearly forty years after its sack, and found a small class still conducted in the ruins by a ninety-year old monk, Rahul Sribhadra.

Weak and old, the teacher was kept fed and alive by a local Brahmin, Jayadeva. Warned of a roving band of 300 Turks, the class dispersed, with Dharmaswamin carrying his nonagenarian teacher on his back into hiding. Only the two of them came back, and after the last lesson (it was Sanskrit grammar) Rahul Sribhadra told his Tibetan student that he had taught him all he knew and in spite of his entreaties asked him to go home.

Packing a raggedy bundle of surviving manuscripts under his robe, Dharmaswamin left the old monk sitting calmly amidst the ruins. And both he and the Dharma of Sakyamuni made their exit from India.

And what about the monks? Where did they disappear? Alexander Berzin has some answers:

Despite the possibility of accepting protected subject status (under the Muslim rulers), many Buddhist monks fled Bihar and parts of northern Bengal, seeking asylum in monastic universities and centers in modern-day Orissa, southern Bangladesh, Arakan on the western coast of Burma, southern Burma, and northern Thailand.

The majority, however, together with numerous Buddhist lay followers, went to the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal, bringing with them many manuscripts from the vast monastic libraries that had been destroyed.

Buddhism was in a strong position in Kathmandu at the time. The Hindu kings of the Thakuri Dynasties (750 – 1200) had supported the Buddhist monasteries, and there were several monastic universities. Since the end of the tenth century, numerous Tibetan translators had been visiting these centers on their way to India, and Nepalese masters from them had been instrumental in the revival of Buddhism in central and western Tibet. The early Hindu rulers of the Malla Period (1200 – 1768) continued the policies of their Thakuri predecessors.

As one digs deeper, more facts come to light…Here is a certain Dr B R Ambedkar writing about what happened to the monasteries:

The Musalman invaders sacked the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few.

They raised(sic) to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarizing the evidence relating to the slaughter of the Buddhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 AD, Mr. Vincent Smith says, “….Great quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the ’shaven headed Brahmans’, that is to say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor sought for someone capable of explaining the contents of the books in the libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to read them. ‘It was discovered,’ we are told, ‘that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar.’ Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India….“

But surely these facts muct be known to Sh Sanghvi – and other historians? What is their response? In the words of Sh Arun Shourie:

…the Marxist historians who have been perpetrating this falsehood (of ascribing the extinction of Buddhism to the persecution of Buddhists by Hindus) have not been able to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate the concoction.

In one typical instance, three inscriptions were cited. The indefatigable Sita Ram Goel looked them up. Two of the inscriptions had absolutely nothing to do with the matter. And the third told a story which had the opposite import than the one which the Marxist historian had insinuated: a Jain king had himself taken the temple from Jain priests and given it to the Shaivites because the former had failed to live up to their promise. Goel repeatedly asked the historian to point to any additional evidence or to elucidate how the latter had suppressed the import that the inscription in its entirety conveyed. He waited in vain. The revealing exchange is set out in Goel’s monograph, “Stalinist ‘Historians’ Spread the Big Lie.”

Marxists cite only two other instances of Hindus having destroyed Buddhist temples. These too it turns out yield to completely contrary explanations. Again Marxists have been asked repeatedly to explain the construction they have been circulating — to no avail. Equally important, Sita Ram Goel invited them to cite any Hindu text which orders Hindus to break the places of worship of other religions — as the Bible does, as a pile of Islamic manuals does. He has asked them to name a single person who has been honoured by the Hindus because he broke such places – the way Islamic historians and lore have glorified every Muslim ruler and invader who did so. A snooty silence has been the only response.

As you can see, Marxist historians and climate change alarmists do share something in common – a disdain for (and fear of?) evidence and historical data.

To end this part, here is another example of sloppy journalism & flippant remarks on this subject. This excerpt is from an article by Shakti Maira (who “The Hindu” helpfully describes as “a noted contemporary artist”):

But let us not think that it was only the Muslims who broke or desecrated temples. Hindus have done it too. I remember the pang I felt when I saw the construction of a silly guest room on top of a stupa in Sarnath for Emperor Jehangir’s one-day visit by a Hindu Raja of Benares…

It is also a fact that the destruction of the beautiful carvings and structures (stupas, viharas and temples) at Buddhist Sarnath were done by a Hindu raja with no tolerance for Buddhism and crudely used the stones for constructions in his kingdom.

I am told our recount of history has glossed over the breaking of each other’s temples by the Shaivas and Vaishnavas and the breaking of Jain and Buddhist temples by Hindus.

The tone of the brief passage above is in the best traditions of Indian journalism: definitive and all-knowing without being burdened with inconvenient references.

The first para quotes an incident – without details or context. Moreover, it talks about “construction” not “destruction”! The second paragraph mentions neither the source of this “fact” nor the context (e.g. while it is believed that Pushyamitra Sunga destroyed the original Stupa at Sanchi, what is rarely mentioned is that his son rebuit it into a much grander structure). And the third paragraph begins with, “I am told…” – thus conveniently eliminating the burden of proof.

In the concluding part, I hope to examine some explanations for Buddhism’s decline in India and factors that might have contributed or accelerated its eclipse in the land of its birth.

To be concluded.

UPDATE: Part II here: Dear Vir, This is why Buddhism declined in India…

Somewhat Related Posts:

Taj Mahal: The Biggest Whitewash in Indian History?

On Aurangzeb, Kashi Vishwanath, Lies and Half-Truths

Lies and Half Truths in the name of National Integration

* Image: Photograph of a Torana at Sanchi, courtesy Victoria & Albert Museum

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

Dear Vir, Leave these kids alone…