Dear Vir, Leave these kids alone…
This post was triggered by Vir Sanghvi’s misleading article “Ayodhya for dummies” that he wrote in response to his “younger readers…(who are) mystified by the fuss and annoyed by the refusal of journos to tell them what it (Liberhan Report) was all about”
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 Indiaâ€
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:
- Hindu kings destroyed Buddhist monasteries (as a consequence)
- …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 artistâ€):
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
It is true that Hindus fought against the spread of Buddhism, but not with the sword and not through the destruction of religious sites. They did is through dialogue and debate and various resurgent bhakthi movements. Adi Shankara is credited with being an important figure in that fight. According to the traditional accounts of his life, he travelled throughout India engaging in debates with the relgious leaders of those places. One of the important debates happened in Prayag. Adi Shankara also debated with Jain scholars.
What a great website you’ve converted this to
The Hindus debated and to a great extent subsumed Buddhism, and enriched itself with Buddhisms’s ideas, much of which was born from Hindu thought anyway ! So this was a battle for minds and a confluence of ideas, not of rivers of blood. Pretty much what K Harapriya said very well!
Thanks Harapriya (and A)…
And also “M”!
***
Below, a snippet re. the dialogue and debates between Hinduism and Buddhism, courtesy Sandeep:
The Nalanda university did not offer only Buddhist subjects. It taught all Darshanas (Hindu systems of Philosophy), phoentics, grammar, nyaya/rhetoric, and fine arts apart from the list that Sudha Ramachandran mentions. Kumarila Bhatta is a good example to illustrate how Nalanda worked. A powerful exponent of Vedanta, he enrolled at Nalanda, when he was about 80 years old, to learn Buddhism inside out so he could defeat Buddhists in argument and establish the supremacy of Vedanta. His life illustrates the spirit of the University where learning was imparted regardless of age or the student’s previous educational/philosophical background.
Vir Sanghvi is totally wrong in attributing the decline of Buddhism to Hindu kings. However there were some kings who did attack monasteries. From the top of my mind I can name 2 – Shaivite Huna invader Mihirakula (late Gupta period) and Shashanka of Gauda (Bengal) in Harsha’s period who attacked Bodh Gaya.
I use to read his blog or site some time back and I found him misleading the readers on many issues. Also I found he is not managing his site personally (all the time) and rude to those who has different opinion by deleting comments, with out being notifying about it to the commentators. It’s not nice!
There are some instances of violence involving Hindu kings, on religious grounds. To add to Salil (reference of King Shashanka cutting down the Bodhi tree), I have read somewhere (am not able to dig up that reference now, except in some Hindu-hate-sites that I don’t want to link to), that a Tibetan Buddhist who visited Nalanda some thirty years after Bakhtiyar Khilji’s invasion wrote that brahmaNas conducted a yajn~a and threw embers from the sacrifice into the library, burning it down. It sounds somewhat incredible to me, however since this is from what is supposed to be a document written around that time I don’t want to totally ignore that evidence.
Then again, Periya Puranam in Tamizh details intense feud between Shaivites and Jains. There is a story of tiru-jn~ana-sambandhar, considered one of the greatest of Nayanmars, entering a contest with Jains. According to the story the Jains claimed that those who lose the contest should be hanged, and the Jains lost the contest and got hanged :
http://www.skandagurunatha.org/deities/siva/nayanars/27.asp
Typically, many historians who read such passages are skeptical of whether this was the original version since many of them are skeptics, don’t believe in magic, and dub such versions as the version of the victor to cover their killings with a clean image. I am not supporting these historians, merely echoing their view.
There is then again some reference to Jain temple being destroyed somewhere in Karnataka to construct a Hindu temple. I heard it being spoken by a historian in a history class, so am not able to locate the reference. Perhaps the reference was to the Jain king Bitta deva whose daughter is supposed to have been cured by Shri Ramanujacharya, and the temple is perhaps the Thondanur Kere temple in Karnataka.
Then again, the Vishishtadvaitic tradition talks of a Chozha king who was a devotee of Lord Shiva and wanted to pluck Shri Ramanujacharya’s eyes, and Shri Ramanujacharya’s disciple Kuresha went to the king and identified himself as Shri Ramanujacharya, to protect the Acharya who went to Melkote in Karnataka.
But the point is, these don’t even compare with the numerous instances of Islamic attacks, for instance as you might have seen :
http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2009/03/interview-with-romila-thapar/#comment-8128
Or for that matter, your own link about Amir Khusro :
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/07/20/weekend-reading-3/
Leftists dishonestly reduce a question of degree to one of existence. So what if one group has committed 100000000 crimes and the other three crimes, the leftist brands both of them with the one word “criminal” and seeks a pernicious moral equivalence between the two.
@ Salil: More on Shashank and Mihirakula…From a somewhat dated article by Varsha Bhosle:
The two oft-cited cases of Hindu “persecution,” involving Pushyamitra Shunga and Shashank, don’t withstand criticism. The story (which surfaces over 3 centuries later) about Pushyamitra’s offering money for the heads of monks is rendered improbable by historical facts of his allowing and patronising monasteries and Buddhist universities in his domains. The famous historian of Buddhism, Etienne Lamotte, observes: “To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof.”
Huen Tsang’s account of Shashank’s devastating a monastery in Bihar, killing the monks and destroying Buddhist relics is contradicted by other elements in his own report. According to the pilgrim, Shashank threw a stone with the Buddha’s footprint into the river, but it was returned through a miracle; then he felled the bodhi tree but a sapling from it was replanted, which grew miraculously overnight. The fact remains, the stone and tree were present in full glory when Huen Tsang reached the site.
A third tale, about the 12th century King Harsha of Kashmir, is apparently true, but has nil to do with religious persecution: He plundered Hindu temples of ALL sects, including Buddhism, in his own kingdom, without desecrating them or their keepers. It’s the one genuine case of a ruler plundering not out of religious motives, but for the gold. There’s no known case of a Muslim marauder who merely stole from temples without explicitly desecrating them, much less of a Muslim ruler who plundered the sanctuaries of his own religion…
As for Mihirakula, here is Berzin’s view:
In 515, the White Hun king Mihirakula, under the influence of jealous non-Buddhist factions in his court, suppressed BudÂdhism. He destroyed monasÂteries and killed many monks throughout northwestern InÂdia, Gandhara, and espeÂcially in KashÂmir. The persecution was less severe in the portions of Nagarahara that he controlled. His son reversed this policy and built new monasterÂies in all these areas.
***
@ froginthewell: You have summed it up neatly: The question is indeed one of degree vs. existence
To add to what froginthewell mentioned, the disingenuous historians tend to accept mention of Hindu kings destroying Buddhist temples at face value and as proof of universality of Hinduism’s villainy when there’s no written word in sacred books exhorting the faithful to destroy such temples; but suddenly raise their standards sky-high when instances of Muslim kings destroying non-Islamic/Hindu temples are mentioned, and ignore the religious motivations/reasons behind such destruction of temples, even when it comes straight from Muslim historians of those times.
It’s these blatant double-standards that are galling, not to mention the issue of degree.
Let us do serious history then. We have the Chachnama – a history of Sindh at the time of the Islamic invasion by Muhammad bin Qasim. It emerges from the Chachnama that Sindh was majority buddhist at the time, and that “buddhists and brahmanists lived amicably.” Indeed, they seemed to frequent each other’s places of worship (common among all Hindu sects to this day, since there is no notion of “one true faith” among Hindus). The Chachnama is historical evidence that all the things the Marxists have been saying are vile lies invented to defame Hindus.
Al Beruni – who accompanied Mahmud Ghazni on one of his temple destroying expeditions, also writes that the Hindus were very upset at how Mohammed Bin Qasim had destroyed “the statues of But” (Buddha) in Sindh earlier – apparently there was a famous large statue measuring 60 feet at Debal which Bin Qasim destroyed. Clearly, the Hindus and Buddhists did not see each other as that much different – perhaps like Shaivites and Vaishnavites do today. I am Vaishnavite, but if I hear of a destruction of Lord Shiva’s Moorty, I will be just as upset as if it were a Moorty of Shri Rama or Shri Krishna. I visit Shiva temples as often as I can, but my Ishta Devta is Shri Rama. That is all it means to be a Vaishnava. There is no animosity, or claim to exclusivity in spiritual matters.
My blog is dharmaveer.blogspot.com
@ frog in the well
the reference to tamil literature is a very important one.
In this context the enclosed article (second part. will try and locate first part) is also important as it tries to directly connect the two to three occasion when hindu kings destroyed hindu temples to the muslim destruction and justify them. these articles appeared in “frontline” a magazine of hindu and is now part of most curriculum on Hinduism in the US universities.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1726/17260700.pdf
the major destruction referred to is the destruction of ganesha temple at vatapi by the pallava king “Narasimha varman” . But the point missed is that the ganesha murthy was not destroyed but carried back to tamilnad and is worshiped even today.
compare with the destruction of “Somnath temple” and the use of the murthies as steeping stones in the ghaznavi palace.
the commander of the pallava army which destroyed vatapi and brought back the ganeshlater turned into a saint and wrote the peria puranam (the biography of 63 saints of saivism – the bakthi marg of tamilnad)
rgds/sridhar
the first part of the eaton article referred to in the earlier comment is linked below. this part deals with “hindu destruction”
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1725/17250620.pdf
rgds/sridhar
Kaffir, Dharmaveer, Sridhar: Thanks…I will have a look at the links later today when I hope to have some time.
dear all,
a small correction on my first note. the commander of the pallava army became one of the 63 nayanmars (saivaite saints)- siruthondar (meaning a minor servant)- after the war and this is narrated in the book “periya Puranam” written in the 11th or 12th century.
regards
sridhar
Amother reason for Buddhism to decline , to some extent Jainism was that monkhood was forced on people. This is brought out by Chanakya when Chandragupta Mautya, wants to become a Jain monk. Chanakya tells him ” If all become monks , who will rule , who will be administrators, and who will do farming , and where will food come from and how will there be a functional rule of the state”. Chandragupta hesitates and then in later part of his life becomes a Jain monk.
Buddhism is like classical mechanics , whereas Vedanta ( Maya ) takes in both classical mechanics as well as Quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is very much analogous to the rope and snake discriminatory approach of the human mind. An entity existing as a particle and a wave at the same time is very similar to the snake and rope philosophy.
Even Einstein rejected QMechanics , but later towards the end of his life accepted this.
The confirmation of QMechanics led to the great upsurge to study of Vedanta , the philosophical nectar of the Vedas. Buddhism is quasi Vedanta , but not complete . because it is human centric ( which is practical) , but true Vedanta motivates the human to go beyond frontiers, which the Rishis did by saying Neti , Neti.
There are ample examples in Tamil Shaivite literature from 11th and 12th century that Jains/Buddhist are killed en masse, under Chola rule. Most of them is like calling “Samanar”(jains) for debate, and then defeating them by asking very difficult questions(asked by Shaivite Hindu scholars) and then killing them using the notorious techniques of the day.
There are heavy fights between Shaivaites and Vaishanavies too. And you can easily see, Tamil Nadu is dominated by Shaivism. I am not sure why this has happened, but it is a fact.
Mullai: Any references?
@Mullai, @author,
Yes there is ample proof that there was conflict between Buddhism, Jainism and Shaiva/Vaishnava sects. But nowhere it is written that the Buddists were killed en masse by kings.
Periya Puranam says that there was debate between buddhists (or jains, I don’t remember exactly) and a Saiva saint and the buddhists who were defeated killed themselves (kaluvaerinar – hanged themselves in kalu. kalu – a wooden pole that had nails protruding out.) The king never killed them. On the other hand the well known Saivite saint ‘Thirunavukkarasar’ who was initially a jain and then converted to Saivism was tortured by the king Narasimha Pallavan (who built Mahabalipuram). Later the king also converted to Saivism. No stupas were destroyed. In fact the the great Chola king Rajaraja Cholan who built the Tanjore temple also built the Choodamani Vihara in Nagapattinam.
There were conflicts between Saivites and Vaishnavites but no temples were destroyed. But the main deities were converted from Shiva/Subramanya to Vishnu and Vishnu to Shiva. In Courtallam Sage Agastya converted the Vishnu temple to Shiva temple. Even Tirupathi temple’s main deity Venkateshwara is said to be originally a Subramanya statue now worshiped as Vishnu. And it is a known fact that in Tamil nadu Subramanya temples were always built on hilltop/mountain and Vishnu temples are built near forest lands.
@Sridhar Krishna,
Narasimhavarman’s General Paranjothi did not destroy the temple. He is said to have brought the statue but once my mom said citing some Tamil literature that what he brought was actually the door of the temple and the door had a beautiful Ganesha image etched on it. The statue being worshiped today is not the original Vathapi Ganapathi but a statue made with the Vathapi Ganapathi as a model (this is accepted by many historians).
Historically in Tamil nadu (and other parts of India) kings destroyed each other’s palaces but not the temples. For example Gangaikonda Cholapuram a Chola city in Tamil nadu was destroyed by a Pandya king but the temple is still there.
As pointed out by you the Frontline article emphasizes that Hindu statues were looted by Hindu kings but fails to appreciate the fact that they were installed in their own temples and worshiped. But Muslims broke the statues and destroyed the temples to humiliate Hindus and not to worship Hindu Gods.
I have written a small note on Vathapi Ganapathi and statue lootinghere
Shantanu:
Why am i not surprised? These are tried and tested ” hit and run” tactics of the MSM in India.
Never mind if young minds grow up with a warped view of Hinduism, never mind if in young minds nationalism is on par with fanaticism, never mind if in young minds secularism is perceived as a must (even at the cost of Hindus).
These tactics were in full force during the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and threw mud on Hindus’ beliefs.
My only consolation after reading Sanghvi’s articles were the brickbats that he got.
@ Bhavani: Thanks…we can do our little bit by exposing the falsehoods and circulating these articles widely so people get a chance to read the reality – not the “doctored” version(s).
With reference to Salil’s comments, they are left unexplained (I don’t know why and what is the purpose): Kshatriya class used to keep Brahmin class at bay. If Brahmins (religious torch bearers) imposed themselves in governance, they were repulsed. If the religious torch bearer class was represented by Buddhs, it was not going to be different treatment for the religious torch bearer. If one goes back and reads Ramayana and Mahabharata, the brahmin class used to live away from society and there are many instances of Kshatriyas fighting against Brahmins. Also, one of the rulers is from Hun clan, regarded as Malechchas.
@Rohit:
I only stated facts about the 2 instances of Hindu or Vedic god worshipping kings who attacked Buddhist monasteries. Do you have any citation/reference that explains your statement that Shashanka attacked Bodh Gaya because Buddhists imposed themselves in governance which is why he tried to repel them? It is true that the Hunas were considered as Mlechchhas, but some of them were Shaivite too. It does not contradict my statement. So whats your point again?
As for Kshatriyas attacking Brahmins, any noteworthy reference/incident where Brahmins were attacked because they imposed themselves in governance?
And whats with your pet peeve of “religious torchbearers”? Dictionary.com tells me that ‘torch bearer’ is ‘a leader in a movement’ and you use the term on every thread as an invective of the worst kind :-).
BTW, before you take the thread on another tangent, please remember my first statement that IMO, Vir Sanghvi is wrong in attributing the decline of Buddhism to these attacks.
@salil, the caste system in India is a murky thing not very clear. Have Kshatriyas attacked Brahmins? Yes. Example from Wikipedia – “Parashurama then became responsible for killing the world’s corrupted Haihaya kings and warriors who came to attack him in revenge for the killing of Kartavirya Arjuna, to prevent a Brahmin from being emperor and threatening their position”.
@Shaan:
Thanks for the reference.
Now I’d like a reference that verifies Rohit’s statement that implies that Shashanka attacked Bodh Gaya because Buddhists imposed themselves in governance.
@salil, there were Buddhist kings like Harshavardhana over whom Buddhist monks obviously had great influence though no Buddhist monk became king. Buddhist monks interfering in politics was and is very much prevalent in Sri Lanka where they are the ones who mainly instigate violence against Hindu Tamils even today. They are the main hurdle to peace between the Sinhalese and Tamils. Their hatred for India is also due to the fact that India is a country from where Buddhism vanished.
@ Salil
My point is that you are deliberately stating half baked facts. Like Julio posts which puts a doubt over your intentions which are more like Ramdeholl and Juven Bachans in Aryan Invasion Theory.
@Shaan:
Harshavardhana was not a Buddhist. He was a patron of Buddhist monks, but was not a Buddhist himself. All religions did influence politics. But the point here is specifically if Buddhist monasteries were destroyed by Hindu kings *because* they interfered in politics. If so, any link to back it up?
And BTW, no monk, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist, ever became king.
@Rohit:
If you think that my statement that “some Hindu kings destroyed Buddhist monasteries” is half-baked because it lacks the reasons why they did so, could you please point out references which do give the exact reasons? Otherwise your theories of “keeping them at bay” are half-baked too.
@Salil, Harsha became a Buddhist though he was Hindu initially. Buddhists did not merely influence, they were really a power center in Sri Lanka in ancient times and even today they are a power center. The Mahavamsa clearly explains the clout of the Buddhist monks.
I really don’t know why some Hindu kings in the north destroyed Buddhist stupas. I didn’t want to enter into that argument but only wanted to provide some information that I knew.
The destruction of a few stupas by some Hindu kings is not something comparable to the thousands of temples destroyed across the length and breadth of India from Kashmir to Madurai and from Somnath to Bengal by the Muslims.
The point made in the main article is that some elites justify the destruction of Hindu temples by Muslims by exaggerating the historical conflicts between Hindus and Buddhists in India. I believe our discussion should be about that instead of deviating away into minute details.
@shaan
I’m with you on the argument about destruction of Buddhist stupas/monasteries by Hindu kings as against those by Muslim invaders. But am in disagreement with the Harsha-Buddhist part, although I agree to not deviate into minute details unrelated to the topic.
Shantanu!! A wonderful blog. Is there a way to meet you. Are you located in Kolkata??
Marxist are a wonderful tribe; a vanishing tribe ;vanishing under its own queer and laughable contradictions. The saviours of the undertroden are being hated by the undertrodden who beg them to leave them alon
Marxists are the only tribe which besides telling lies to all tells lies to itself; self delusion
And where is the doubt of destruction by fantic islamists of Budhist monuments. Why are we looking in past. See in the TV age the live destruction of Bamia Budhas in Afganistan. O judgement though art fled to the brutish beasts and men have lost their reason. Do you still require more proof Mr Singhvi.
Thanks to the blogging. Frauds like Singhvi stand exposed
@ Ashok: Thanks…I have not been to Kolkata in a very long time (many years) but hope to be there later this year…Follow me on twitter to get more regular updates.
it’s too long for me to read………….ugh (yawn)
“Hsuen Tsang’s contention, from hearsay, that the Shaiva king Shashank had persecuted Buddhists and felled the Bodhi tree, also goes unquestioned. Yet, his story is just visibly untrustworthy : he claims that a replanted sapling of the Bodhi tree (which, from his story, must have been felled only a few years before his own arrival) miraculously grew overnight into a mature tree. Remember that secularist historians reject myths and irrational beliefs? What Hsuen Tsang got to see with his own eyes was a tree far bigger than a recently replanted sapling could have been: an indication that the tree had never been felled in the first place. Yet, so many secularist history books go on declaring that “fanatical Shashank felled the Bodhi tree”, in defiance of proper historical criticism.86
When it comes to dealing with the history of persecution and temple destruction by the Muslims, secularist historians throw all regard for hard evidence to the wind and replace it with a purely deductive (which is typically medieval) approach : Islam is tolerant, therefore the destruction and persecution cannot have taken place.
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/ayodhya/ch8.htm”
“1. She has suppressed the fact, stated by Huen Tsang, that Mihîrakula had requested the Buddhist Sangha to teach him the tenets of Buddhism. The Sangha did not assign the task to a qualified teacher but sent a monk who had the rank of a servant. Mihîrakula felt outraged at this insult and persecuted the Buddhists. It is highly doubtful if this HûNa tyrant had become a Å aiva. KalhaNa sees him only as a HûNa extending patronage to bad BrãhmaNas. But even if he had, his fury had nothing to do with Å aivism. On the contrary, it was the fury of a tyrant whose ego had been hurt. Kashmir had known many Å aiva kings before Mihîrakula as well as after him. None of them is known to have persecuted the Buddhists. In fact, most of them are known to have been patrons of Buddhism. The only instance she cites is that of a king who repented and rebuilt the vihãra which he had pulled down in a fit of anger. We should welcome a similar instance of some Muslim ruler who repented and rebuilt the temple he had demolished. The difference arises because while it was a temporary lapse on the part of the Kashmiran king, Muslim rulers were inspired by a permanently prescribed theology.
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/htemples2/app4.htm”
More info:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/pushyamitra.html
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhya/harshakashmir.html
On a side note the word Muslim invaders used for themselves butshikan or idol breaker which is derived from them smashing Buddhist idols throughout Central Asia before invading India.
Also read up lama taranatha’s writings where he shows some understanding of the fanaticism inherent in Islam. He was aware of the Muslim destruction of the Buddhists and laments that the worshippers of Ishvara (i.e Astika’s) like the nAtha’s did not band together with the Buddhists to fight the Muslim invaders, precisely what historical instances he means by this I am not sure about.
Excerpt from Gyanvapi row: How invoking ghosts of ‘Hindu iconoclasm’ is a travesty of history and won’t ease tension by Utpal Kumar
May 22, 2022:
The truth is, it is difficult to put in place a Hindu theology of iconoclasm on the line of Islam. As historian Meenakshi Jain writes in Flight of Deities and Rebirth of Temples, “To counter-pose Islamic jubilation at the ‘bravado of iconoclasm’ with instances of Hindu desecration was dubious, at the very least. Instances of appropriation of images by Hindu kings in times of conflict reiterated the contrast with Islamic iconoclasm. Almost without exception, Hindu rulers honoured the images they acquired, thereby reaffirming a shared sense of the sacred. In the Islamic case, seizure of an image entailed its very dismemberment.”
Meenakshi Jain gives numerous instances — from Kalinga ruler Kharvela (2nd-1st century BC) vanquishing Magadha empire and retrieving an image of Kalinga Jina (a Jain Tirthankara) taken away by a Nanda king, to Pallava king Narasimhavarman (7th century AD), after defeating Chalukya ruler Pulakesin II, taking an idol of Ganesh and placing it with honour in a shrine in the Uthirapasupatheeswarar temple complex.
….
There are a few names that are invariably tom-tommed to claim Hindus’ iconoclastic tendencies. The name Pushyamitra Sunga comes at the top, based on a Sri Lankan Buddhist text, written centuries later, that accuses him of offering prizes to those who brought to him heads of Buddhist monks. Incidentally, the famous Buddhist viharas and stupas at Bharhut and Sanchi were built during his time, puncturing the persecution claims. The Gupta period — which supposedly heralded the golden period for Hindus — saw the coming up of several Buddhist monasteries at Bodh Gaya, Nalanda and Sarnath; even the Nalanda Mahavihara was built during that time.
There are a few other names used to bolster the intolerant Hindu theory: Like a Pandyan king of Madura persecuting Jains (the book claiming this also says that he had also persecuted the Saivites). Or, King Shashank of Gauda, who was a contemporary of King Harsha of Thanesar and believed to have persecuted Buddhists, destroying their places of worship and even cut the Bodhi tree. But even in these cases, the evidence presented, as per historian RC Majumdar, is “extremely unsafe”.
The most interesting case of Hindu iconoclasm is presented by Kalhana’s Rajataringini, which mentions that King Harsha of Kashmir plundered Hindu and Buddhist temples. Again, what our eminent historians deliberately downplay is Kalha?a’s comment that in doing so, Harsha “acted like a Turushka (Muslim)” and was “prompted by the Turushkas in his employ”. This one statement made it clear that murti desecration and destruction was not an Indic phenomenon, and if someone like King Harsha of Kashmir did it, it was severely criticised as a Turushka-like act!
A thread by IndicHistory on Audrey Truschke’s attempts to whitewash Islamic invasions and underplay the destruction of Nalanda