H/T Noxi for raising this important point.
Baba Saheb was one of the greatest scholars of the 20th century connected to the SA world (even his detractors praise him for his scholarship). In addition he used to despise Hindu upper caste with every fiber of his body (with the fullest justification). So it is automatic that his well considered judgement (as a Buddhist) on the key role played by Islam in destroying Buddhism in India should be taken at face value by all, especially those people in BP who put him on a pedestal (I am one of them).
Dr. BR Ambedkar writes, “There is no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the ‘But’. The word ‘But’ as everybody knows is an Arabic word and means an idol. Not many people however know what the derivation of the word ‘But’ is. ‘But’ is the Arabic corruption of Buddha. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Muslim mind idol worship had come to be identified with the religion of the Budhha.” On the issue of destruction of Buddhist monasteries he writes, “The Musalman invaders sacked the Budhhist Universities of Nalanda, Vikramasila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They razed to the ground Budhhist monasteries with which the country was studded.” Babasaheb further writes, “Such was the slaughter of the Budhhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Budhhist priesthood Islam killed Budhhism.”
It is a promising news that followers of Ambedkar have established neo-Buddhist (Dalit) orders in Maharashtra (we visit such a temple, near Igatpuri frequently for Vipassana lessons). The neo-Buddhist Dalit Pandits (called monks) are back from extinction (though sad to say, superstitions rule the day). Indian govt and the Dalit community needs to get their act together and recover the lost glory of those old Universities. Only then will the wheels of justice come full circle.
regards
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100607040219AA6OmWd
Shankaracharya predates the Muslim invasions by centuries.
It wasn’t the turks or afghans who destroyed the Jain temples of south India.
Like I wrote earlier, you can’t boast of Brahmins defeating Buddhism on the on the one hand and condemn Muslims for doing the same on the other. That is nothing but shameless, brazen hypocrisy.
BRA is on record for the multitude of evils that were committed in the name of Hinduism. How is he a hypocrite?
That said, weighing all the evidence BRA specifically accused Islam of destroying Buddhism in India. Not Hinduism. Specifically concerning your point about Shankar Acharya, he did not accuse SA of destroying Nalanda university. The islamists razed it to the ground as per BRA.
BRA was a Buddhist scholar and a pre-eminent one at that, so he has credibility. Are you a Buddhist scholar as well?
regards
Ambedkar is ignorant if as you quote he blames the fall of Buddhism in India entirely on invading Muslims. Try and think for yourself instead of appealing to his authority
South India was once a thriving center of Buddhism and Jainism, religions vastly superior, rationally and morally, to Brahminism. Surely you cannot blame Muslim invaders of north India for the destruction and disappearance of Buddhism from south of the Vindhyas?
“Ambedkar was ignorant”
Every scholar from the left, right and center has vouchsafed Ambedkar’s pre-eminent scholarship. Additionally he used to deeply despise Hinduism (he had no reason to white-wash evil Brahminism). All the details that you cite were known to him.
Still his verdict was unequivocal. I would imagine mainly because he was (principally) an atheist. He cared more for destroyed universities (under Islam) than destroyed temples (Hindu + Islam).
BTW I am curious to know, since you are such an expert on temple destruction what is your opinion on the Hindu temples destroyed by the Muslims at Kashi, Mathura, Varanasi, Somnath etc. Did the evil Brahminism self-justify such destruction and plunder?
regards
For someone who claims empathy for Dalits you seem to have inordinate concern for the fate of Hindu temples from which Dalits were barred. What gives?
You do know that Hindu temples hoarded treasure which was extorted by the brahmins from superstitious fools, don’t you? I am sure you have heard of the enormous treasure recently discovered in a Kerala temple. Do you consider such temples “holy”? Is that why you are mourning their fate?
I agree with Baba that, it was Hinduism of the ancient times in South India which destroyed Buddhism and Jainism in South India. Buddhist scholars like Nagaarjuna, Maitryanatha were from South India. Rise of Hindu religion under the philosophical guidance (read onslaught) of Adi Sankara, was one of the main reason. Apart from that, the socio-economic conditions which gave birth to the polity made Buddhism to vanish from South India..
It was not Jihad, but Adi Sankara’s advaita which killed the great heterodox sects which represented the common man in the ancient times.
For someone who claims empathy for Dalits you seem to have inordinate concern for the fate of Hindu temples from which Dalits were barred. What gives?
I really do not care about temples (I am an atheist). I asked your opinion which you managed to avoid. Still I imagine that you approve, because Brahminism is evil.
BTW as you must be aware that the Taliban are bombing Shia and Sufi mosques in Pakistan right and left. This is because the Shias are non-muslims (as per their understanding) and Sufis are practicing shirk. Surely you approve?
The Ahmedis having been constitutionally declared second class citizens in Pak are having their prayer structures (cannot be called mosques) torn down. Surely you approve?
Also the Sufi Dargahs in India have started a new policy whereby women are barred from entering sacred space. Since this appears to be an apartheid like policy (similar to Dalits above), what do you recommend we do with these Dargahs?
You do know that Hindu temples hoarded treasure which was extorted by the brahmins from superstitious fools, don’t you? I am sure you have heard of the enormous treasure recently discovered in a Kerala temple. Do you consider such temples “holy”? Is that why you are mourning their fate?
Your point would be devastating if the invading islamists distributed the wealth to the poor dalits instead of building their peacock thrones. Plus slaughtering the natives in millions.
The masjid of Shirdi Sai Baba in Maharashtra has enormous wealth associated with it. Recently a superstitious fool (as you would put it) donated 110 crores ($200M). Others have donated diamonds worth crores of rupees.
Superstition in SA is not limited to any particular faith. So stop preening.
regards
It is unfortunate when a discussion IMMEDIATELY veers off into “but X did this too” (I am sure I do that myself at times, sometimes even pre-emptively).
There must be a way around that.
I am no expert on this subject, but on general principles, I would guess that:
1. There are serious scholars who have good evidence and sound arguments that show that BR Ambedkar (and Nehru, not to speak of the superficially educated Mr Jinnah) were all wrong about this or that detail. i.e. serious scholarship MUST have moved on from whatever BRA or any other scholarly leader then believed (and what the less scholarly ones believed was wrong even in those days).
2. Muslim invaders (“Islam” may not be the best term?) certainly destroyed many temples and smashed many idols and killed many non-Muslims (frequently claiming to be doing so in the name of the glory of Islam, whatever other motivations one may now regard as also significant or even more significant). One look at contemporary MUSLIM accounts should make that clear enough. In fact, their ideology so emphasized the worthiness of such destruction that their own accounts frequently exaggerate the numberz killed and the temples destroyed.
3. But while Muslim invaders may have mopped up some of the remnant, it does seem that Indian Buddhism was in serious decline before the Turko-Afghans arrived.
Muslim invasion (initially Arab invaders, then local converts) certainly did a number on Central Asian Buddhism but the I have never read details of that process. How many of the Turks were Buddhist prior to Islam? How many were killed/converted in the first wave and how did subsequent conversion to Islam progress? (there were Buddhists in the area for centuries after Islamic rule so extinction was not immediate)
it seems that the pattern in invasions was not total destruction in the first attack.
1. First wave of destruction and killing during invasion. Details highly variable. Ranging from remarkable tolerance to vicious ethnic and religious cleansing (or attempt to do so).
2. Survival as dhimmis or otherwise tolerated non-muslims under Muslim rule. Sometimes with many generations of relative internal peace and accommodation. Sometimes with rebellions and reprisals. Rarely with complete conversion in 1-2 generations. Some areas reverted to non-Muslim rule after decades or centuries of being ruled by Muslim rulers..usually by conquest, but sometimes by internal revolt (examples?).. Spain and Southern France and Sicily are well known, but the Russian imperial advance took even more territory from nominally Muslim rulers. Some cases led to Muslims being forcibly ejected, killed, reconverted, but in many cases political power changed hands and reconversion (like conversion) did not run to completion..Muslims becaue tolerated communities or allies of dominant non-muslim rulers (as in many parts of the Russian empire or in British India…modern India being officially secular is, at least in principle, a different case altogether).
Remember, Muslim political power in North India was pushed back considerably by local non-Muslims like Sikhs, Marhattas and Rajputs in the 18th century…the situation then froze somewhat under British rule but after they left it doesnt look like explicitly Muslim rule is likely to return to most of North India (not to speak of South India) anytime soon.
3. Complete extinction of pre-Muslim religions. What determines that fate? it doesnt seem to have happened very quickly in most places (Muslim historiogrphy claims it was practically done in one generation within the Arabian peninsula, but almost nowhere else was it particularly rapid).
Its not immediately obvious. Egypt and Lebanon and Syria and Iraq continued to have significant non-Muslim communities while Iran and Afghanistan did not. Indonesia is more thoroughly Muslim (except for Bali) than Pakistan is. The devil is probably in the details.
.
Omar, as usual the voice of reason.
regards
+1
Also, his etymology for “بُت” seems quite fishy to me.
Central to all the views expressed above is the assumption that Buddhism was “destroyed” Certainly it does not exist in India anymore except in revivalist forms but might this have been due to its own internal organic developments? I say yes.
There are two myths about Buddhism that need to be exploded.
1. It is a rationalist atheistic philosophy that just happened to get a religion attached to it. In fact even the earliest monuments, the stupas containing relics of the Buddha (significant right there) are replete with carvings of devas, yakshas etc. In the later stages, Tantra with its explicitly ritual/mythological world-view became the dominant form.
2. It was some kind of radical social or philosophical departure from the status quo. Historians think the 5th century BC was a time of rapid urbanization in India which led to social change and questioning of the old ways. But this was hardly restricted to Buddhism alone. Most of the mainstream Hindu ideologies we know today, Vedanta, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Yoga etc. are from the same period. Then there are the Jains. Jainism is equally heretical from the astika philosophical pov but accepted caste and all other social assumptions. Even today, ask the man in the street and they will tell you Jains are just another Hindu sect. Why would Indian Buddhists be any different? I don’t think there is any archaeological or literary evidence to suggest Buddhism was anymore egalitarian than those other sects. Some people point to Pali which is not Sanskrit but nevertheless a literary language not a vernacular. Anyway by the time of Ashvaghosh and Nagarjuna, Buddhism had abandoned Pali in favor of Sanskrit.
Buddhism didn’t get “destroyed” it receded into itself. While criticism from rival schools may have contributed, it would have happened anyway. The process was well underway before Shankaracharya (consensus date 788-820 AD) for instance. Tantric elitism is not caste elitism but it is elitist nonetheless. The monks instead of wandering were ever more concentrated into large monastaries dependant on royal support. (The idea that they were “universities” is another retcon of modern day apologists.) So there was no popular Buddhist base in India that could rebuild the institutions destroyed by invasion. Henceforth its future would be outside India. What is now called Hinduism was also disrupted but could be regenerated because it was decentralized and did have popular support.
Dr. Ambedkar may have been more of a scholar than other independence leaders but his idea that the Dalits are the descendents of Buddhist remnants persecuted by Hindus and Muslims alike is pure bunk just like the “Nation of Islam” of Farrakhan.
+1 .. introducing another much needed perspective into this debate..
“Jains are just another Hindu sect. Why would Indian Buddhists be any different?”
This is typical Hindutva deceit and dishonesty. Both Jainism and Buddhism reject the Vedas, the Vedic sacrifices, brahminism, the caste system; which define Hinduism. It is an insult to human intelligence to claim that Buddhism and Jainism are “hindu sects”. They are separate and distinct religions.
Jains in Maharashtra and Gujarat were one of the biggest supporters of Narandra Modi’s drive against muslims. If they are not a sect within Hinduism, they are definitely allied with the Hindu storm-troopers.
BTW Jains (and Marwari Hindus) in Mumbai prevent Muslims from getting accommodation. The logic is that the entire mohalla will be made unclean when muslims butcher goats during Eid.
Do you approve?
regards
How the hell does any of that make Jainism a “sect of Hinduism”. Are you even capable of thinking logically?
By the way, the strictly vegetarian Jains lump Bengali goat-sacrificers to hindu goddess Kali, such as your immediate ancestors, along with the meat-eating Muslims (and Christians, Sikhs, atheists etc) as undesirable neighbors.
The hindu minority that practices vegetarianism does so under the sanguine influence of Jainism. They are not being true to their holiest scripture, the Vedas, which is full of animal sacrifices and eating the meat thereof…
So as you admit, the Jains are primarily (philosophically) responsible for the miserable state of muslims in Mumbai who cant get a house?
Also Jains are supposed to believe in Ahimsa. Why are they in bed with Narendra Modi?
They may not be a sect of Hinduism (I did not make such a claim) but they seem to be actively propping up Hindutva-vadis. You claim to be against Hindutva and Brahminism. Should you not be denouncing the Jains now for their bloody hands?
regards
“So as you admit, the Jains are primarily (philosophically) responsible for the miserable state of muslims in Mumbai who cant get a house?”
Do you even bother reading and u derstanding a post before replying to it?
The Jains do not appreciate meat eating Hindus as neighbors either.
How does any of this change the fact that Jainism is NOT a sect of Hinduism?
Notice the bit you left out, ” Even today, ask the man in the street and they will tell you…” I was not discussing theology but sociology.
I’ll just leave this here:
http://jainstudents.blogspot.com/2010/06/list-of-major-jain-castes.html
(The “appeal to parents” on that blog is also very interesting for what it says about the contemporary Indian mindset towards the concepts of caste and religion.)
Now it is difficult to say much about ancient Indian Buddhists because there no longer are any but compare the culture of Tibet which is the closest to the last stage of Indian Buddhism. The polity was based around large centralized monasteries supported by feudal lords. Need I remind you that slavery in Tibet was ended by the Chinese communists not the compassionate Dalai Lama? Your fantasies of of a rationalist, egalitarian Buddhism have no historical basis.
+1, Jaldhar you have left out a very significant point. The fact remains that the Tibetan Buddhists were originally egalitarian but eventually got corrupted by Hinduism shooting magic evil rays across the Himalayas.
This also happened to Islam, Xtianity, Jains, Sikhs, Communists name it. In Pakistan thankfully they have fully got rid of all the Hindu evils, except maybe a few outlying rural areas and may be a few misguided individuals.
regards
Facts:
1. Buddha rejected casteism and brahminism outright. He was quite outspoken about it.
2. Buddhist majority countries are far more egalitarian than caste-ridden India. Pointing out imperfections in their egalitarianism is not going to make India look any less hellish. That is akin to the Hindu tactic of pointing out beggars in America when any one mentions the huge swarms of beggars in India.
“Buddhist majority countries are far more egalitarian than caste-ridden India”
Even if the above statement were true (presented without any data) they can afford to be egalitarian because they are engaged in massive genocides.
Sri Lanka is crushing the Tamils (Hindus) while Burma is crushing Rohingyas (Muslims). All 800K of them. The Rohingyas have been outright declared illegal immigrants (and are rotting in refugee camps under inhumane circumstances) even if they were inhabiting Burma for five hundred years.
I am sure the Rohingyas drowning in the Bay of Bengal would be heartened by your inane analogies to “beggars.” You are sure a credit to your race/creed/religion. Keep it coming.
regards
What evidence is there that Buddhist and Jain temples were destroyed by Hindus? There appeared to be much interplay between the Hindu, Jain & Buddhist intellectuals of their time. One of the great Tamil epic poems, Silappatikaram, which describes the South Indian cultural milieu and Hindu goddesses like Meenakshi at the start of the common era, was written a Chera prince who was Jain. Brahmins like Nagarjuna advanced Buddhist metaphysics, and it got folded back into Hinduism by Sankara who was deemed a crypto-Buddhist by his critics. The philosophical competition between the Dharmic faiths does not match the wholesale destruction meted on them by Islam, especially in the northern parts of the subcontinent.
“What evidence is there that Buddhist and Jain temples were destroyed by Hindus?”
Google it and educate yourself.
What do you think happened to most all the numerous Jain and Buddhist religious structures in South India?
Hindus were doing in India what they are now blaming Muslims for having done, long before Mohammad concocted Islam in Arabia…
BRA was born Hindu (which he rejected) but converted to Buddhism. When he unequivocally laid the blame on Islam for destruction of Buddhism, he was doing so as a Buddhist.
regards
And that to you constitutes proof that hindus never destroyed buddhist and jain temples and monasteries? Lol.
BRA never excused Hindus, you are dead wrong on that.
But his “central” claim is that while Buddhism still survived the evil Brahminism it was wiped out from India by Islam.
Engage with the argument, so far all we have from you is “what-aboutery.” Also try to be truthful. I specifically acknowledged that Hindus had destroyed Jain/Buddhist temples.
regards
I challenge the assertion of hinduism and jaina/buddhist temples.
To date the primary trope that’s been touted has been Pushyamitra Sunga, but even that has been questioned by western scholars. Pushyamitra actually constructed stupas in his later reign, and the sangha was likely exaggerating due to a post-Ashokan decline in patronage. For a benchmark, Ashoka is said to have bankrupted the treasury on patronage to the sangha. I have yet to see anything approaching convincing evidence. What generally drives this unsubstantiated opinion is rupeenews style 3rd grade propaganda and their triple a zombie fellow travelers in India.
Buddhism’s decline in India is due to the decline in royal patronage (which occurred even under the hindu Gupta emperors) along with the dialectical campaigns of Adi Sankara and Kumarila Bhatta. They would challenge buddhist monks to debate, and the loser would concede to accept the other’s philosophy. This was how buddhism in the heartland declined.
However, for anyone who has read the chachnama (an Arab chronicle) and other primary sources, it becomes amply clear that buddhism continued to thrive in Sindh and (separately, under Pala patronage) Bengal. People would be better off exchanging links or at least citing sources and examples instead of relying on mere exhortations for google searches as proof.
“I challenge the assertion of hinduism and (the destruction of) jaina/buddhist temples.”
Absolutely! Marxist historians like Thapar and Eaton try their best to make as though Hindus were just as iconoclastic as Muslims, but it makes very little sense. It is very possible that Hindus co-opted Jain or Buddhist temples as the demography changed, but to raze down or destroy or defile a Dharmic temple or idol in the manner of the Muslim invader is quite absurd. This is why the destruction of the Babri Masjid was shocking and so uncharacteristic. It was a man bites dog event.
“The Jains do not appreciate meat eating Hindus as neighbors either.”
Some Hindus they dont like. They are very fond of Marwaris and Vaishnavites in general. They are fond of Vaishnavite Bengalis (vegetarian).
“How does any of this change the fact that Jainism is NOT a sect of Hinduism?”
So now vaishnavites are not hindus (even according to you misguided hindus)? Hindu sects are perfectly capable of hating each other, why should they be different from any other mass religion?
You are aware that Christian sects and Muslim sects have been fighting each other for a millenia now. Shias “do not appreciate” Sunnis any more than Jains are appreciative of meat eating Bengalis.
My point is (again) that Jainism may or may not be a sect of Hinduism (they are officially defined as a minority) but their behavior (in supporting Narendra Modi) is a symbol for faith in Hindutva-vad. You need to denounce the evil Jains now, if you want to retain a shred of credibility.
regards
Islamic historians have consistently wrote about how many pagans they have killed and how many temples they have smashed.There is little evidence that they discriminated between hindu/buddhist architecture
+1, they were egalitarian even in their destruction. However one point in their favor, they did love Dalit women (because Islam is so woman friendly). Unfortunately the men were not so lucky, millions of them.
regards
please write date of writting correctly.