6 ms·

> and it has been disquieting to learn what “inherited” is a euphemism for To be blunt: Islamic invaders to the Indian subcontinent were by and large iconoclas

> and it has been disquieting to learn what “inherited” is a euphemism for To be blunt: Islamic invaders to the Indian subcontinent were by and large iconoclastic, at best intolerant and at worst genocidal (by forced conversions, marriages, outright murder, etc) of the native Dharmic (read: Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain) population, and burned down, looted, and deconstructed Hindu and Buddhist places of worship to construct their own mosques on top of said ruins. The India-Pakistan debacle today is an extension of a nearly millennium-long Hindu-Muslim feud. The burning of Nalanda University (whether or not it is a 'university' is an orthogonal matter) is another facet in this feud. The decline of Buddhism in the late classical era in the Indian subcontinent—already on a somewhat downhill slope, due to Hinduism co-opting much Buddhist thought, and in general being more popular and accessible than the ascetic demands of monastic Buddhism—was drastically accelerated by the Islamic incursions into the Indian subcontinent. The Ayodhya mosque-temple riots are another facet of this clash. Western commentators glibly say 'Hindus are anti-Muslim'. The issue in India is so much more nuanced than that; there is bad blood on both sides going back a thousand years. Islam cannot escape from these charges: the religion is fundamentally intolerant of non-Abrahamic ones, especially ones with liberal iconography (like Hinduism and Buddhism). There is a reason why (most of) the oldest and largest Hindu temples are in South India, which mostly escaped from the period of Muslim rule relatively unscathed. There are (possibly apocryphal) stories about how the idols at several temples (such as the one in Srirangam, Trichy) were relocated to mountain redoubts to prevent them being stolen and melted down by 'the invaders'. The destruction of Buddhist iconography by Islam (or its followers) continues to this day: the Bamyan Buddhas in Afghanistan were blown up by the Taliban in 2001.

u801e 4y ago
> The India-Pakistan debacle today is an extension of a nearly millennium-long Hindu-Muslim feud. Not really. A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. Prior to colonial times, there were many individual kingdoms/territories throughout the subcontinent. Other examples of arbitrary borders include the Durand line, and the Wakhan corridor.
- agileAlligator 4y ago
  > A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. By 1940, Jinnah had come to believe that the Muslims of the subcontinent should have their own state to avoid the possible marginalised status they may gain in an independent Hindu–Muslim state. In that year, the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, passed the Lahore Resolution, demanding a separate nation for Indian Muslims. - Wikipedia
  - unmole 4y ago
    The Two-nation Theory is a joke and the world's been laughing since 1971.
  - u801e 4y ago
    > an independent Hindu–Muslim state. A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition. Another instance of a partition happened about 10 years prior to India's and Pakistan's independence. The British Raj decided to split Myanmar from India. Maybe if they had not done that, India would have extended further east to encompass present day Myanmar.
    - agileAlligator 4y ago
      > A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. Never said it was. It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however. > The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition. Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India. So sad, that the British did this to Indians. Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims. Truly a travesty.
      - 4y ago
db1234 4y ago
> The Ayodhya mosque-temple riots are another facet of this clash. Western commentators glibly say 'Hindus are anti-Muslim'. The issue in India is so much more nuanced than that; there is bad blood on both sides going back a thousand years. Islam cannot escape from these charges: the religion is fundamentally intolerant of non-Abrahamic ones, especially ones with liberal iconography (like Hinduism and Buddhism). Bhaktiyar Khilji burned down Nalanda University but there is a town (Bhaktiyarpur) nearby named after him! I guess this can happen only in India. Now if you try to change the name of the town it will be called anti Muslim move.
- newyankee 4y ago
  Recently Aurangabad and Osmanabad in MH were renamed to Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv. So the only people who will oppose are those without understanding of history or those who have not read Aurangzeb's own historian's words and how everything he did was sanctioned by the holy scriptures including killing, subjugating people from other religions
  - delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
    Heh. Should Delhi itself be renamed Indraprastha, then?
    - fakedang 4y ago
      Ngl, as a Muslim, Indraprastha is a much cooler name than Delhi.
- unmole 4y ago
  Shivaji sacked the city of Surat twice. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of stuff named after him in and around Surat. Oh, and the same Shivaji allied with the Muslim Qutub Shah of Golkonda to defend the Deccan homeland from the Northern invaders.
  - kamaal 4y ago
    One of the big problems with trying to fix history(which is impossible as past can't be changed) as a means for emotional relief for your current pains due to bad politics is you run in all sorts of contradictory situations, where any principle you take today will be in total opposition to a principle you will have to take days from now. Wars happen because any political power over any region looks at war as a means to expand administrative control. When such wars happen they have to pull down power centers in conquered lands and rebuild their own ones. In many such contexts the seat of political power to a significant degree rests with the land's religious authority. I guess if you took a step back to shoot a panoramic perspective of India's history you would find everybody was attacking everybody. It is also stupid to blame the rulers of the past for making decisions that give you emotional pain in the present.
newyankee 4y ago
The unfortunate reality is that society is still not evolved enough to judge and pass judgements on certain viewpoints and their impact on global history unless the said criticism is of Catholicism , Christianity or casteism amongst Hindus. I hope there is more open criticisms of ideologies especially in the modern era when people find it a convenient hiding place. Fun fact: Indian laws are not the same for all religions even today. Muslims have their own version of personal laws closely derived from Sharia. This happens in a 'secular' country
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pankajdoharey 4y ago
Actually the most widespread form of Buddhism in India at the time was Theravada, and they dont worship gods like other religions do. Buddha vandana is not actual worship, because there is no concept of God in Buddhism, truth is the most basic tenet of Buddhism and God cannot be proven to be true. Same applies to Jains no concept of god. Buddhist Viharas and Mahaviharas (Universities) like Nalanda, Takshila, Vikram shila were places of learning. So no they were not places of worship like Hindus do in their temples. As a matter of fact more that 70 Buddhist Universities have been found till date.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- korginator 4y ago
  Theravada was not the most widespread school at the time, nor were its doctrines yet systematised and formulated into the Vinaya and Abhidhamma the way it's read and practiced today until Buddhaghosa started his work on the Visuddhimagga... his teachings spread and took root in Sri Lanka and were spread to Myanmar, Thailand and parts of South East Asia including parts of Cambodia and Laos. Theravada as a word itself is relatively new, as the schools at the time had derived from either the Sthavira or the Mahasamgha (Mahasamghika) traditions. Mahayana itself had its roots in Mahasamghika which had started evolving into Kukkutika and its companions and descendents, while the predecessor to Theravada itself was the Sthavira school which then evolved into the Sarvastivada, Puggalavada, Vibhajjavada and its descentants, one of which later evolved into Theravada. At the time the more dominant schools of thought were the predecessors of what is now the Mahāyāna schools, some of which evolved later into the Tibetan Vajrayāna schools, and some went through the north west of India, through Gandhara and the Kusan empires into Central Asia, into China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and parts of Cambodia. There are several academic works that clearly lay out the history and evolution of the Buddhist schools from verifiable sources. I'll update this if and when I get the time to look into my bookshelf later :) However you are completely right about Buddha Vandanā. This is not worship. In fact there's no worship in the traditional Pāli canon, or the Tripitaka, and in fact Sakhyamuni himself advocated against forms of worship. In Buddhist schools the Vandanā and other forms of such processes are for showing respect to the Tri-Ratna, i.e., the teacher, the dhamma and the sangha, as a means to bring oneself into a conducive frame of mind, to develop the mind.

u801e 4y ago

> The India-Pakistan debacle today is an extension of a nearly millennium-long Hindu-Muslim feud. Not really. A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. Prior to colonial times, there were many individual kingdoms/territories throughout the subcontinent. Other examples of arbitrary borders include the Durand line, and the Wakhan corridor.

agileAlligator 4y ago
> A lot of these arbitrary borders in modern times came about due to actions of former colonial powers. By 1940, Jinnah had come to believe that the Muslims of the subcontinent should have their own state to avoid the possible marginalised status they may gain in an independent Hindu–Muslim state. In that year, the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, passed the Lahore Resolution, demanding a separate nation for Indian Muslims. - Wikipedia
- unmole 4y ago
  The Two-nation Theory is a joke and the world's been laughing since 1971.
- u801e 4y ago
  > an independent Hindu–Muslim state. A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition. Another instance of a partition happened about 10 years prior to India's and Pakistan's independence. The British Raj decided to split Myanmar from India. Maybe if they had not done that, India would have extended further east to encompass present day Myanmar.
  - agileAlligator 4y ago
    > A single state spanning most of the Indian subcontinent wasn't a political reality prior to colonial times. There were many individual kingdoms and territories prior to that time. Never said it was. It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however. > The political structure set up by the British was a major contributing factor behind the partition. Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India. So sad, that the British did this to Indians. Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims. Truly a travesty.
    - 4y ago

db1234 4y ago

> The Ayodhya mosque-temple riots are another facet of this clash. Western commentators glibly say 'Hindus are anti-Muslim'. The issue in India is so much more nuanced than that; there is bad blood on both sides going back a thousand years. Islam cannot escape from these charges: the religion is fundamentally intolerant of non-Abrahamic ones, especially ones with liberal iconography (like Hinduism and Buddhism). Bhaktiyar Khilji burned down Nalanda University but there is a town (Bhaktiyarpur) nearby named after him! I guess this can happen only in India. Now if you try to change the name of the town it will be called anti Muslim move.

newyankee 4y ago
Recently Aurangabad and Osmanabad in MH were renamed to Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv. So the only people who will oppose are those without understanding of history or those who have not read Aurangzeb's own historian's words and how everything he did was sanctioned by the holy scriptures including killing, subjugating people from other religions
- delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
  Heh. Should Delhi itself be renamed Indraprastha, then?
  - fakedang 4y ago
    Ngl, as a Muslim, Indraprastha is a much cooler name than Delhi.
unmole 4y ago
Shivaji sacked the city of Surat twice. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of stuff named after him in and around Surat. Oh, and the same Shivaji allied with the Muslim Qutub Shah of Golkonda to defend the Deccan homeland from the Northern invaders.
- kamaal 4y ago
  One of the big problems with trying to fix history(which is impossible as past can't be changed) as a means for emotional relief for your current pains due to bad politics is you run in all sorts of contradictory situations, where any principle you take today will be in total opposition to a principle you will have to take days from now. Wars happen because any political power over any region looks at war as a means to expand administrative control. When such wars happen they have to pull down power centers in conquered lands and rebuild their own ones. In many such contexts the seat of political power to a significant degree rests with the land's religious authority. I guess if you took a step back to shoot a panoramic perspective of India's history you would find everybody was attacking everybody. It is also stupid to blame the rulers of the past for making decisions that give you emotional pain in the present.

newyankee 4y ago

The unfortunate reality is that society is still not evolved enough to judge and pass judgements on certain viewpoints and their impact on global history unless the said criticism is of Catholicism , Christianity or casteism amongst Hindus. I hope there is more open criticisms of ideologies especially in the modern era when people find it a convenient hiding place. Fun fact: Indian laws are not the same for all religions even today. Muslims have their own version of personal laws closely derived from Sharia. This happens in a 'secular' country

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pankajdoharey 4y ago

Actually the most widespread form of Buddhism in India at the time was Theravada, and they dont worship gods like other religions do. Buddha vandana is not actual worship, because there is no concept of God in Buddhism, truth is the most basic tenet of Buddhism and God cannot be proven to be true. Same applies to Jains no concept of god. Buddhist Viharas and Mahaviharas (Universities) like Nalanda, Takshila, Vikram shila were places of learning. So no they were not places of worship like Hindus do in their temples. As a matter of fact more that 70 Buddhist Universities have been found till date.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
korginator 4y ago
Theravada was not the most widespread school at the time, nor were its doctrines yet systematised and formulated into the Vinaya and Abhidhamma the way it's read and practiced today until Buddhaghosa started his work on the Visuddhimagga... his teachings spread and took root in Sri Lanka and were spread to Myanmar, Thailand and parts of South East Asia including parts of Cambodia and Laos. Theravada as a word itself is relatively new, as the schools at the time had derived from either the Sthavira or the Mahasamgha (Mahasamghika) traditions. Mahayana itself had its roots in Mahasamghika which had started evolving into Kukkutika and its companions and descendents, while the predecessor to Theravada itself was the Sthavira school which then evolved into the Sarvastivada, Puggalavada, Vibhajjavada and its descentants, one of which later evolved into Theravada. At the time the more dominant schools of thought were the predecessors of what is now the Mahāyāna schools, some of which evolved later into the Tibetan Vajrayāna schools, and some went through the north west of India, through Gandhara and the Kusan empires into Central Asia, into China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and parts of Cambodia. There are several academic works that clearly lay out the history and evolution of the Buddhist schools from verifiable sources. I'll update this if and when I get the time to look into my bookshelf later :) However you are completely right about Buddha Vandanā. This is not worship. In fact there's no worship in the traditional Pāli canon, or the Tripitaka, and in fact Sakhyamuni himself advocated against forms of worship. In Buddhist schools the Vandanā and other forms of such processes are for showing respect to the Tri-Ratna, i.e., the teacher, the dhamma and the sangha, as a means to bring oneself into a conducive frame of mind, to develop the mind.