Buddhists and others, wasRe: RAJARAM EPISODE

[nanda chandran]

>.. you suggest that Muslims' interaction with Buddhists in India
>would have been better than with "bad" Hindus ..

Hmm, atlast some reaction from the normally calm and controlled Samar.
Thanks for admitting your links with Islamic organizations - but can you
be more specific? Also since you've levelled the charge at me that I'm
in the pay of some Hindutva organization, it appears that you think that
I'm a bird of your feather - so who pays you? ISI or NCM?

>Such theories that Muslims destroyed Buddhism are simply illogical,
>because :

>1. First they shout, `Buddhism is a form of Hinduism' and then the
>next moment `Evil bearded Muslims destroyed Buddhism'. If Buddhism did not
>exist (ie. it was Hinduism anyway), how could Muslims have destroyed it ?
>Apoint well-made at http://www.dalitstan.org/books/decline/decline01.html

"Form" doesn't mean total identity. Yes, it is a form of Hinduism,
but then they could still be identified distinctly as Buddhists
apart from Hindus (which is not strange since even Vaishnavites and smarthAs
can be identified distinctly as such). So Muslims destroyed that particular
"form" of Hinduism.

>2. How come Buddhism existed only in Eastern India ? What happened to the
>well-attested Buddhism which existed in north India (Asokan inscriptions
>in Afghanistan, Buddhist statues and stupas in Punjab) ? Or did the evil
>Muslims convert the Buddhists to Hinduism there by mistake ? Or perhaps
>they converted the Bengali Buddhists to Islam, and the Northern Buddhists
>to Hinduism ?

If Hindus can become Buddhists, can't Buddhists become Hindu too?

>3. Buddhism was also predominant in South India - Ambedkar says they
>formed the majority all across India.

He could say that only if he had a time machine to go back and check the
facts! Leaving aside Ambedkar's claims for the moment, it is true that
Buddhism was widespread through South India at one point in time. But
how did it spread? Due to the efforts of major personalities like
NAgArjuna, DignAga, DharmakIrti etc (who were themselves originally
brahmins). So it is only perfectly natural that if a even more charismatic
religious figure like say ShankarAchArya or RAmAnuja appeared on the scene,
the same Hindus who converted to Buddhism, would reconvert back to Hinduism
(some particular form of it).

>Why did the Muslims convert the Buddhists there to Hinduism instead of
>Islam ?

No they didn't. It happened much before they showed up in the sub-continent.

>4. If the Muslims could destroy Buddhism in distant Bengal (thousands
>of km away from Delhi), howcome they could not destroy Hinduism in
>Haryana just south of Delhi or in nearby UP ?

Buddhism is a peaceful and passive religion so folded up under the onslaught
of Islam. But the Hindu variety in Haryana and Rajastan is a totally
different cup of tea - they were stout fighters and so they survived.

>The Buddhists themselves do not accept these claims of `Muslim
>destruction', - just see the book `Decline and Fall of Buddhism'. Should we
>go by what the Buddhists themselves think about how their religion was
>destroyed, or what their ideological opponents claim ?

Your logic is flawed - if Buddhism was destroyed, how could there be
Buddhists today to talk about the "destruction of Buddhism"? So it follows
that today's Buddhists aren't the original Buddhists. Today's Buddhists, the
creation of Ambedkar are Buddhists due to political reasons and hence
opposed to Hinduism.

>The target of my posts to this list are not Hindutvadins - arguing with
>them is always futile on account of certain inherent mental blocks. It is
>the Westerners and Dravidianists on this list.

The first are not to be fooled so easily. Though foreign scholars lack
insight into the social conditions of today's India, still their textual
knowledge is formidable. See if Lance Cousins, an acknowledged authority on
Buddhism, will endorse the claims of www.dalistan.org.

The Dravidians in their efforts to gain recognition for Tamil see an
imaginary enemy in Brahmanical Hinduism and Sanskrit (this is Samar's
interest in them). They think that it is the Brahmins who're opposed to the
recognition of the greatness of their language. In this they forget the
numerous brahmins who have contributed and enriched their language. If Tamil
isn't recognized as a classical language today, it is only because of the
Tamil peoples periodic bursts of linguistic chauvnism and anti-Brahminism.
Let go of it and Brahmins themselves will fight for your cause. (Didn't we
recently see a brahmin taking pride in his
marathtamizh heritage over his Vedic heritage or another who sighed with
frustration at the final recognition of the greatness of Tamil). It is our
mother tongue too.

>If they dare respond, they risk being made a laughing-stock in public.

Now you've me running scared!

>If I gave any Muslim site (of which there are many), you would of course
>jump up and shout `evil bearded Muslim site for terrorists'.

Why should I? You yourself have done the needful : "Also, those Islamist
sites are too extreme".

>I shall give Real Muslim sites only if somebody asks for them.

Samar, please, can we have the URLs?

>( like vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM aka nanda chandran and of course Vishal Agarwal)

Are you saying Vishal and I are the same person? If you go through the
Indology archives you'll see that I'm an older member on this list than
Vishal and have never been expelled. So what's the need for me to post
from another address? Also there are quite a few people on this list
who've known me for a long time from other lists. And anybody Indian would
clear recognize Vishal as distinctively North Indian, while I'm a South
Indian.

Guess, RZ's disease is contagious - you're getting paranoid - seeing
Hindutvavaadis everywhere!

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.