From Buddhist East Bengal to Islamic Bangladesh

[TopCat]

They changed their economic status not the social status. A Halder Brahmin still wouldn't consider a lower caste Halder in the same social strata with respect to Hindu caste system. And Halder Brahmin would know and wouldn't forget to let you know that he/she is actually a Banerjee but uses conferred title!

Although with more education, people in Bengal have awakened upto the fact that it's very embarrassing to show any caste based superiority if you can't match it with education and wealth as well.

Wrong, they did successfully change the social status as well, giving the example of my friend. He does not even recall his original cast and intermarrying with other high cast bhramin.

 

[LaBong]

Wrong, they did successfully change the social status as well, giving the example of my friend. He does not even recall his original cast and intermarrying with other high cast bhramin.

Biswas is not considered upper caste in Bengal, just FYI, unless he is Brahmin Biswas which I have never heard of. Inter caste marriage is common in Bengal nowadays, yours truly is married to Kulin Brahmin, although isn't a Brahmin himself.

 

[bongbang]

I didn't really understand your post.

History is fragile and confusing we can shape it. After conquest of Ahoka and Gupta Bengalis were overtly turning to Buddhism. But upon arrival of Hindu ruler Shashanka, Buddhists came under oppression. Killed, driven out and taken shelter in forests and remote riverine places. After Shashanka's defeat Buddhists once again formed a long lasting peaceful Pala kingdom. After that Hindu Sena dynasty taken over. Which socially dispised Buddhists and everyone who isnt North-South Hindu/Brahmin migrant. They formed social higher caste and everyone other lower including Buddhists. Upon seeing Muslim invaders Buddhists and other local groups welcomed them to remove tyranny. Later Buddhists and other local groups converted to Islam. Which can be supported by archaeological evidence and ancient books. Now we have to prove that Sinhala Buddhists migrants are also from this area and have to put together evidences that they were also subject to oppression Hindu invaders.

 

[my2cents]

Chatter acharer baler lekha. Expunging migration theory of Muslims from other parts of the world that too during British time, higher to low every kinds of people under sword or motivation and Muslims can multiply quickly by marrying 4 wives. And Hindus are still converting in BD. And whole Bengal was like 56% Muslim during partition. My assumption is 100 years ago Muslims were 40% and 200 years ago like 20-30%. And west Bengal is still Hindu majority because of Eastern Bengal Hindu migration and Hindu migration from other parts of India. Among WB Hindus 60% are migrants there in recent past. And Muslims migrants from there to BD made that place a Hindu land.

Here is the cookie for making it clear for non-bengalis.

 

[LaBong]

History is fragile and confusing we can shape it. After conquest of Ahoka and Gupta Bengalis were overtly turning to Buddhism. But upon arrival of Hindu ruler Shashanka, Buddhists came under oppression. Killed, driven out and taken shelter in forests and remote riverine places. After Shashanka's defeat Buddhists once again formed a long lasting peaceful Pala kingdom. After that Hindu Sena dynasty taken over. Which socially dispised Buddhists and everyone who isnt North-South Hindu/Brahmin migrant. They formed social higher caste and everyone other lower including Buddhists. Upon seeing Muslim invaders Buddhists and other local groups welcomed them to remove tyranny. Later Buddhists and other local groups converted to Islam. Which can be supported by archaeological evidence and ancient books. Now we have to prove that Sinhala Buddhists migrants are also from this area and have to put together evidences that they were also subject to oppression Hindu invaders.

But as I stated in my first post in this thread, your hypothesis doesn't explain why Buddhist people from West Bengal didn't convert. There should have been more concentration of Buddhists in West Bengal than East since Budhhist kingdoms are closer to West Bengal than East and all major Biharas were in Bengal/Bihar border. There is reason they named Bihar as Bihar.

Sena's trace their origin to Karnataka, but that doesn't mean that they just came here one fine day via Bangalore-Kolkata express and declare themselves as kings!! Hemanta Sen was part of Pala dynasty and after Palas weakened, he took over reign. Hemanta is very Bengali name, I don't recall any Kanada called Hemanta!! There was no "Hindu invasion" in Bengal. Hemanta is a very Bengali name, I don't recall a Kanada called Hemanta!

Now we have to prove that Sinhala Buddhists migrants are also from this area and have to put together evidences that they were also subject to oppression Hindu invaders.

Again you are mistaken or your knowledge of Buddhism is limited. Sinhalese follow Theravada Buddhism which complete different than Mahayana Buddhism which was state religion of Palas.

Mahayana spread from Bengal to Tibet via Atish Dipankar Srigyaan, then to China and far East.

Theravada on the other hand was spread by Buddhist proselytizers from early days of Budhhism to Sri Lanka and from there to Mayanmar. Your Chakmas also belong to Theravada Budhhism.

 

[bongbang]

But as I stated in my first post in this thread, your hypothesis doesn't explain why Buddhist people from West Bengal didn't convert. There should have been more concentration of Buddhists in West Bengal than East since Budhhist kingdoms are closer to West Bengal than East and all major Biharas were in Bengal/Bihar border. There is reason they named Bihar as Bihar.

That one I didnt want to touch as my many north Indic Hindu migrants in Bihar and WB is very late by the Mughals and British. So their concentration is high there. Also Bengal Brahmins later increased more by migrating from EB/EP/BD. So actual figure of WB forward caste will be dived by 2/3. And the people said above, Bengalis changed their castes during British time.

Again you are mistaken or your knowledge of Buddhism is limited. Sinhalese follow Theravada Buddhism which complete different than Mahayana Buddhism which was state religion of Palas.

Mahayana spread from Bengal to Tibet via Atish Dipankar Srigyaan, then to China and far East.

Theravada on the other hand was spread by Buddhist proselytizers from early days of Budhhism to Sri Lanka and from there to Mayanmar. Your Chakmas also belong to Theravada Budhhism.

Our agenda will be to put them before arrival of Shashanka not related to Pala. In ancient time nothing was constant like now, which changed quickly.

 

[kobiraaz]

Oh please. This myth has long been propagated by Islamic rulers and colonial Europeans to justify conversion either through force or lies.

Your theory falls flat on face as it doesn't apply to us Buddhists.

Come up with something else.

You need to go through the Buddhists literature during sena dynasty and know how the Buddhists begged for Muslim intervention in Bengal to save their asses from Sena Dynasty .

 

[Tshering22]

You need to go through the Buddhists literature during sena dynasty and know how the Buddhists begged for Muslim intervention in Bengal to save their asses from Sena Dynasty .

Yeah? It is quite funny why they would do that considering how those in Nalanda, Gandhara and Purushapura were annihilated by Muslims.

Now why would they do that?

 

[TopCat]

Yeah? It is quite funny why they would do that considering how those in Nalanda, Gandhara and Purushapura were annihilated by Muslims.

Now why would they do that?

Nalanda was half hindu that time when Khilji attacked

Most Buddhist already shifted towards Eastern Bengal under the safety of shrinking Pala Empire which lately lost to expanding Senas from South. General people considers their well being not what happened in far away Nalanda. They converted to Buddhism under Pala for their own good and then converted to Islam for the same reason.

 

[Tshering22]

Nalanda was half hindu that time when Khilji attacked

Most Buddhist already shifted towards Eastern Bengal under the safety of shrinking Pala Empire which lately lost to expanding Senas from South. General people considers their well being not what happened in far away Nalanda. They converted to Buddhism under Pala for their own good and then converted to Islam for the same reason.

Okay you are now confusing and superimposing the conflicts of middle east over the culture of this land and seeing it from that lens.

1- Buddhists and Hindus don't demand conversion. Historically never. If you sit in your house and decide to follow the enlightenment path (Baudhya path), then you are a Buddhist. No one will come and count you with a survey or have witnesses testify of your conversion. That, is an abrahamic concept.

This is not a theory to counter you by me; it always simply has been that way.

Who tells you all these conversion-for-safety theories though?

You are right that the Pala and Senas were at war with each other but never had they ever an religious ambition. Territorial fights among different kings in pre-abrahamic era, had nothing to do with religions. There were fights among different kings' armies and the winner simply took power and annexed the kingdom. Why? Because there was no religion then. It only came in when muslim and colonial invaders entered the subcontinent.

Takshashila (Taxila) and Nalanda are the biggest examples of traditions of "vivada" where scholars of Buddhist, Vedic, Vedantic and even Tantric philosophies debated publicly (like modern day elocutions at colleges).

There was never a 'religious war' between the two communities for safety or for whatever reason.

 

[TopCat]

Okay you are now confusing and superimposing the conflicts of middle east over the culture of this land and seeing it from that lens.

1- Buddhists and Hindus don't demand conversion. Historically never. If you sit in your house and decide to follow the enlightenment path (Baudhya path), then you are a Buddhist. No one will come and count you with a survey or have witnesses testify of your conversion. That, is an abrahamic concept.

This is not a theory to counter you by me; it always simply has been that way.

Who tells you all these conversion-for-safety theories though?

You are right that the Pala and Senas were at war with each other but never had they ever an religious ambition. Territorial fights among different kings in pre-abrahamic era, had nothing to do with religions. There were fights among different kings' armies and the winner simply took power and annexed the kingdom. Why? Because there was no religion then. It only came in when muslim and colonial invaders entered the subcontinent.

Takshashila (Taxila) and Nalanda are the biggest examples of traditions of "vivada" where scholars of Buddhist, Vedic, Vedantic and even Tantric philosophies debated publicly (like modern day elocutions at colleges).

There was never a 'religious war' between the two communities.

Senas kicked all Buddhist out of the the politics and made all Buddhist populace equals to lowest caste Dalit. That's enough to motivate the population to find an alternate. Islam was just there for taking.

Read Sashanka and his reign against Buddhist before the Pala in Bengal. Read history, not some nationalistic hate speech against Islam who somehow you believe the main cause of Buddhist demise.

Oppression of Buddhism[edit]
Banabhatta described Shashanka as the "vile Gauda serpent", and elaborated that Shashanka has destroyed the Buddhist stupas of Bengal and declared an award of hundred gold coins for the head of every Buddhist monk in his kingdom. However Ramesh Chandra Majumdar attempted to acquit Shashanka and the Brahmins of his reign of such deeds because Xuanzang and Baṇabhaṭṭa were patronised by Shashanka's enemy, Harsha, and that Xuanzang was a Buddhist.[1] Despite this, the only evidence for the justification of conflict between Shashanka and Harsha is Xuanzang, who explained that Harsha's campaign against Shashanka was to "raise Buddhism from the ruin into which it had been brough by the king of Karnasuvarna" and that Shashanka wished to replaced Buddhism with Shaivism.[2] As such, Radhagovinda Basak claims that there is no reason not to believe that Shashanka carried out a violent anti-Buddhist persecution.[3] Majumdar's opinion is further called into question in his denial of the anti-Buddhist persecutions reported in the last chapter of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, which Kashi Prasad Jayaswal had deemed to indicate a serious attempt by Shashanka to destroy Buddhism in the spirit of "orthodox revivalism",[4] when he wrote that it is "unsafe to accept the statements recorded in this book as historical," and his minimization of the Sena persecutions of Buddhists.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashanka

 

[Tshering22]

Senas kicked all Buddhist out of the the politics and made all Buddhist populace equals to lowest caste Dalit. That's enough to motivate the population to find an alternate. Islam was just there for taking.

This reminds me of an interesting matter I was studying.

Did you know "low class atrocities" is also a mold that was created by preachers of organized religions. It is called 'atrocity literature' in scholarly circles. Basically, it means to bloat up minimal wrongs to a level that it looks like crime against humanity. Since most texts today are written by scholars who lived in colonial and foreign powers' times, you will find atrocity literature in abundance, but not most other sutras and texts which were destroyed to justify their own agendas.

None of Buddhist records state any such details of atrocities associated with spirituality except for this supplemented history.

I am not saying that you are a liar. Just that most of us subcontinent's peoples have been lied to by the outsiders on our own history by foreign religions and powers.

Realizing this as I am taking out time to deeply study the subcontinent's spiritual history and its connection to the literature produced today to show all of our (including your) ancient faith and culture before your forefathers converted or were converted.

If you are open minded, you will find it interesting to see how this all was a big construct to impose foreign faiths in this part of the world. Not muslims but also christianity.

 

[TopCat]

This reminds me of an interesting matter I was studying.

Did you know "low class atrocities" is also a mold that was created by preachers of organized religions. It is called 'atrocity literature' in scholarly circles. Basically, it means to bloat up minimal wrongs to a level that it looks like crime against humanity. Since most texts today are written by scholars who lived in colonial and foreign powers' times, you will find atrocity literature in abundance, but not most other sutras and texts which were destroyed to justify their own agendas.

None of Buddhist records state any such details of atrocities associated with spirituality except for this supplemented history.

I am not saying that you are a liar. Just that most of us subcontinent's peoples have been lied to by the outsiders on our own history by foreign religions and powers.

Realizing this as I am taking out time to deeply study the subcontinent's spiritual history and its connection to the literature produced today to show all of our (including your) ancient faith and culture before your forefathers converted or were converted.

If you are open minded, you will find it interesting to see how this all was a big construct to impose foreign faiths in this part of the world. Not muslims but also christianity.

You wrote so much of STUPID garbage... ???

 

[Tshering22]

You wrote so much of STUPID garbage... ???

Never mind.

Maybe expecting a positive response was too much from a Jamaati arab wannabe.

 

[kobiraaz]

Never mind.

Maybe expecting a positive response was too much from a Jamaati arab wannabe.

I tagged you in another thread. Muslims never fought Buddhists in Bengal. Khilji attacked odantapur Bihar not nalanda . He was mistaken and thought that the Buddhists monks were Brahmin soldiers.

Read the thread in a neutral mind.