Hinduism and Talibanism:Did hindus destroyed Buddhist& jain temples?

[Sashan]

I think he is talking about dalits/untouchable

I think so. Even then, I have heard/seen other atrocities on dalits but not this.

 

[Kaniska]

Simple fact...If Hindus are intolerant...then there will be only one religion called as Hinduism in South Asia....We Indian adore our heroes for their good deeds ....Heroes may be Ashoka, Chandagupta Maurya or they may be Akbar and Tipu Sultan....So it is not that we hate all Islamic invaders....It is specific people to whom we do not like them.....Unlike neighouring countries...where killers are worshipped....
Even in Hindu society also....the importance and utter non sense rule applied by these so called brahmins for dalits....we hate it....every hindu should hate it where...being the same religion...some section of people are separated...

So the bottomline is that if also any Hindu kind done the destruction of Budhist sites.....then he is a hateful figure...we do not adore them as our Hero....

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

I think so. Even then, I have heard/seen other atrocities on dalits but not this.

well its surprised me when my lady manager asked me why you dont touch lower caste hindus and they cannot eat/drink with you and have separate glass for them and i told her i am not even hindu/indian to explain this caste system in indian society. she went in india and lived there for few months and seen different seating and food arrangements for dalits in different villages

 

[Nothing]

I have no mood today to read through all posts, but title is enough for me to write about it.

One can consider me with enough knowledge of Jainism and its history. I have seen many jain temples and its ruins destroyed by Muslim invaders , they had destroy on name of their god (no offence to any Muslims here not all are bad apples) ... they killed hundred of jain followers(they never indulge in any sort of violence) and their monks just to prove their points.
I know many many jain temples in south India which got converted into Hindu temples too. But none of them destroyed to rubble.

 

[KRAIT]

This is just one point of view, doesn't make it the truth. These leftist historians are known for manipulating the history to peddle their bs.

Our vedas has been manipulated by these upper caste bhrahmins...what chance does the history has chance.....

 

[Sashan]

Here is what my limited understanding is -

These are the major religions which existed during in the 1st millennium in South India - Saivism, Vaisnavism, Jainism, Buddhism.(Islam was there in the coastal areas of now Kerala but was not prominent enough).


The reason why Buddhism got eradicated was because of the interference of the monks in the politics and tried to be king makers. The reason why Jainism was gotten rid of was due to the tantric practices by Jain monks which scared the kings and people alike. Even among saivism, the South Indian kings got rid of a sect called Kabalika (the Agoris are an offshoot of this sect) due to the human sacrifice practices by this sect.

 

[KRAIT]

well its surprised me when my lady manager asked me why you dont touch lower caste hindus and they cannot eat/drink with you and have separate glass for them and i told her i am not even hindu/indian to explain this caste system in indian society. she went in india and lived there for few months and seen different seating and food arrangements for dalits in different villages

The bold part is your answer....we don't deny there is no discrimination and I openly admit the faults of Hindu society same as I point flaws in other societies and religions....but there is a limit of blind support to anything....but you will be surprised to know how these upper caste Indians go through when these backward castes and minorities get reservation and gets job and place in other institutes with less qualification while these upper castes had to compete at much hgher level.

 

[Sashan]

well its surprised me when my lady manager asked me why you dont touch lower caste hindus and they cannot eat/drink with you and have separate glass for them and i told her i am not even hindu/indian to explain this caste system in indian society. she went in india and lived there for few months and seen different seating and food arrangements for dalits in different villages

Unfortunately mate - you are spot on. This is the ugly side of India which I am not proud of.

 

[Roybot]

Here is what my limited understanding is -

These are the major religions which existed during in the 1st millennium in South India - Saivism, Vaisnavism, Jainism, Buddhism.(Islam was there in the coastal areas of now Kerala but was not prominent enough).


The reason why Buddhism got eradicated was because of the interference of the monks in the politics and tried to be king makers. The reason why Jainism was gotten rid of was due to the tantric practices by Jain monk which scared the kings and people alike. Even among saivism, the South Indian kings got rid of a sect called Kabalika (the Agoris are an offshoot of this sect) due to the human sacrifice practices by this sect.

The major reason why Buddhism didn't flourish was the lack of religious rituals and religious guidance. Its hard to sustain a religion based on just spirituality even today, this is still about 1600 years ago!

Buddhism in India back then was still in early stages, there were no set ceremonies for wedding, funeral, or right of passage ceremony, so people had to still go to Hindu priests for these things and follow the Hindu rituals. And once Buddishm lost patronage from the kings it declined from there on.

Chinese travellers also mention the White Hun invasion from the North West between 5th and 8th centuries as a major reason for the decline of Buddhism in India. And then of course the final blow came with the advent of Islamic Turkic invaders.

Its like saying why didn't Christianity flourish in the middle east?

 

[Sashan]

The major reason why Buddhism didn't flourish was the lack of religious rituals and religious guidance. Its hard to sustain a religion based on just spirituality even today, this is still about 1600 years ago!
Buddhism in India back then was still in early stages, there were no set ceremonies for wedding, funeral, or right of passage ceremony, so people had to still go to Hindu priests for these things and follow the Hindu rituals. And once Buddishm lost patronage from the kings it declined from there on.

Chinese travellers also mention the White Hun invasion from the North West between 5th and 8th centuries as a major reason for the decline of Buddhism in India. And then of course the final blow came with the advent of Islamic Turkic invaders.

Its like saying why didn't Christianity flourish in the middle east?

This is a new perspective you have brought in which I was not aware of before.

 

[Roybot]

Our vedas has been manipulated by these upper caste bhrahmins...what chance does the history has chance.....

Hey Vedas were apparently written by the Brahmans too, so who is to say who manipulated what? Its not exactly God's words is it?

Religion can't be stagnant, it needs to evolve with time, you can call it manipulation if you like.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

.It is specific people to whom we do not like them.....Unlike neighouring countries...where killers are worshipped....

Muslim don't worship any one beside God and secondly our history might be different to each others because history depend on perceptions of historians and they often add their personal bias/prejudices. Many studying in the historical texts must agree that many accounts of history are selective in nature and exclude evidence that will not fit into their own theory. When a strict Hindu historian reads an ancient text on Islam or Muslims then there could be a biased perspective by the writer and same is true for Muslim historian

 

[oFFbEAT]

well same could be said for Muslim rulers in India..not all of them were totally saint or totally evil but you guys put every one in these two categories ..there is also third one which is between these two.....

The difference is, committing atrocities is a norm for you guys whereas for us it is an exception..
As I said, in almost 6000 yrs. you can show only one or two 'atrocious' Hindu kings...whereas we can show several atrocious Muslim Rulers, almost all them were/are atrocious/cruel.....

Note: cruelty is not measured by the no. of wars the ruler has waged, it is measured by the plundering, killing of the civilians and people of other religions after the war....

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

The difference is, committing atrocities is a norm for you guys whereas for us it is an exception..
As I said, in almost 6000 yrs. you can show only one or two 'atrocious' Hindu kings...whereas we can show several atrocious Muslim Rulers, almost all them were/are atrocious/cruel.....

Note: cruelty is not measured by the no. of wars the ruler has waged, it is measured by the plundering, killing of the civilians and people of other religions after the war....

Ok i believe in your witness statement ? what next?

 

[Desert Fox]

The whole "they used to do it, so it's ok" argument is a little flawed. The "Billy did it first" defense holds very little water these days. It is not that no one did these things in the past...in ancient days after a good military victory....you burned and looted...killed or enslaved the survivors. Everyone did these type of things. The main problem with what the Talibs did....is most civilisations have moved on....no more stone tools...you aren't sick because evil spirits live in your head...etc. (and ps...I know Hindus can be intolerant...read about it years before 9/11 or any of the current mess....things like not sitting in a seat after a muslim did....but I assume it was backwards villagers....and that it is dying out)

Regardless of whoever did it first, its not justified, and indeed it is something that was very common in the medieval ages where the conqueror would loot, rape, and pillage the conquered, however there are many examples in the past where the conqueror showed mercy to the conquered like Salahudin Ayubi who allowed all the Christians of the holy land as well as the Crusaders to take their wealth, their slaves, and their women with them safely under the guard of his army despite 100 years prior to that, the Crusaders butchered every Muslim man, woman, and child in the Holy Land to an extent that the blood reached the ankles of their horses (as documented by a Christian Priest).

And not so long ago did the conquerors loot, rape, and pillage the conquered, as was in the case of Allied/Communist occupation of Germany after WW2 where you had Russian soldiers raping more than 2 million German women, where 1.9 million German POW's were starved to their deaths by General Eisenhower weeks after the war was over, where German civilians were being kicked out of their homes, their property looted by allied soldiers as was documented by General George S. Patton himself in the Patton Papers.

The thing is, the Taliban have their side of the story, they have their reason as to why they demolished the Buddha Statues.

People fail to note that the Taliban came into power in Afghanistan in 1996, the Bamiyan Statues were demolished in 2001, why didn't the Taliban destroy the statues in the previous 5-6 years of their rule in Afghanistan if indeed the motive was a religious one?

Moreover, prior to the Taliban there were Islamic Empires that ruled that land, why didn't they demolish those statues? Why didn't those Islamic invaders who plundered indian cities demolish those statues in Afghanistan?

People just love to jump on to the Islam bashing bandwagon and use it to hide the misdeeds of their own.

I'm no fan of the Taliban, because it wasn't me who equated Jalaludin Haqqani (the current most wanted Taliban commander by the US) to America's founding fathers, it was Ronald Reagan who did, and so did so many Americans who supported Haqqani and Mullah Omar in their holy war against the Godless Commie's. But now Jallaludin Haqqani is a terrorist and Taliban (who are composed of former Muj from the 1980's) are Islamic extremists who destroyed statues because those statues were "against Islam".

Now, i'm sure the world isn't blind to what's going on in Libya and now Syria. Islamist fundamentalists backed by the West and its Arab allies to overthrow secular governments. The same was the case with the Taliban, they were pawns and now they are terrorists extremist islamists. Are Americans worried about the Syrian Christians and other non-Muslims of Syria who will suffer under the regime of the extremists they and their allies are so ardently supporting?

Al-qaeda was actively involved in Libya and now they are pouring into Syria with the weapons NATO helped them capture in Libya.