Were Buddhists Persecuted By Hindus?

[dogra]

Have heard statements that bhuddism declined due to persecution, but some things dont add up, lets see

http://agniveer.com/5936/were-buddhists-persecuted-by-hindus/

King Asoka, whose chariot wheel adorns the Indian flag, became bhudist and gave India just and humane edicts, but we have:

"As we all know, Ashoka, propelled by a sense of guilt after the bloodbath in Kalinga embraced Buddhism as some form of redemption to overcome the same. Not many Marxist historians and Islamic historians in India do seem to acknowledge a little fact that Emperor Ashoka was helped by two of his Hindu mentors in this move. So, to start with, if Hindus were as dogmatic about their faiths, as these historians have projected Hindus to be and had persecuted Buddhists, why and how did those that had sway over this great emperor allow him to embrace Buddhism as his personal faith?

"

[dogra]

then we have:

"Myth #2: King Pushyamitra was a Hindu bigot that slaughtered Buddhist monks.

there are historical accounts of King Pushyamitra patronizing the construction of many Buddhist monasteries. This is where the statement of the historian Etienne Lamotte assumes significance: “To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof.” (History of Indian Buddhism, Institut Orientaliste, Louvain-la-Neuve 1988/1958, p.109)

"

then some more:

"Myth #3: Hindu rulers systematically uprooted Buddhism.

This is a very generic myth and to counter it we are going to use chronicles of Chinese travelers, some of whom, where students of Buddhist theology

And where did Hieun Tsang pursue further studies? He did it in Buddhist University of Nalanda. Had Hindu rulers were so intent on finishing off Buddhism, how did this University survive? And a couple of centuries prior to this assembly at Kanauj, another Chinese traveler Faxian (330 – 420 AD) had chronicled the hold of Buddhism in India. Even in the two centuries between these two Chinese travelers, Buddhism did not wither away, which, clearly indicates that across this land ruled by Hindu kings, the growth of Buddhism was never curtailed.

"

[dogra]

also:

"So what the above instances go to show is that Hindu kings were not Hindu extremists that destroyed Buddhism, as, the modern day historians try to claim. Given the obvious gaps in their falsified accunts, some of the historians use King Mihirakula as a Hindu poster boy that unleashed violence against Buddhists. But what they willfully gloss over is that this king was not a Hindu but was a Hun ruler that belonged to a clan (of Central Asian Xionites origin) that invaded North West India. The historians claim that King Mihirakula was a Shiavitie but in his campaigns against the kingdom of Malwa and Gwalior, he razed down temples and Buddhist stupas alike and this confirms his non-Hindu origins. Just to be doubly sure, I am also presenting his lineage which proves he was not a Hindu. Mihirakula was the son of the Hun ruler called Toramana and their Hun lineage and the spread of the kingdom can be seen in the Jain literary work called Kuvalayamala.

"

[dogra]

Myth #4: Adi Shankaracharya instigated Hindu kings to rid India of Buddhism

"The debates that Shankara engaged in had the criterion that the one that lost the debate should embrace the faith of the victor. When Buddhist scholars lost debate after debate with Shankara, they had no choice but to honor the commitment and when they did so, the king / prince to whom these Buddhist scholars were mentors ended up following suit. There is nothing in the historical records, even remotely, to suggest that Shankara forced Hindu kings to unleash violence against the Buddhists.

While he did engage in discussions with many rulers persuasively about Hindu dharma, the charge of this Hindu Guru engaging in violence against Buddhists is the unilateral dream of biased historians. There is not even a shred of evidence that substantiates the charge of Adi Shankaracharya instigating violence against Buddhists. And just to be sure, if we deep dive into the Advaita philosophy, as expounded by Adi Shankaracharya, the same ethics that are seen in the Vedas, Upanishads & Bhagavad Gita, like truth, non-violence, service etc are seen. Had Adi Shankaracharya acted against what he publicly preached or had he done things blatantly contradicted the message of Vedas, he would have ceased to be the philosopher / saint he is.

"

[dogra]

and some other facts:

"And what did the Hindus that were fighting the Muhammadan invaders do for Buddhism during the invasions? Here are some excerpts from Alexander Berzin’s “The Historical Interaction between the Buddhist and Islamic Cultures before the Mongol Empire”:

Although the Mithila rulers were Shaivite Hindus, they continued the Pala patronage of Buddhism and offered strong resistance against the Ghurids. They stopped, for example, an attempted drive to take Tibet in 1206.

The Sena king (Hindu) installed defensive garrisons at Odantapuri and Vikramashila Monasteries, which were imposing walled citadels directly on the Ghurids’ line of advance.

"

well there u have it...

[Xylitol]

what is the point of these threads, other than acting as a way to post rebuttals from hindu points of views to things that aren't necessarily even said on this board? maybe in some cases they are, but in others it just seems like you are using them as an opportunity to grind your axe.

these threads hardly explore any point of puratan dharm. they are just politics disguised as dharmic talk.