I remember being taught in school about the important Muslim contributions to science, philosophy, and mathematics. It has been interesting to learn over time that much of this was inherited from Indian scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians (and it has been disquieting to learn what “inherited” is a euphemism for).
Not only India, but Persia, countries in The Levant, North Africa and Mediterranean were highly developed before the advent of Islam (which originated amongst desert tribes). It is their knowledge which gave rise to the
so called "Golden Age of Islam". Islamic conquest merely acted as a conduit for the spread of these ideas from one geographical region to another (a la the later Mongol Empire).
It is not merely act as a conduit. Using your anology they act as amplifier, filter, signal processing, etc toward the knowledge contributions. These regions becoming even more prosperous due to these knowledge based activities after Islamic rules unlike India who becoming much poorer after the British colonization.
The analogy i see is Arabs->later advancements(7th century and later) is the same as Mongols->later advancements(13th century and later). Both Arabs and Mongols were not inherently as "advanced" a civilization as the ones they conquered.
Unlike Mongols, Arab and Muslim scientists are well-knwon to have numerous and extensive contributions to the scientific knowledge. A lot of the novel scientific, mathematics, and other knowledge terminology are based on the Arabic languages namely algorithm, chemistry, alkali, just to name a few [1].
For medicine alone the contributions are numerous from Al-Nafis discovery of blood cirtculation several hunderds years before Harvey[2], Avicennna's book adoption as standard medicine textbooks for several hundred years at Oxford, Cambridge and other major European university [3], Ibn Al Quff the father of modern anesthasia [4] and Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawai the father of modern surgery [5].
Actually I want to mention well-known contributions to mathematics and astronomy by Arab and muslim scientists and mathematicians as well, but I think you probably get the points by now.
If your claim is true about the Mongols I'd like you to come up with similar list just for modern medicine alone from the Mongolian scientists (not ancient China) but I doubt you can and will.
If anything, pointing to various scholars with Arabic names in a large geographical area which hosted "advanced civilizations" before their conquest by Islam only strengthens my argument.
It is the achievements of the native people which were built upon by the now larger group of people of various ethnicities which is being pointed out. Islam was a conduit for the spread of ideas and not their originator. The Arabs were as "primitive" as the Mongols after them. Only after "mixing" with other ethnicities, converting them to Islam, making Arabic official lingua franca were these countries "Arabicized".
The difference between Arabs and Mongols is that the Arabs gave themselves a specific identity i.e. Islam which they then imposed on others while the Mongols integrated themselves into the native cultures.
Central Asia certainly played its role too. I invite you to consider that when Jai Singh II built Jantar Mantar, he used "Islamic" sources (Zij) as well from there.
It is fairly standard in Indian right wing media to be dismissive of anything positive of Islamic origin, by constructing a short alternative history as per the writers imagination.
So any post Islamic Arab contributions to math would have to be stolen from India, using bloodshed - as if math is a treasure that can be lifted or looted or were existing amongst Arabs before Islam.
It is was fairly straightforward for me to tell that you belong to the Indian right wing, from your biases when commenting about a secular topic like mathematics.
> It is simple factual History.
Just like post Islamic Arab mathematics by Al Khawrizmi, Al Biruni et al.
> Nobody is talking about "right wing media" etc other than you.
Basically nobody invents anything from scratch. It would be a pity if we have to rediscover everything all over again, every time there is a major change in a regions political order.
The modern USA is today a continuation of the Europe's printing press revolution.
I can't think of anybody giving short shrift to the achievements of civilizations predating Islam: Rome, Ancient Greece, Ancient China, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and many more civilizations are all commonly referred to as having made major achievements.
My strong contention is that much of the credit for the "Golden Age of Islam" should go to these pre-Islamic civilizations whose achievements were forcibly appropriated by the Arabs under their "Islamic" conquest.
To be honest it's not your "strong contention" but rather your ignorant or in denial contention, but I think you probably is the latter. In Arabic the word kafir is not translated to the infidel as made popular by the western media but literally means the "those who are in denial" or "those who cover up".
Why not you provide and share your proper references of your case for not overly crediting the Arab and muslim contributions so we can all can learn and move forward, or you can create a reference book and a thesis on that? But even if you can provide proper references, in which I strongly doubt, what's wrong for crediting the Arab and muslim scholars where credits are due. It seems to me you have strong enmity towards them that they have had more contributions to the knowledge than you can even dream of yourself in your lifetime.
You seemed to have popped out of the proverbial woodwork and that too of a most malodorous kind.
If you want to engage in a discussion on this topic, don't hide behind anonymity, understand properly what has been written and don't use ad hominem attacks.
For your edification w.r.t. my comments; there is a lot to unpack but here are the highlights for you to research on :
a) Arabs as a Ethnic group who originated in a particular "backward" geographical area.
b) Islam as a religion/philosophy/political/social framework which originated with them. Note also that Islam is the youngest of the major abrahamic religions.
c) Conquest of neighboring "advanced" countries under the Islamic banner thus appropriating their achievements under the same. Do some research on the civilizations of these countries as they were before Islamic conquest.
d) Spread of these achievements to Europe who named it the mythical "Golden Age of Islam". Note that this also includes knowledge gained from other civilizations who were not conquered but whose knowledge was studied and spread by scholars (of various ethnicities) in the now large geographical area under Islamic rule.
The above is factual History and this is what is being pointed out.
Perhaps Indian author Vishal Mangalwadi's example of the mathematical theory behind the mechanical clock would illustrate the flow of ideas well. He wrote (I'm going my memory here, so I don't have his exact dates) that an Indian mathematician came up with the theory for a mechanical clock in the early 11th century, but didn't try to build one; 50 years later middle eastern Muslim scholars were debating and studying the theory, but didn't try to build one; another half-century later the idea had come to Europe, and it was there in the early 12th century that the bishop of Paris suggested to his monks that building a mechanical clock would improved their ability to organized their communal work and worship in their monastic communities.
Mamgalwadi also asks the question of why neither the Indian nor Islamic cultures tried to build a mechanical clock when they knew of the theory. He suggests that the Indian Hindu belief that reality is /maya/ or illusion (and one meditates to escape the illusion) prevented them from trying to make a clock; in the middle-east, he suggests that the Islamic rejection of possibility of God becoming incarnate in the person of Jesus prevented them from trying to flesh out the theory, while in Christian medieval Europe their belief in incarnation primed the culture for trying to work the theory out in practice.
I think you've missed Al-Jazari who's well regarded as the father of modern robotics several hundred years before Leonardo da Vinci [1]. Some historians even suggesting that some of the da-Vinci inventions were copycats and derivatives of the Al-Jazari's more than hundred of inventions but he's not properly credited by da Vinci [2].
FYI, of al-jazri most famous invention is the elephant clock [3].
The Destruction of Nalanda, as chronicled in the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri by the Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj written a couple of decades after Bhaktiyar Khilji's death [1]:
"There were two brothers of Farghanah, men of learning, one Nizam-ud-Din, the other Samsam-ud-Din [by name], in the service of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar; and the author of this book met with Sam-sim-ud-Din at Lakhanawati in the year 641 H., and this account is from him.
These two wise brothers were soldiers among that band of holy warriors when they reached the gateway of the fortress and began the attack, at which time Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, by the force of his intrepidity, threw himself into the postern of the gateway of the place, and they captured the fortress, and acquired great booty.
The greater number of the inhabitants of that place were Brahmans, and the whole of those Brahmans had their heads shaven; and they were all slain.
There were a great number of books there; and, when all these books came under the observation of the Musalmans, they summoned a number of Hindus that they might give them information respecting the import of those books; but the whole of the Hindus had been killed.
On becoming acquainted [with the contents of those books], it was found that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindu tongue, they call a college Bihar.
When that victory was effected, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar returned with great booty, and came to the presence of the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and received great honour and distinction."
True, but in turn when we do hear about the Indian contributions, we tend to think they were all Hindus, rather than recognizing the great contributions of the Buddhists at Nalanda. While Buddhism has little presence in India today, that's where it started.
Buddhism is not that different from Hinduism. Both coexisted and debated with each other for centuries until islamic invasions started. Buddhism being a pacifist sect fell first.
So you must first tell what is the actual name of this religion, and its not "Hinduism" the origin of teh word Hindu is in Persian language. The persian dictionary define "Hindu" as "Thief", Also Buddhism is a Nastik Darshan (Atheist philosophy). Hinduism whose actual name is Brahman Dharm is Theistic philosophy worshipping gods etc. Also no evidence exist that Brahman dharm ever existed at the time of Buddhists, At best it was created after 11th century, which is why none of the chinese, korean, or greek travellers to India ever mentioned the existence of "Hindu" , "Brahman" or Hindu religion. All of them mentioned Buddhists and Jains. Only Al'biruni in 11th. century first mentions something called "Brahman" but even he translated the Buddhist texts, but did not get have any access to Hindu literature because the Brahman priests he met said they have not written it yet.
> So you must first tell what is the actual name of this religion
Names are not that important. But since you asked it's called Sanatan Dharma. It's also called Hindu Dharma.
> The persian dictionary define "Hindu" as "Thief",
References from pre Islamic Persia please. Don't give the usual Sindu to Hindu explanation. If Persians don't have a S sound then why salaam didn't became halaam? What about Persia itself? Why not Perhia? Word Hindu is a thoroughly Sanskrit word. It define the region from Himalaya (हिमालय) to the Indian Ocean(इंदु सरोवर).
> Brahman priests he met said they have not written it yet.
Vedic tradition is called श्रुति (heard). It's transmitted for thousands of years through the oral method. I have replied you else where on the importance of oral method in Vedic tradition. So what exactly is your fascination with writing down? Writing down makes it authoritative? Then respond to the clear defence of birth based caste and discrimination against women in Buddhism. Refute this please.
Buddhism is very distinct from Hinduism. In particular, there aren't multiple deities to worship and there is no caste system.
Buddhism, the dominant religion of India circa 400AD (as per Chinese travellers), was already under attack from Brahmins who made it a key strategy to get royal patronage, set up the religious rules for society which heavily favored themselves and also focused on acting as confidantes to kings, leading to the elimination of Buddhism(focused on monastic life) from much of the Indian subcontinent even before Islam was founded.
Nah, the so-called 'isms' of India ('Buddhism', 'Jainism', 'Saivism') are called agama traditions. The question scholars face or faced is this: what was earlier? Indologist story that both left wing and right scholars accept is that: there was Vedism, corrupted to become 'popular' hinduism, later Indian Martin Luther (Buddha) fought against the veil immorality of Hindus (because caste system forces immoral obligations on everyone), thereby Buddhism emerging. This is the standard story.
It is not clear that Vedism was created before Jainism, which has a strong archeological presence in South India.
There is also speculation that Shaivism is much older and was merged in to Hinduism quite late, some what contemporaneous with the elimination of Brahma (Brahmism) as a deity to be worshipped.
Also, it is weird to talk about left/right wrt history. History is just history, not left or right. In the Indian context, left has come to mean the actual history by historians, while right implies pseudohistory of PN Oak, out of India hypotheses and various other fantasies.
Anything that doesn't suit Western framework of looking at India can't be considered pseudo history. Most revered river in Vedas is Saraswati which disappear more than 10k years ago. Vedas describes river Saraswati in it's fully glory so they have to be much older than. Not every evidence is going to come from archeology and some evidence is yet to be found like chariots from Rakhigadhi which were also considered a fiction.
>there aren't multiple deities to worship and there is no caste system.
There are multiple deities [0] and Buddha didn't oppose caste system. He advocated it on deed and not birth which is not very diffrent from Hindu views of caste. Could you point to some instance from ancient Indians history when discrimination was made on the basis of caste, color, or gender?
The Buddha:– "Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deeds one becomes an outcast, by deeds one becomes a brahman." (Vasala Sutta 27 )
Mahabharata says the same thing.
Listen about caste, Yaksha dear, not study, not learning is the cause of being "twice-born". Conduct alone is the basis, there is no doubt about it. (M.Bh. Aranya-parva 312. 106.)
Birth based caste is an acquired taste from the Muslim invaders who had and still have a system of discrimination in the form of Islamic doctrine of Kafaat (Al-Hidaya, Book VI, Chapter 55.1). This system is still in practice across middle East[1].
Buddhism has no concept of caste. Gita has caste by birth as a central theme. In particular, Gita makes it loud and explicitly clear that even if a person is better at the birth caste duties of a different caste than his own caste duty ( which he is not any good at) he should only perform his own caste duties. Caste lines cannot be crossed. There is absolutely nothing like this in Buddhism.
"It is better to do one’s own dharma, even though imperfectly, than to do another’s dharma, even though perfectly. By doing one’s innate duties, a person does not incur sin."
Next verse
"One should not abandon duties born of one’s nature, even if one sees defects in them, O son of Kunti. Indeed, all endeavors are veiled by some evil, as fire is by smoke."
The whole set of verses before and after this verse is worth a read
The website adds the phrase "and not by birth" in the translation that is not present in the original Sanskrit verse to mitigate modern sensibilities, but the following verses go on to contradict the additional phrase added in the translation.
There are other verses that shame intercaste marriages as well.
On the issue of Gita. Could you please elaborate the words which refer to birth categorically? I know enough of Sanskrit to understand the original verses.
Edit: Here is a link to whole research paper on caste in Buddhism. Dp read the chapter appropriately titled.
As a counterview, my interpretation is that Buddah is not advocating for a literal caste system, rather, that one's proactive choices shape their spiritual progression.
Buddhism from its very history exists because Prince Siddhartha walked out of his palace and saw people dropping dead like flies out of disease and hunger. Apparently the sheer scale of suffering drove him to quit everything and become the Buddha.
This whole narrative of rivers of milk and honey flowing in Indian history obviously appears cooked up to drive political narratives(propaganda?) to anybody who can do basic analysis of history.
This topic came up in the Sam Harris and Sw Sarvapriyananda podcast recently. Sam mentioned: while the Hindus and Buddhists kept debating, the Muslims won.
India is still a Hindu nation so Hindus have suffered but they are still standing. Hindu mashal spirit never surrendered to the invasion otherwise like persia India would also completely vanished.Muslims invaded Sindh in 711 AD. For next 500 years they struggled to move past sindh and never conquered India until Turko Mughal succeeded in 12th century. Even when they ruled they faced continue challenge from the Hindu. For example when Aurangzeb tried imposing zaziya tax on Hindus, shivaji dared him to collect it from Mewar.
Hindus men performed saka (fighting to the last man) and women performed jauhar by burning themselves alive in the fire.
Buddhism on the otherhand suffered due to being non violent and practically vanished.
Buddhists were the only folks who were building universities at the time Hindus didnt even have a school leave alone universities. The so called "Gurukul" has never been found at any archaeological site.
Show one Sanskrit manuscript older than 1446. Not a single Stone inscription, Copper plate, Terracotta inscription of classical sanskrit has ever been found nor any Hindu site. Show a single evidence? The evidence of sanskrit found are of Buddhist Sanskrit at Buddhist schools like Nalanda here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda#/media/File:Nalanda_cl...
Not a single archeological evidence of Hindu (Brahman) dharm exist, if you have any evidence older that 1446 you have to furnish the proof.
Brahmins were writing Allahupanishad at the time of mughals praising Allah to be the supreme god and greater than Vishnu.
During the British Rule They wrote Bhavishya Puran and praising queen victoria to be the great ruler and even mentioned Macaulay. All those sanskrit books of Hindus religion were written much later infact they couldnt be written before teh invention of Devanagari script. And devanagari script itself was invented between 11th and 13th century.
> All those sanskrit books of Hindus religion were written much later infact they couldnt be written before teh invention of Devanagari script.
Sanskrit is script agnostic language so Sanskrit manuscript are found in every Indian script. If you do not know this then you are not qualified to talk about Sanskrit.
Edit: Hinduism is neither doctrine based nor centralised so every single purana and upnishad isn't authentic. Hindus and are free to discard what doesn't align with Dharma as described in Vedas.
What make you think Allopnishad wasn't written by Muslims to convince Hindus?
First of all you clearly have no clue that the Modern Classical Sanskrit is a newer language an earlier language existed known as BHS(Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit) this language was written in a script older than Devanagri script. There are ample Buddhists manuscripts of this language written in various scripts like Kharoshti. Why do we not find a single Brahman Dharm manuscript?
Simply because much of (Brahman Dharm) Hinduism was invented after the invention of Devanagri script in 11 century.
Also The classical sanskrit in which all Brahman Text (Hindu text) is written cannot be written in any Indian script before 11th century. Simply because the very basic sounds of sanskrit "Chha" (छ), "Tri" (त्र), "Gya"(ज्ञ), compound sounds, halants and visargas are not present in any script before that.
In the end what is the basis of your claim? All your claims are sand castles without archaeological evidence which is non existent for Brahman Dharm (Hinduism).
Vedas dont prescribe anything in terms of rejecting books, 33% of Rig Veda is only talk fire burning rituals and Indra, i suggest you first read it before speaking about it.
> Simply because the very basic sounds of sanskrit "Chha" (छ), "Tri" (त्र), "Gya"(ज्ञ), compound sounds, halants and visargas are not present in any script before ....
Wrong Brahmi was capable of representing Sanskrit sounds.
> Simply because much of (Brahman Dharm) Hinduism was invented after the invention of Devanagri script in 11 century.
With this statement you have denied the foundational claim of Buddhism. You have also disowned numerous philosopher of Buddhism. If Sanatan Dharma didn't exist what exactly was being reformed by Buddha?
> Also The classical sanskrit in which all Brahman Text (Hindu text) is written cannot be written in any Indian script before 11th century.
Classical Sanskrit?? Are you claiming Vedas were written in classical Sanskrit? Then Vedic Sanskrit was used for exactly what? Vedic books are transmitted in Vedic Sanskrit which had more sounds than classical Sanskrit. On top of that Vedas are shruti (heard) and they are transmitted orally even to this day.I hope you know about 6 pre- requisite (vedangas)required to read Vedas . First vedanga is Sikhsa which si about correct pronunciati. Chandas comes second and defines the metre of the Vedic hymns.
> Vedas dont prescribe anything in terms of rejecting books, 33% of Rig Veda is only talk fire burning rituals and Indra ...
Which part of veda teaches commandment and asks the followers to be the blind followers? What is wrong in 33% of rigved praising universe and nature. Is regressive but Buddh vandana is progressive?
> You must also address Bhavishya Puran.
Produce the questionable reference first and then we can debate.
On that note you also address the birth based castism and misogyny of Buddhism.
Ariguttara Nikaya (II.35) "beings/ puggalas" are of four categories:
a)tamo tama parayano, of miserable birth and bound for misery
b)tamo jyoti parayano, of miserable birth but bound for happiness
c)joti tama parayano, of happy, good birth but bound for misery
I can produce more references directly from Buddhist text. I challenge to do the same from Vedas and related text.
Regarding your 11th century claim. Brahmin produced Vedas, upvedas, vedangas, upnishads, brahman granths, aranykad, arthshastras,plays and poetry of kalidas,bharthari, numerous astronomy, mathematics books, 6 schools of philosophy, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagwad Gita 11th century onwards when India was attacks from the invaders. I nstead of defending kingdoms, these large projects were started by the ruling class.
* Again you should first read your own source wikipedia, where do you see in the alphabet table these sounds:
"Ksha" (क्ष), "Tri" (त्र), "Gya"(ज्ञ) in Brahmi script character ?
[correction i was talking about Ksha (क्ष) mistakenly wrote Chha (छ)]
* Hathi Bada Ghoshundi is Pali in Brahmi script again which is a Buddhist language not Hindu, there is no actual manuscript of this photograph so it could be a hoax. None of the Museums have the inscription for all we know it was on wood. and it got destroyed no one actually ever dated it only this photograph exists.
Whatever references you are pointing dont have a single actual evidence just claims your entire Arthashastra was discovered after 1901 in paper form no manuscript again.
I can point to many inconsistencies but the fact remains none of the claims have any actual physical or archaeological evidence, and to top it all Brahman dharm is trying to find their existence in buddhist manuscript and language because Brahman dharm have no evidence of their own.
You must stop with these claims and point to some actual archeological evidence.
> "Ksha" (क्ष), "Tri" (त्र), "Gya"(ज्ञ) in Brahmi script character ?
You claiming these to be the part of Sanskrit sound system which is incorrect. Show me an authentic Sanskrit alphabet in which these sound listed. For your information these letters aren't representing unique sound so they can be expressed as combinations of 2 letter while writing.
क् + ष = क्ष
त् + र = त्र
ज् + ञ = ज्ञ
All the various Sanskrit sound combinations and its nuances cannot be written down in any script, not even devnagri. Basic sound such as अ can have 18 different variations when spoken. Which script will have the capability to represent such richness. Hence it is an oral first language.
> * Hathi Bada Ghoshundi is Pali in Brahmi script again which is a Buddhist language not Hindu, there is no actual manuscript of this photograph so it could be a hoax. None of the Museums have the inscription for all we know it was on wood. and it got destroyed no one actually ever dated it only this photograph exists.
Make your mind. It is a hoax or it is a Buddhist inscription? Refute Heliodorus_pillar too as hoax.
You also didn't refute Buddha's statements from Ariguttara Nikaya (II.35) in which he clearly seems to discriminate based on the birth. On the contrary you also did not produce evidence of birth based caste from 4 Vedas, 18 Upnishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata, or Bhagwad Gita.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
Who was ruling Surat when Shivaji sacked the city? Shivaji sacked Surat when it was ruled by Mughals. I am not sure why you have failed to take that into account. When Shivaji attacked, did he carry out a general massacre of non-combatant population like the invaders did?
Conflict among Hindu kings were rarely deadly for the conquered population. But conflict with invaders mostly resulted in massacre, loot, and slavery. So they are not the same.
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
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
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.
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.
>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 :)
Reminder; please provide the sources/books. You have made some interesting points which i would like to know better.
> 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.
> 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
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.
> 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.
>> 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.
Had Europe been colonized and been organized into a single state, then, when the colonists relinquished power, areas with different ethniticies and/or religions would probably have voted to have more autonomy or be separate states altogether. The fact that there are many languages in India that are mutually unintelligible would indicate that gathering all of them in a single country is a relatively recent construct, and that the default arrangement was that control was much more local.
>> It came closest to the current boundaries under the Mauryan empire and Peshwai rule, however.
Just because political arrangements from centuries/millenia past existed doesn't mean that they're a good idea in modern times. Hence the reason we have many countries in Europe rather than a modern single political entity spanning an area similar to the Roman or Byzantine empire.
> Yes, the political structure that forced the majority of Muslims to vote for a separate Muslim state to be carved out of India.
Had the British Raj not split Myanmar off from India, it's likely they may have voted for a partition along similar lines based on religion (Budddhism vs Hinduism). Another example of strife caused by political structures set up by the British resulted in the civil war in Sri Lanka. In fact, the Tamils in Sri Lanka wanted to create their own independent state because of discrimination they faced from the Sinhalese majority.
> Without the British, there would be no enmity between the Hindus and Muslims.
Enmity really comes from trying to group people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc under a single political entity where one group is a minority. Tyranny of the majority becomes a problem in those cases.
> Had Europe been colonized and been organized into a single state, then, when the colonists relinquished power, areas with different ethniticies and/or religions would probably have voted to have more autonomy or be separate states altogether. The fact that there are many languages in India that are mutually unintelligible would indicate that gathering all of them in a single country is a relatively recent construct, and that the default arrangement was that control was much more local.
Partition would never have been so hotly contested if this was indeed the case. However, it wasn't. Thousands of Hindus and Sikhs had to flee the newly created Islamic nation of Pakistan, who knows exactly how many were killed in that process.
> Had the British Raj not split Myanmar off from India, it's likely they may have voted for a partition along similar lines based on religion (Budddhism vs Hinduism)
Buddhism and Hinduism have coexisted in relative peace (with a few exceptions) for millennia. No such thing would have happened.
> Enmity really comes from trying to group people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, etc under a single political entity where one group is a minority. Tyranny of the majority becomes a problem in those cases.
By this point it is abundantly clearly that you are not educated on the history of the Hindu-Muslim conflict. Before you further embarrass yourself, have a gander at this page [1] and see the timescales involved.
> Partition [between would never have been so hotly contested if this was indeed the case.
> Buddhism and Hinduism have coexisted in relative peace (with a few exceptions) for millennia. No such thing would have happened.
They weren't forced exist under a single political entity where one group was a substantial majority of the total. The civil war in Sri Lanka[1] is the result of trying to do so. The actions[2][3] of the Myanmar government towards people originally from India residing in Burma suggest that your assertion isn't really true.
> They weren't forced exist under a single political entity where one group was a substantial majority of the total.
See: The Mauryan Empire, various Khmer kings. The Kings were previously Hindu, converted to Buddhism with no conflicts arising from this change. There was no iconoclasm, no discrimination against Hindus, no mass genocide.
In the entire article the word "Buddhism" is mentioned but once.
"Moreover, the British pushed for the dominance of Christianity and the removal of privileging Buddhism in the state government, the main religion followed by the Sinhalese"
> [2]
"Indians played a prominent role in the British administration and became the target of Burmese nationalists. Racial animosity toward Indians because of their skin-colour and appearance also played a role. Meanwhile, the price of rice plummeted during the economic depression of the 1930s and the Chettiar from South India, who were prominent moneylenders in the rice belt, began to foreclose on land held by native Burmese."
Literally nothing to do with their religion
> [3]
"After he seized power through a military coup in 1962, General Ne Win ordered a large-scale expulsion of Indians. Although many Indians had been living in Burma for generations and had integrated into Burmese society, they became a target for discrimination and oppression by the junta. This, along with a wholesale nationalisation of private ventures in 1964, led to the emigration of over 300,000 ethnic Indians from Burma. Indian-owned businesses as well as Burmese businesses were nationalised due to the so-called "Burmese way to Socialism". Many Indians returned and were given 175 kyat for their trip to India."
The common thread between your assertions are that one side is predominantly Buddhist and the other side is predominantly Hindu, however this does not mean the religion is the source of the conflict. Deeper investigation reveals in fact that the conflict was anything but religious. Nationalistic, linguistic, cultural, yes. But not religious. There isn't any bad blood between Hinduism and Buddhism the way there is between Hinduism and Islam.
Stop trying to manufacture a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism where none exists. These two religions have coexisted for millenia in relative peace, unlike Islam and literally any other religion.
> Stop trying to manufacture a conflict between Buddhism and Hinduism where none exists.
The point I'm trying to make is that these conflicts are caused by trying to place people of different ethnicities, religions, traditions, etc under the same political entity when they did not consent to it. It has nothing to do with particular religions. I've posted examples of various artificial partitions in previous comments that had nothing to do with religion, yet those borders still exist today. For example, the Durand Line dividing Pakistan and Afghanistan. That has nothing to do with religion, yet the line still exists because of the British. Many of the country borders in the Middle East were decided based on negotiations between France and the UK.
Religion is one of the reasons behind the divisions, but you seem to be focused on that reason to the exclusion of all others. Just like you're overly focused on the partition of Pakistan and India to the exclusion of all other examples that have been presented.
> Religion is one of the reasons behind the divisions
My brother it is literally in the founding documents of Pakistan. There is no other reason. There is no ethnic, cultural, genetic or other such divide between Pakistanis and Indians - we are the same for all intents and purposes except for religion.
> it is literally in the founding documents of Pakistan.
Have you looked into any of the other examples I cited in the last several comments I made? Why do you keep circling back to Pakistan and religion when I literally just told you that there are many other reasons why conflicts exist. For an ethnic Tamil living in the Tamil Nadu state in India, Pakistan isn't even relevant to them. They definitely would be more focused on what's happening in their state and Sri Lanka. Similarly, someone living in the Uttar Pradesh state wouldn't really be following what happens in Sri Lanka.
I'm looking at this from a more holistic point of view and trying to show that there are multiple factors beyond religion. I said religion is one of the reasons, but I didn't say it was the sole reason or primary one. This is referring to many examples of political entities and artificial devisions between them in general. You're not really using the most charitable interpretation of what I'm stating when responding.
I'm not just talking about border disputes, and I don't make this connection lightly. Pakistan was explicitly founded as a country for 'Indian Muslims'. The 1971 war wasn't over a border dispute: West Pakistanis openly genocided and raped[1] Bengali Hindus (and Muslims, for that matter), declaring Bengali women 'war booty', which forced India to step in.
As for 'no united India before colonial times': what about the Maurya and Gupta empires, or even the Delhi and Hyderabad sultanates? They governed over a significant portion of modern-day India + Pakistan.
If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century.
> If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century.
The strength of modern state propaganda is such that people have developed all kinds of crazy notions about history. The nation state is a modern invention and this involves myth building about the country going back to ancient times.
The French spoken in southern France had much more in common with northern Italian. Its just common sense that it would be so. Modern French was forced down it's subjects just like Urdu in Pakistan, Standardized Mandarin in China and ongoing attempts for Hindu in India.
The state has been elevated to the status of a mythical quasi religious entity.
It's a typo: I meant Hindi-India. In any case, I won't be responding to ultra nationalist, religion supremacist, right wing trolls anymore. So you can take your "edifications" and random articles elsewhere.
>>If this is your sort of goalpost, then even relatively homogenous countries like Germany and Italy shouldn't really exist today, given that they only coalesced in the late 19th century.
Yup. The Holy Roman empire, Roman Empire, Byzantines, Greeks, Hellenistic period etc etc.
Over a period of long intervals the geographical boundaries of any and every region on earth expand and shrink. That's just fact of life. And boundaries are basically things written on a piece of paper, where one administration decides to start or end its control. Also what does things like 'new countries' even mean here. It is not like when people make new countries they take they dig up their region from beneath and relocate to Mars. They are just saying they don't wish to live under your political administration.
There is no need to overthink these things beyond a certain point.
> It has been interesting to learn over time that much of this was inherited from Indian scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians (and it has been disquieting to learn what “inherited” is a euphemism for).
This is a fairly standard line in the Indian middle class. However, apart from the decimal system none of the Arabic contributions are of Indian origin, and I am not aware of any philosophical ideas being borrowed at all.
For instance, the key contribution - the invention of algebra is clearly of Arabic origin by Al Khawrizmi.
Also, it would be helpful to clarify what was disquieting about the confirmed borrowed idea - the decimal system. Most of the time I only come across vague references with nothing concrete stated.
There is also a lot of speculation about ancient Indian mathematics being borrowed from Sumerian sources (where the first Pythagorean triples were observed etc)
I know there’s a lot of political discussion going on under my post (it’s impressively restrained for how strongly felt the emotions involved are!), but I assure you I’m coming from an uninvolved/uninformed perspective - I’m lower-class white Australian (very Australian - my ancestry traces back to both the convicts and the officers on the prison ships) and I have no idea what the common Indian or Muslim views on this topic are, nor am I trying to pass much judgment on them. I’m also not equipped to debate the subtleties - what was going through my head when I made the comment was “I remember prominent caveats that Edison stole from Tesla when we learned about electricity, that Bell stole from Gray when we learned about telephones, that Watson and Crick stole from their secretary when we learned about DNA, that Grace Hopper was robbed when we learned about computers, etc., but those caveats were missing when we learned about Islam’s contributions to math and science.”
indeed hindu sages invented the zero and numerical system, sanskrit etc, that became hindi, then somehow the muslims and christians started calling it hindi-arabic numbers when the script itself is much older and founded by hindus
