The Greatest Kings in Indian History

paras said:

My all post are in favour of hinduism so its obvious any a normal Man can think why people calling him paki ??

Click to expand...

But much of what you wrote in post # 892 does not sound normal.

paras said:

My all post are in favour of hinduism so its obvious any a normal Man can think why people calling him paki ??

Click to expand...

because of the stench ? if you smell like a paki then even a burqa wont hide you.

warriorextreme said:

to know more about why and how budhism lost its ground from india you must study about pushyamitra sunga,Brhadrata,minider(mentioned as milind in budha literature)...many budhists returned to hindu faith(no conversion required inside dharmic religions) after this as they were being labeled as traitors...they were not persecuted...

Click to expand...

Oh yeah everyone left a great egalitarian faith and opted one that supported the institutionalization of caste, rituals, a language restricted to a particular caste etc.

There are a number of sources in the net that mince no words about who was responsible fro the decline of Buddhism in India.

I do not want to paste any links here since I'll be hounded like anything.

Param said:

Oh yeah everyone left a great egalitarian faith and opted one that supported the institutionalization of caste, rituals, a language restricted to a particular caste etc.

There are a number of sources in the net that mince no words about who was responsible fro the decline of Buddhism in India.

I do not want to paste any links here since I'll be hounded like anything.

Click to expand...

Stand for your convictions

Iamanidiot said:

Stand for your convictions

Click to expand...

What's the use?

The really knowledgeable ones here know the truth, there is nothing new for me to tell them.

They have the knack to deny even some basic historical facts.

I know that in the past 15 years or so there have been a number of instances of established historical theories and facts been "disproven".
I fear this would continue as the religious nationalists gain power in the political realm and re write History books.

History is the most important social subject because it is a political tool to shape an entire generation's thinking about past and present.

The day the Govt gives into neo-nationalists and religious fanatics and re writes History, I'll have lost most of my faith in the Indian system.

Param said:

Oh yeah everyone left a great egalitarian faith and opted one that supported the institutionalization of caste, rituals, a language restricted to a particular caste etc.

There are a number of sources in the net that mince no words about who was responsible fro the decline of Buddhism in India.

I do not want to paste any links here since I'll be hounded like anything.

Click to expand...

same question any one can ask about Buddhism how in so small time people left there 6000-7000 yeras culture if its happend without any fiction then no wonder they people again get converted in to hinduism without fiction in small time.

Ashoka was famous for his secular empire but there are sources which say ashoka killed jain people during spread of Buddhism. every source is not trust worthy

First Contradiction there is no strong trustworthy proof that buddhis invade by hindus why ? why hindu king didn't record their triumph over Buddhism just like Christen did , Muslim did in all over world. just like they hated other culture called pagans killed converted them and recorded their triumph over pagans.

second Contradiction to this how and what besis buddhist again get converted in to Four Vernas from One "Pantha" ??? you cant not declare suddenly one Buddhist as a Brahmin and other as Shudra .

third cotradiction Brahmins didn't oppose it ?? An Emperor failed to give status of hindu to his own son from muslim wife due to Brahmins , thoes brahmins didn't oppose such convertion ?? its not possible.

There is not A single thing which support such theory , then why should we believe such thing just because West religions like Christen,Muslims did barbarism , so hindus did it. NO its STUPID.

Param said:

Oh yeah everyone left a great egalitarian faith and opted one that supported the institutionalization of caste, rituals, a language restricted to a particular caste etc.

There are a number of sources in the net that mince no words about who was responsible fro the decline of Buddhism in India.

I do not want to paste any links here since I'll be hounded like anything.

Click to expand...

so many budhist monuments standing tall and unharmed are proof that transition from budhism to hinduism was peaceful..i know that pushyamitra sunga became aggressive at first as mentioned in buddhist scriptures.

warriorextreme said:

so many budhist monuments standing tall and unharmed are proof that transition from budhism to hinduism was peaceful..i know that pushyamitra sunga became aggressive at first as mentioned in buddhist scriptures.

Click to expand...

Chanakya neethi does not require violent cultural vandalism.

@Paras, sorry I am still not convinced about your nationality or origin.

And I concur with what some others have said about you.

@ Param

Suppose Buddhism had flourished in India and say that 25 % of land and population would have been Buddhist

How do you think the Buddhists would have coped with Islamic invaders later on ?

Would they have resisted them or simply succumbed like the Tibetans have succumbed

Param said:

Chanakya neethi does not require violent cultural vandalism.

Click to expand...

who said pushyamitra sunga targeted all budhists??
he only destroyed those monasteries which were harboring armies of minider(menander 1)(milind)
Menander I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he converted to buddhim when these monasteries helped him to take control of mauryan regions in current day pakistan...this is why pushyamitra sunga a general in Brhadrata's army killed him for turning blind eye towards invasions of menander on his kingdom.

Param said:

@Paras, sorry I am still not convinced about your nationality or origin.

And I concur with what some others have said about you.

Click to expand...

i am indian origin hindu

pankaj nema said:

@ Param

Suppose Buddhism had flourished in India and say that 25 % of land and population would have been Buddhist

How do you think the Buddhists would have coped with Islamic invaders later on ?


Would they have resisted them or simply succumbed like the Tibetans have succumbed

Click to expand...

Does that make any difference?
Mohd Ghori, Mahmud of Ghazni invaded our country so many times I do not remember. One Khilji decimated dozens of nativ kingdoms and established his rule over a territory larger than the Mauryan empire.

There was no Buddhist kingdom in those days except the Palas in Bengal.

The Tibetans lost not because of religion, but because of the fact that they were outnumbered, outgunned.
Compare the population of Tibet with Hans.

Btw not all Tibetans are peace loving monks, there is a warrior class even among Tibetans. I unable to recall their name but they gave fierce resistance during the 1950s.

Param said:

@Paras, sorry I am still not convinced about your nationality or origin.

And I concur with what some others have said about you.

Click to expand...

you didn't answer my contradictions .

param you can not Re write history whic was never written.

People can not create such theory Just because Muslim and Christen did it Hindu did smae thing without proof.

warriorextreme said:

who said pushyamitra sunga targeted all budhists??
he only destroyed those monasteries which were harboring armies of minider(menander 1)(milind)
Menander I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

he converted to buddhim when these monasteries helped him to take control of mauryan regions in current day pakistan...this is why pushyamitra sunga a general in Brhadrata's army killed him for turning blind eye towards invasions of menander on his kingdom.

Click to expand...

I repeat again, chanakya neethi does not require violence or physically destroying something.

Some people had started the process of suppressing Buddhism after the fall of the Mauryas. This long drawn out slow process continued for centuries and culminated during the "Golden Age".

There were a number of rulers in between who tried to resurrect Buddhism, Kanishka being one. Unfortunately some people came up with a plan, they divided Buddhism into two sects.
Who do you think were the chief supporters of Mahayana sect?
Why did they oppose Hinayana that was simple and closer to original teachings of Buddha?

Param said:

I repeat again, chanakya neethi does not require violence or physically destroying something.

Some people had started the process of suppressing Buddhism after the fall of the Mauryas. This long drawn out slow process continued for centuries and culminated during the "Golden Age".

There were a number of rulers in between who tried to resurrect Buddhism, Kanishka being one. Unfortunately some people came up with a plan, they divided Buddhism into two sects.
Who do you think were the chief supporters of Mahayana sect?
Why did they oppose Hinayana that was simple and closer to original teachings of Buddha?

Click to expand...

it still does not explain how once a majority religion became nearly extinct from india...all these plans you say which are based on chankya niti worked so well that all of the budhists turned back to hinduism???
if true then were are sources which confirm this??

Param said:

Does that make any difference?
Mohd Ghori, Mahmud of Ghazni invaded our country so many times I do not remember. One Khilji decimated dozens of nativ kingdoms and established his rule over a territory larger than the Mauryan empire.

There was no Buddhist kingdom in those days except the Palas in Bengal.

The Tibetans lost not because of religion, but because of the fact that they were outnumbered, outgunned.
Compare the population of Tibet with Hans.

Btw not all Tibetans are peace loving monks, there is a warrior class even among Tibetans. I unable to recall their name but they gave fierce resistance during the 1950s.

Click to expand...

None of Khilji created bigger empire than Murya Empire , Murya Empire was biggest in known history of India.

warriorextreme said:

it still does not explain how once a majority religion became nearly extinct from india...all these plans you say which are based on chankya niti worked so well that all of the budhists turned back to hinduism???
if true then were are sources which confirm this??

Click to expand...

Good question

paras said:

None of Khilji created bigger empire than Murya Empire , Murya Empire was biggest in known history of India.

Click to expand...

Ok as large as the Mauryan empire.

Even Mauryas did not venture into that far south, Khilji destroyed Chola, Chera and Pandyas.

Param said:

Ok as large as the Mauryan empire.

Even Mauryas did not venture into that far south, Khilji destroyed Chola, Chera and Pandyas.

Click to expand...

No, Murya is far from khilji , even Mughal, pala , gupta , chola were bigger than khilji

here is list of worlds largest Empires ---- List of largest empires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Khilji destroyed chola it dosent mean he captured all the area which was under chola empire.