Param
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 2,810
- Likes
- 653
My all post are in favour of hinduism so its obvious any a normal Man can think why people calling him paki ??
But much of what you wrote in post # 892 does not sound normal.
My all post are in favour of hinduism so its obvious any a normal Man can think why people calling him paki ??
because of the stench ? if you smell like a paki then even a burqa wont hide you.My all post are in favour of hinduism so its obvious any a normal Man can think why people calling him paki ??
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.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...
Stand for your convictionsOh 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.
What's the use?Stand for your convictions
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.
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.
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.
who said pushyamitra sunga targeted all budhists??Chanakya neethi does not require violent cultural vandalism.
i am indian origin hindu@Paras, sorry I am still not convinced about your nationality or origin.
And I concur with what some others have said about you.
Does that make any difference?@ 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
you didn't answer my contradictions .@Paras, sorry I am still not convinced about your nationality or origin.
And I concur with what some others have said about you.
I repeat again, chanakya neethi does not require violence or physically destroying something.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.
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???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?
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.
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??
Ok as large as the Mauryan empire.None of Khilji created bigger empire than Murya Empire , Murya Empire was biggest in known history of India.
Ok as large as the Mauryan empire.
Even Mauryas did not venture into that far south, Khilji destroyed Chola, Chera and Pandyas.