Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

[Lurker]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

^ Thats the origin of "India"' date=' lurker. I was referring to Hindu, Hinduism etc.[/quote'] Yep I shall dig that up when I am home. Here is the thing that makes me uncomfortable about Indian history in general. All of our history has to be verified by outside sources. Simply because there has never been a practice of writing things down, or as a cynic Indian philospher put it once,"we burn our deads" and hence no trace is left. By the way you perhaps didnt check the entire link. Here is what it offered. Year: 486 BC. Name: Hidush Source: Naksh-i-Rustam Text: "Says Darius the King: By the grace of Ormazd these (are) the countries which I have acquired besides Persia. I have established my power over them. They have brought tribute to me. That which has been said to them by me they have done. They have obeyed my law. Medea . . . Arachotia (Harauvatish), Sattagydia (Thatagush), Gandaria (Gad??ra), India (Hidush). . . ." Year: c 590. Name: Hind Source: Istakhri Text: "As for the land of the Hind it is bounded on the East by the Persian Sea (i.e. the Indian Ocean), on the W. and S. by the countries of Isl??m, and on the N. by the Chinese Empire. . . . The length of the land of the Hind from the government of Mokr??n, the country of Mans??ra and Bodha and the rest of Sind, till thou comest to Kann??j and thence passest on to Tibet, is about 4 months, and its breadth from the Indian Ocean to the country of Kann??j about three months." *** What should be very interesting to note here is the fact that both these accounts(486 BC to 590 AD) happened in between the most glorious phase of Buddhist rule in India. If I am not mistaken Samudragupta and his son Vikramaditya ruled around 300-400 AD. And even though the second text in particular mentions Bodh and Kannauj(a traditional Buddhist stronghold if I remember correctly) the land is referred to as HIND. xxx

[yoda]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

then came the Buddhists who for a while were close to a majority population in the subcontinent.

proof? link?

Yods, Facts figures not allowed to get in the way ..... learn to deal with it ... :hmph: PS: Do you think this is worth a mention in "that" list ... will become item no 15 :flux:

the list is growing by the day :lmao:.

[The Outsider]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC ^There are many historical books available on the influence of Buddhism during that era and most say that it was the predominant religion in the conutry at that time. Just a random search on google threw up this ebook based on Faxian and other Chinese scholars' writings: http://books.google.com/books?vid=0bowe3zkg9bVg04R&id=KDXbJagkdUAC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=notes+on+the+religious+moral+state+before+invasion Goto page 88 where is clearly states Buddhism was the dominant religion in India during that period. Also, a trip to some library can take you to many books with similar conclusion. And even then if you believe all this is a lie and fabrication or ask for a census I cant help much.

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

The south (ie, southern half of Karnataka to the end of peninsula) however, was never predominantly buddhist or jain and i find it no surprise that Southies are often the most misinformed about India's buddhist and Jain past/present.

CC, please stop generalizing about South Indians. We have gone thru' this before. Their are more Jains in karnataka then many Northern and Eastern states . It came to Karnataka before the Christian era. Chalukyas and Hoysala kings had encouraged the Jainism. They have left innumerable shrines, Bastis (a.k.a. Basadis), Gomata statues and stambhas (pillars). In fact Mahamastakabhisheka is celebrated every twelve years by Jain monks and several thousand other followers of Jainism. The colossal granite statue is 58 feet in height and stands majestically on Indrabetta hill in Karnataka. Also, Buddhism was prevalent in South India too . Explain how the hell Sri lanka which last I checked is south of India has more buddhist than many states of India even now.

[yoda]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC So, what was it, 51% buddhists or was it 90% or was it 80% or just "predominant" from some chinese scholar with no figures to back it up?

[CC1981]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

So' date=' what was it, 51% buddhists or was it 90% or was it 80% or just "predominant" from some chinese scholar with no figures to back it up?[/quote'] Err..just how many people gave 'figures to back it up' 1500 years ago ? It can only be estimated but if you *read* the sources i provided, you will get the idea that at one period, Buddhism was the predominant faith in the subcontinent. Since subcontinent in historical terms includes modern day India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh,Pakistan,Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, some sociologists have estimated a ballpark figure of between 60-70% overall population of the subcontinent ( note: even under 'one' empire, there were large areas that remained hindu - this estimate is when ALL of subcontinent is looked at) were buddhist between 250 BCE (approx.) to 650 CE (approx). In the period specified, the estimate is approximately 70-80 % of entire subcontinent north of what is modern day southern Karnataka,TN,Kerala and AP. In these southernmost regions, the estimate for non-vedic schools of thought have been put to no more than 20-25% at peak popularity. PS:As i predicted, one of the usual suspects already came in with the expected rhetoric.

[The Outsider]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

So' date=' what was it, 51% buddhists or was it 90% or was it 80% or just "predominant" from some chinese scholar with no figures to back it up?[/quote'] Faxian is reputed to be one of the best and its not only him several others made similar claims. As for your asking for a percentage, thats just being facetious. Asking a question about the detailed census when there used to none is not going to give any answers. However, Faxian did not find a single state ruled by Hindu princes during his travels. In the link I gave above, it also says later Hien Tsang did find a few Hindu states in his travels in the 7th century which matches well with the revival of Hinduism and decline of Buddhism in India.

[yoda]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC What happened to all those buddhists?

[CC1981]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC Shwets- i think looking at ruling dynasties is a bit misleading because it is not an accurate reflection on the society. Take for example the Palas - they were a Buddhist dynasty but under them, the subcontinent was less than 50% Buddhist. Contrasting that with the latter Gupta rulers who were Hindus but ruled an empire predominantly of buddhists. Faxian and Xuan Zeng's accounts of how the sanghas were doing as opposed to the temples. During Faxian's time, he writes that even in Benares, the traditional 'center' of Hinduism, the buddhist sangha was more common and widespread. X. Zeng 300 years later provides a picture of declining Buddhist popularity when his accounts of the Temples and Sangha show a decline in the sangha support/popularity. Several such accounts and historical evidence in the subcontinent is a silent proof that there was a long and potracted period when Buddhism was the major religion in the subcontinent, displacing Hinduism as the popular choice. Our archaeology is testament to that fact - some of the grandest and most prolific surviving constructions in India between the 300 BCE to 900 CE are Buddhist in nature :Sanchi, Ajanta, Ellora, Nalanda, Paharpur, etc. are all testimony to that.

[CC1981]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

What happened to all those buddhists?

It was a complicated set of variables causing the downfall of Buddhism. First off, Buddhist popularity was based on its support from the grassroot levels. However, with the collapse of the Gupta empire, for the first time in over a millenia a period of chaos reigned in the subcontinent due to lack of a major empire ( the Mauryas were succeeded a century and half later by the Kushans, the Kushans succeeded almost concurrently by the Guptas). This led to an abuse of the sangha system ( where anybody was admitted and lived either through begging or doing chores for the sangha) because a lot of people fled to it for refuge in times of financial chaos that follows the disintegration of an empire. The sanghas responded by making admittance more stringent- they were particularly concerned with freeloaders and thus were less picky about people who came from well to do backgrounds. Soon, the Sangha unknowingly cut itself off the main popular base and became a secondary but still significant faith over the next few centuries. Not to mention, over time, Buddhism became extremely complicated ( it is pretty complicated to begin with !) and started losing out to the much more simpler 'ram-ravan' or 'indra-baali' type stories in the popular stakes. The Islamic invasion pretty much annihilated the Buddhist population because not only were the Buddhists killed more than any other community, it also coincided with the hindu rivivalist 'bhakti movement'. Thus, while the resurging Hindu faith was able to survive due to the bhakti movement, Buddhism could not survive the double blow of two rival religions - one thats killing them by the boatloads and other that is gaining in support.

[kumble_rocks]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC ^ You are forgetting one very important aspect which also contributed to the downfall of Buddhism in India. The fact that Hinduism absorbed Buddhism into it's fold and many people started worshiping Buddha as ninth avatar of Vishnu.

[yoda]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC Or may be it never was in a majority to begin with. :chin:

[CC1981]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

Or may be it never was in a majority to begin with. :chin:

That is how you want it to be but unfortunately, that is not how it was. I dunno what on earth makes you think that India didnt have a period of buddhist majority, given that the proof of this both inside and especially outside Indian culture is quite categoric.

[yoda]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

Or may be it never was in a majority to begin with. :chin:

That is how you want it to be but unfortunately, that is not how it was. I dunno what on earth makes you think that India didnt have a period of buddhist majority, given that the proof of this both inside and especially outside Indian culture is quite categoric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country Going by these two, I cannot be convinced that it was once was the majority religion in India or in the sub-continent.

[CC1981]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC 'Going by these two' ? I doubt you read the first link in detail because it does mention there that Buddhism was widespread in India before. And whats the point of quoting the % religion today ?!? There are many religions that have been wiped out alltogether, many areas that have had different religious leanings at different times. Our country was no less different and i don't see why you are denying the obvious truth- that the subcontinent/India was a predominantly Buddhist nation for almost a thousand year period. This is very well documented and as you can see in this thread, i am not the only one to say so.

[yoda]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

'Going by these two' ? I doubt you read the first link in detail because it does mention there that Buddhism was widespread in India before. And whats the point of quoting the % religion today ?!? There are many religions that have been wiped out alltogether, many areas that have had different religious leanings at different times. Our country was no less different and i don't see why you are denying the obvious truth- that the subcontinent/India was a predominantly Buddhist nation for almost a thousand year period. This is very well documented and as you can see in this thread, i am not the only one to say so.

"the predominant religion" now sits at 1% of the population in the major country left as part of the sub-continent with no recorded specific catastrophy affecting just that religion. first link says it was widespread, but far from "the predominant religion" claim. it could be widespread with pockets of folks here and there which is a far cry from being "the predominant" religion. add to the fact that hindus don't convert people, tell me how india became a hindu majority?

[Lurker]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

add to the fact that hindus don't convert people, tell me how india became a hindu majority?

So Yoda what is your take on this? What in your opinion was the status of Buddhism in India. The amount of people who followed it and so on. You are quick to dismiss Fahien etc etc so who are your sources behind your numbers? Over to you. xxxx

[yoda]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

add to the fact that hindus don't convert people, tell me how india became a hindu majority?

So Yoda what is your take on this? What in your opinion was the status of Buddhism in India. The amount of people who followed it and so on. You are quick to dismiss Fahien etc etc so who are your sources behind your numbers? Over to you. xxxx

hinduism is beyond anyone's source. regarding numbers, we can only go by current numbers and work backwards talking into account various events along the way. current - 80% pre-moghul conversion - > 80%, unless strongly evidenced otherwise

[Lurker]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

hinduism is beyond anyone's source. regarding numbers, we can only go by current numbers and work backwards talking into account various events along the way. current - 80% pre-moghul conversion - > 80%, unless strongly evidenced otherwise

You do realize that your reply is quite vague. I do not mean any disrespect but between a reply as unsubstantiated as that and one that has details by Fahien, Huein Tsang etc etc most people shall lean towards the latter. As for your assertion of taking current numbers and start working backwards how would that work in the case of Hindus in Pakistan?? Less than 1% of population today. How would you ever show that once Pakistan had atleast 10%, if not more, Hindus? Or Bangladesh? See the fallacy in your argument? xxxx

[yoda]

Re: Muslims no longer a minority in Uttar Pradesh:HC

hinduism is beyond anyone's source. regarding numbers, we can only go by current numbers and work backwards talking into account various events along the way. current - 80% pre-moghul conversion - > 80%, unless strongly evidenced otherwise

You do realize that your reply is quite vague. I do not mean any disrespect but between a reply as unsubstantiated as that and one that has details by Fahien, Huein Tsang etc etc most people shall lean towards the latter. As for your assertion of taking current numbers and start working backwards how would that work in the case of Hindus in Pakistan?? Less than 1% of population today. How would you ever show that once Pakistan had atleast 10%, if not more, Hindus? Or Bangladesh? See the fallacy in your argument? xxxx

There is no fallacy. Those situations can be easily explained by strong evidence like the Partition, etc. All I am asking show me the evidence as to why such a "predominant religion" became 1% of the population in India and how Hinduism suddenly rose from being a "minority" or "whatever status it had" to 80% of the country when it is well know that we don't go about converting people. Did more than 95% of the buddhists die or did more than 95% of them buddists "become" hindus again or did they (95% of them) migrate to other countries? If so, is there any literature pointing to these "large scale" deaths/conversions/migrations enough to evidence a 60-70% to 1% reduction in the overall buddhist population?