@@grapeshott From a Brahmin perspective, anything is anti Brahmin but in fact its anti-bad to be precise. Buddha defied traditions itself, let it be any tradition, if it teaches something bad it should not be followed just because it is a tradition.
Do not simply believe what you hear just because you have heard it for a long time. Do not follow tradition blindly merely because it has been practised in that way for many generations. Do not be quick to listen to rumours. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures. Do not foolishly make assumptions. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear. Do not be fooled by outward appearances. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers. You ou should go beyond opinion and belief. You can rightly reject anything which when accepted, practised and perfected leads to more aversion. more craving and more delusion. They are not beneficial and are to be avoided. Conversely, you can rightly accept anything which when accepted and practised leads to unconditional love, contentment and wisdom. These things allow you time and space to develop a happy and peaceful mind. -Buddha
after a lot of debates // i came to the conclusion that both are same // prominent buddhist scholars like nagarjuna , ashvaghosha , nagasena , dharmakirti etc etc are majorly brahmins // infact buddhism is dominated by brahmin scholars as compared to hinduism because in hinduism you still find rishi valmiki , sant ravidas and many more who are of lower castes // but as we all know politics works on fault lines if you dont have one then create one .
BS None of them are Brahmins, The Brahman Sect did not exist till 10th century, India was a Buddhist civilisation and Buddhist use to call Buddhist Monks as Baman and Shaman (बमन / शमण ). It is only after 12-13th century the iranian migrants who had learnt of Buddhist teachings also tried introducing their own stuff with the help of Islamic invaders who reused all the words from Buddhism and started calling themselves "Brahman". All the scholors who you mentioned above never said any things about your Brahma, Parvati , Shiva or Indra. Why are they alll writing about Buddhism. Not a single foreign traveller Weather Megasthenes or HuenTzang or the rest over 56 Travellers ever mentioned a word about Hinduism or Brahminism. This is because Brahminism and the caste Brahman didnt exist. You hindu texts are written only after 13th century. This is because the language required to write Classical sanskrit documents like Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Purana etc.. cannot be written before the invention of classical Sanskrit itself. And classical Sanskrit evolved from an earlier language called BHS (Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit). BHS itself evolved from Pali. Sanskrit being 5000 yrs old is a myth propagated by The caste Brahman of today. Who is trying today to establish itself prior to Buddha and Indus civilisation , but the archeology speaks otherwise. All we find is buddhist relics and Bodhisatvas in temples and architecture and not a single Vishnu, Brahma , Shiva etc... Brahman even started calling Buddhist Votive Stupas as Shivas Phallus. It was degenerated by the Iranian Migrants who started calling himself Brahman.
@@adruvitpandit5816 comment krne se pehle thoda pad liya krr jahil // as a matter of fact megasthenes and hieun tsang both have mentioned about hindu dieties as well as hinduism
@@adruvitpandit5816 i will give you one more fact mr whasapp // thai buddhists also worship hindu dieties // hindu dieties are also shown in japanese buddhism // tantric buddhism is also based on hindu tantric sect // keep crying and inventing new myths to cope 😂😂
Ambedkar main intention was assimilation and to shed stigmatized identity and he didn't want to create a separate identity which is dalit as stigma attached to that
Ambedkar's 22 vows are definite proof that Ambedkar didn't learn anything about Buddhism. Thank God he didn't convert into militant or missionary faiths..
Ambedkar didn't convert into Islam, Sikh, and Christianity as he had seen that these religions are now following casteism even though their religions ' s tenets do not support it. There are roman catholic Brahmins who feel that they are superior than dalit converts and they have seperate church, mosques and Dalits sikh are not assimilated much. Even though their religion advocate for egalitarian but they still practice. That is why dalits are not converting into Christianity in droves despite offering inducement and it doesn't help them to shed their dalit identity and segregation they face
Isn't Adi Shankaracharya the main reason for declining of Buddhism in India. Not many scholarly works mention him and his conquests through debates on Buddhists and patron kings and how that led to the decline of Buddhism as after defeat the patron kings and scholars had to accept Hinduism. Adi Shankaracharya's debates are very well known in folklore but historians just mention it as Brahmin hegemony over Buddhism
Shankaracharya wasnt the one who razed Nalanda to the ground or the one who defaced the Bamiyan Buddha. As usual Kanisetti is an expert in ignoring the elephamt in the room while talking about medieval India...
Not really. There is no historical proof for this except Advaita hagiographies themselves which naturally praise him. Buddhists have rarely mentioned him. If Adi Shankaracharya would have really had any big influence, Buddhists would have fiercely criticise him. There is just one rare Chinese text that says he was defeated by Acharya Dharmakirti. And in later Shastras his philosophy is mentioned in brief while Kumarila Bhatta prominently featured in Buddhist Shastras along side Nyaya Philosphy. Madhaviya Shankara Digvijayam also don't mention any debate whatsoever with any respectable Bauddha Acharya
I was a practicing Buddhist for 8 years, my practice has been derailed for the last 3 years. I have read the Digha Nikaya (Middle length Discourses). When Lord Buddha was around, caste was not assigned by birth but by choice. He even trained under two Brahmin teachers: Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta. Furthermore, a Buddhist teacher explained that Buddhism got so much state patronage in India that monks didn’t have to go on alms rounds. The kings and rich would send large amounts of food to the monasteries. They stopped interacting with laypeople and hence society slowly forgot about them. Lastly, Advaita is quite similar to Buddhism and it has attempted to absorb the teachings of Buddha into Upanishads.
Interesting, but budhsim did spread across to other Asian countries though. It's making a come back in communist China, Buddhism is prominent influence in Japan and aputh east Asia etc.
@@Manoj_0000 Liars like you are running rampant like mad dogs with pathetic fake stories. Typical losers can't compete in the global competitive world instead, create imaginative stories based on pure to satisfy your egos. Nothing else
Sir as a student of Advaita Vedanta, source for it is Upanishad which predates Buddha Dharma. Adi Shankara has borrowed 2 stage realisation method of Nagarjunas Mulamadhyama karika that's all.
I don’t know about Buddhist teachings absorbed into the upanishads but vaishavism always tries to engulf everything into it. Many believe that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu despite the fact that Buddha’s (and Mahavira’s) teachings oppose the vedas.
Ambedkar didn't convert into Islam, Sikh, and Christianity as he had seen that these religions are now following casteism even though their religions ' s tenets do not support it. There are roman catholic brahmin who feels that they are superior than dalit converts and they have seperate church, mosques and sikh dalits are not assimilated much. Even though their religion advocate for egalitarian but they still practice. That is why dalits are not converting into Christianity in droves despite offering inducement and it doesn't help them to shed their dalit identity and segregation they face
That only shows that casteism or any other kind of differentiation and discrimination is based on the inherent nature of humans to feel superior and better than others.
@@_sapta_ "putting the onus of leading a generous life solely on the individual and no one else" That didn't originate with Buddha. What Buddha contributed is he made it easier and simpler the process.
I think his main message about medieval Indian history is "It's complicated." While this asks us to examine more carefully the complex dynamics, it also leads to statements like "Hindu and Buddhist empires were as violent as the Muslim invaders and would destroy each other's temples." The problem here is that it ignores the theological backdrop of Islam and Muhammad's own bloody rise to power. As a religious figure, he is poles apart from Buddha, Jesus or even Shankara. This type of thinking plagues the Marxist historians and their (saner) Leftist successors now. It is still hard to find ideologically-neutral narratives.
@zakymalik6920 Is this news to you? I don't want to offend just for the sake of it. There are many such episodes in Muhammad's life. He massacred the Banu Qurayza, which was a Jewish tribe in Medina. This event is celebrated in the Quran and Hadiths. It was because they did not accept him as a prophet. Tell me one other religion which was born in such violence. There are other such well-recorded events of him attacking tribes, taking war booty, sex slaves and so forth. In fact, the war booty and sex slaves were used as motivation to his soldiers. His imagery of heaven is also dominated by such views. While people of other religions have committed atrocities just like this and far worse, tell me one where such a character is central to the faith and is seen as the example of a perfect human being?
@@abhay_cs You said They were mass Care of bani qurayza I don't know which Quran you're reading but its not in Quran any where show me single verse in Quran which mention mass acre of banu qurayza happen 1. From Quran only Secondly if you believe that incident did happened historical show me a large burial area where they were buried I'm sure you can do that If you fail to do these things then you'll take you're statements back by deleting comment for spreading unestablished information
@@abhay_cs Talking Sex Slaves thing if you'll traditional sources it clear state only Combatant women's were taken for that for that read Al-Jihad Fil Islam although I'm not a Traditional Muslim but still what you're trying to present in prophet Muhammad trying commit unjust acts he isn't my
Whenever this guy uses the word "possibly" , viewer beware that he is saving his academic reputation while simultaneously offering dubious personal opinion to influence you...
Everyone has a right to his personal opinion, including the writer & the reader. Many historical facts have to use the word possibly, if one is honest, wherein those with an agenda can be selective & firm.
@@RRDARGAD having been a sort of a modern historian myself (my topic of research being kanisetti himself) I can say that kanisettis work relies heavily on distortion by omission, "possibly" because that is one of the best ways to subtly create a false narrative without being held accountable in academic circles to the point of becoming an outcast in these groups..
Buddha says, Do not simply believe what you hear just because you have heard it for a long time. Do not follow tradition blindly merely because it has been practised in that way for many generations. Do not be quick to listen to rumours. Do not confirm anything just because it agrees with your scriptures. Do not foolishly make assumptions. Do not abruptly draw conclusions by what you see and hear. Do not be fooled by outward appearances. Do not hold on tightly to any view or idea just because you are comfortable with it. Do not accept as fact anything that you yourself find to be logical. Do not be convinced of anything out of respect and deference to your spiritual teachers. You should go beyond opinion and belief. You can rightly reject anything which when accepted, practised and perfected leads to more aversion. more craving and more delusion. They are not beneficial and are to be avoided. Conversely, you can rightly accept anything which when accepted and practised leads to unconditional love, contentment and wisdom. These things allow you time and space to develop a happy and peaceful mind.
Today's neobuddhist(Bhimtas) dosen't follow any teachings of mahatma buddha they are just following a new cult started by ambedkar that is Navayana/bhimyana. They are tarnishing the image of buddha and buddhism by spreading unnecessary anger and hatred towards hinduism and brahmins. 28/12/2023 Thursday 06:17PM
@@SirisenaDhammarakhita instead of responding you started showing your gutterchhap class although it's not your mistake bhimte your upbringing is like that so what should anyone can expect from you people. 31/12/2023 Sunday 09:07PM
@@Nileshpandey0907 I knew what upbringing you get your sadatani parents, hating other religions. But it is not your mistake, it is gutterchhap teachings of your traditions.😂
@@Nileshpandey0907Read Tvejja sutta in which buddha opposed ur nonsense vedas and called it worthless; read Asslyana sutta in which buddha criticized brahmins and opposed caste; read Upali sutta again in which buddha opposed caste and includes those community members who were according to brahmins were regarded as impure; read kuttadanta sutta in which buddha opposed brahmins for doing animal sacrifice. Lol. 😂. Buddha was very anti brahmin. U ramtas dont read anything, u consider ur mythologies and fake gods as true. Lol. Buddha opposed gods, soul, heaven, hell etc and considered it to be supersitious. U ramtas believes in all such supersitious things. Lol. U claim buddha coz buddhism is spread all across world and ur brahmanism failed to due to rampant casteism. 😂. So u r desperate to make buddha as part of ur fold. Lol😂😂😂 When infact buddha was like Dr Ambedkar who was born in vedic tradition but later kicked it. 😂
Sanatana dharma has clear & transparent principles(like Dharma, etc), faith, freedom to all(no restrictions) & comes with ancient history, traditions, languages, scientific, mathematics, astronomy, calendar etc achievements. But what about Buddhism? Everyone thinks Buddhism means non violence but eat non veg food by killing innocent animals!! Buddha used Sanskrit names, language etc but believes creator of new religion?? What & where is "new"?
I'm pretty sure buddha relied mainly on fruits and rice given by people he preached to(he was vegan, either way he roomed India, which was vegan mostly) Also if you look at Buddhist texts, no one said "I'm starting my own religion" Hinduism is made up of multiple branches, there have been atheist school too(charvaka) Hinduism has had philosophers who have contradicted vedas and famous teachings of their time. Like how sri ramanuja, sri madhava, satguru kabir all contributed the teachings of adi shankaracharya, but do they have their religion? No. The only reason buddhism became a separate religion instead of becoming another branch of Hinduism is because brahmins misunderstood and because it was famous + it was time when concept of religion started arising since faiths like Judaism and christianity started. So everyone started viewing ideologies that had supernatural elements as religions. Buddhism is branch of Hinduism.
Buddha had the benefit of 3,500 years of Vedic and Hindu civilization and its vast body of literature to draw upon without which Buddhism would not have come into existence. As for caste by birth, the subject had been debated during the Vedic Age itself, long before Buddha was born, and rejected. All are equal in birth and in death. Differences arise only during the interval. The Emperor and the beggar are both born naked; they sleep equally silently; they bow out without even leaving their new address. Then how can their reality be different? There can be no doubt on this score. All are basically the same. Atharva Veda
Does that mean that the british class system is also a caste system? Also what do you mean by caste ? Are you referring to jati, varna or gotra or is the word a lazy amalgamation of distinct social stratifications in the Indian society?
@@surajs5913 yes I am talking of stratification prevalent in Indian society and the difference in the treatment thereof, western society is much better in this aspect. My point is that switching religion does not fix the issue.
@@InfoSoup do you have a single example of a successful human society after humans discovered fire in which the society didnt have stratification , was self sufficient, contributed to the advancement of humanity and existed for more than 200 years? Do tell me this too, if you have one such example , how many examples do you have for stratified societies to match for a single example of a successful unstratified human society?
Impressive!.... Buddha would expect to be extended till current architectural wonders in the Walls & Tombs of Ram Mandira going to be inaugurated very shortly. Keep it up dear, being in the Team of The Print, you've a very bright future ahead ✌️
Curious question. Why do you need those books in the video when you didn't refer any of them? Looks like unwanted photo op. 🙂Also reduce the speed while speaking had to concentrate a lot to get gist of everything. We don't face this problem when we listen shekar's videos.
You are following Goutham siddarth, he became Buddha after enlightenment. Your Buddha is like a drop in Hindu ocean. There were thousands of bhudda in Hinduism
Hinduism never existed....it's just a transformed form of Vajrayana Buddhism.....you have stolen Bodhisattvas and made it so called gods and goddesses 😂😂😂...do research....
The truth is that the Buddhist tradition never declined. The present day Sanatan (Hindu) religion which we are following is indeed the fusion of Mahayani Buddhist and Vedic traditions
Why you guys are so ignorant? Everyone in Odisha can tell you why Buddhism died. Kings of Kalinga starting from Bhaumakara dynasty started promoting Brahmanism and slowly stopped funding Buddhism because by end of 11th century Buddhism had become a corrupt religion only full of tantric practices and devoid of any dharma. The monk system was anti-social, promoted slavery, prostitution, nihilism and was not compatible to the structure civilized kingdom. The kings did not want their children to abandon society. The monasteries retreated to jungles and eventually were forgotten.
correct, the kings didnt wanted their children to abandon society and maintain the warrior spirit to protect their kingdom. Only a Kshatriya could become a buddha, that was the core of buddhism. Accepting Buddhism and becoming a buddha are 2 different things.
No MOTHER FUCKING LEFTIST COMMIE BASTARD or sly Jihadi Mullah/ Rice-Bag Pastor would agree to this....For it would then put a full-stop to 'FUCKING THE HINDU' business in India....All these are clearly Funded in multitude of ways, by US State Department and Chinese Communist Party....
Monk system is not anti social, it promotes civilisation into society. As they are void material needs, no slavery or prostitution prevailed. Wheras hindu Brahmins corrupted the society. All things you accused to Buddhism, was actually applied to Hinduism.
Angkor Wat & nearby Shiva Temple complex in Cambodia are now almost Buddhist sites though Vihsnu Murti is there in Small room and ligas removed but Yonis are still there.Q remain why Buddhism could not sustain ? may be giving up / not promoting training & fighting for Defence was seen its weakness.
Basically due to the hold of Sravakayana Buddhism in India. Mahayana could have beautifully survived with Hinduism but due to the hold of outdated Sravakayana Vinaya laws and excessive tantrism of Mahayana in Bihar, it could not
I am Indo- Carribean and was raised Hindu for 20 years. Now, I follow the Buddha Dharma, mainly because the essence of Buddhism is far more in line with reallity and the science throughout the years, there is more space for philosphy and therefore critical thinking, there is more potential to find inner peace wheareas the Hinduism I knew had become more dogmatic and agressive. To a lesser extent I found the values which were the most important in Hinduism where present in Buddhism as well and even more or better worked out. I'm not saying I am hating on Hinduism or whatever, I have been blessed with the process of Bhakti Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta: they all lead me to the Shakyamuni. Namo Buddhaya.
@@AcalaraktaThe lack of self defense capability was the cause of the wiping out of Buddhism in traditional Buddhist lands by foreign invaders. When a Nation disarms it self it virtually invites land greedy countries to invade and occupy it. It is common sense. If you keep a Diamond inside a house without adequate protection, you risk losing it to thieves.
Buddhism declined in India primarily during Gupta period. Under the Guptas, Mahabharata & Ramayana got compiled because of which now even commoners could easily access the epics. Furthermore Buddhist monks started to focus more on impressing women in Sangha instead of focusing on spreading Dharma. They started to be obsessed with the material world. And the last nail in the coffin were the infamous Islamic invasions which destroyed Nalanda and forced the remaining Buddhists to take shelter in Nepal/Bhutan/Tibet which were free from Islamic invasions
😂 if Buddhism decline during gupta period then why travelers who visited India after Gupta Empire wrote that Buddhism is dominant religion in india ? 😂😂😂😂
@@indiafirst3676 it started decline after adi Shankaracharya with the help of muslims bhramins did this work Buddhism was even a big religion in india during 11th century before 10th century it was dominating religion there is a reason why Indian historians do not write history of mahayan and vajrayan Buddhism because if they write then there will be lot of questions that this country was a Buddhist country
@@alphaff9939 Adi Shankaracharya died in 820 CE. Muslim rule over parts of India began in 1192 CE with the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan by Md Ghori at the 2nd Battle of Tarain. So with the help of Muslims is wrong straight forward. There were no Muslims in India at the time of Adi Shankaracharya
@@indiafirst3676 I said it started after adi Shankaracharya which was in 9th century the Chinese travelers who visited India also told that bhramins used to attack Buddhist monks this shows they wanted to remove Buddhism but they didn't had power so they took help from muslims you are talking about north Indian invasion of muslim on the other hand muslim started coming to sindh in 10th century only muslim won Afghanistan which was a Buddhist country in 9 th century so after that they came to sindh bhramins did help that's why they survived Jain's and Buddhist never did so they died
Buddha is not born, Buddhahood achieved by Bodhisttvas. Bodhisttva can be born in any of social realm of existence. Bodhisttva can born in candala class as well as all social real. Read following jatakas where Bodhisttva born in Candala class. 180 Satadhamma Jataka 309 Chavaka Jataka 465 Bhadda Sala Jataka 475 Amba Jataka 497 Matanga Jataka 498 Citta Sambhata Jataka There is no single mention of Bodhisttva or Buddha can not born in lower social status in entire Tipitakas. They may be part of commentries/Athakatha.
I don't understand why all the blame is always accorded to Bramhins. Forget what must have happened centuries back, look at today's India, who are the people at the forefront of dalit atrocities, they are the Rajputs, Jats, Patidars, Marathas, Naidus, and all other non bramhin upper castes of India. Why do people like you have to blame only the Brahmins for degradation of Buddhism, people in no society be it today's or ancient are not fools. Did you try to figure out the discrepancies in Buddhism, how it was practised, what were it's drawbacks which led to it's downfall. Just don't keep those books by your side. Probe into it impartialially you will yourself find the reasons of downfall of Buddhism in India. Just don't go by today's fad of blaming all the wrongs done in the past on Brahmins. Try and be honest.
a very impressive video again; can you please do a video about king Parakramabahu the great of sri lanka who once conquered Pandya and kingdom of Bagan?
I am a Hindu and every Hindu is automatically a Buddhist because he was the 9th avatar of God Vishnu. You would find a statue of Buddha in lakhs of Hindu temples. I laugh at the leftists who think that Hinduism and Buddhism are opposite things😂. They try so hard for Hindus to say something against Buddha🤣
@@Bharatiya3011 Hindu is not a religion. Till today no one is able to prove that hindu is a religion. We are following brahmanical scriptures. So we need to know that any one who says he is hindu, is actually following brahmism.
@@kunalsonawane5189 Brahmins are the priestly class of Hinduism so they wrote most of the scriptures. Is that any different for other religions? Moreover three most prominent scriptures of Hinduism: Ramayan, Mahabharat and Gita were wrote by non-Brahmins.
1. Adi Sankaracharya destoryed the theology. 2.Lost patronage by Kings. 3.Turks invasion put last nails on the coffins 4.People realised you cant follow Non Violence when you are attacked by invaders.left idealism for realism..
Hinduism is no different from islam. Sankara didn’t destroy Buddhism. He is nothing in front of the great Buddha. He simply copied Buddhism made a few changes here and there.
@@yj9032 Bhimtaa 0riginal budhist of Bodhgaya,Tibet,Sri Lanka Myanmar, Thailand tere pe thukte bhi nahi h..kahin aur jake bhonk .Mera time waste mat kar.saala pichle 50-70 sal se bana Naya Naya Bhimtaa..
Adi Shankaracharya is nothing but a small kid whose is nowhere intellectually capable to confront and debate any Buddist monk in any timespan. None of his debates with Buddists are recorded.
I neither understand the message here nor the relevance of the title. What information is conveyed here about Hindu reforms? This is a feature of many videos in this series -- clickbait-style titles with tangential references. Why bring in 'anti-Brahmin thought' here? How about an honest title and discussion -- something like 'How Buddhism persisted until relatively recently in southern India'?
What if I say Buddhism was not wiped off, but it died out, because it fell out of favour. Let's take Bengal's example. Bengal was a Shaivite state under Shashank, then a Buddhist state under Palas for 3 centuries, then a Orthodox Hindu state under Senas who ruled for 1 century, then started a 5 century long Islamic rule, and 2 centuries of Christian rule. Bengal was under non Hindu rule for the last 7 centuries, still Hinduism is the dominant religion in West Bengal, and a sizeable portion of East Bengalis were Hindus as well if not for the Bengali genocide in 1971. Tell me how in just 1 century of Sena rule Buddhism vanished like it never existed.
All religions involve preaching and propaganda. Competition between Brahmins, Buddhists,Jains was for royal patronage out of taxes collected from the public. The kings spent lavishly on the monks and the priests. This is seen throughout ancient and medieval history. Ultimately the Brahmins preserved their beliefs and kept the royalty engaged. They stayed relevant to the masses despite some challenges from Islamic rule before the British came. With today's political power, it is no doubt the triumph of the Brahmans over competing religions over the millenia.
Why to copy the narration style man.... You very well know from where you have copied this style.... But yours is irritating. Take proper pauses atleast.
What role did Adi Shankara play in downplaying popularity of Buddhism? I assume that it had become so popular-particularly among to young that Shankara found it necessary to re-kindle Hinduism by spreading Advaita philosophy which came close to Buddhist ideals. Does it explain how Hinduism was able to sustain itself at the expense of Buddhism?
‘There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans,’ writes the author. ‘Islam came out as the enemy of the “But ”. The word “But ”, as everybody knows, is an Arabic word and means an idol. Not many people, however, know that the derivation of the word “But ” is the Arabic corruption of Buddha. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Moslem mind idol worship had come to be identified with the religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia….’ A communal historian of the RSS school? But Islam struck at Hinduism also. How is it that it was able to fell Buddhism in India but not Hinduism? Hinduism had state patronage, says the author. The Buddhists were so persecuted by the ‘Brahmanic rulers’, he writes, that, when Islam came, they converted to Islam: this swelled the ranks of Muslims but in the same stroke drained those of Buddhism. But the far more important cause was that while the Muslim invaders butchered both - Brahmins as well as Buddhist monks - the nature of the priesthood in the case of the two religions was different - ‘and the difference is so great that it contains the whole reason why Brahmanism survived the attack of Islam and why Buddhism did not.’ For the Hindus, every Brahmin was a potential priest. No ordination was mandated. Neither was anything else. Every household carried on rituals - oblations, recitation of particular mantras, pilgrimages - each Brahmin family made memorizing some Veda its very purpose…. By contrast, Buddhism had instituted ordination, particular training, etc., for its priestly class. Thus, when the invaders massacred Brahmins, Hinduism continued. But when they massacred the Buddhist monks, the religion itself was killed. Describing the massacres of the latter and the destruction of their viharas, universities, places of worship, the author writes: The Musalman invaders sacked the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They raised to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarising the evidence relating to the slaughter of the Buddhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 ad, Mr Vincent Smith says, ‘….Great quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the “shaven headed Brahmans”, that is to say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor sought for someone capable of explaining the contents of the books in the libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to read them.’ ‘It was discovered, we are told, that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar.’ Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India…. The writer? B.R. Ambedkar. (‘The Decline and Fall of Buddhism’, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol III, Government of Maharashtra, 1987, pp. 229-38) But today the fashion is to ascribe the extinction of Buddhism to the persecution of Buddhists by Hindus, to the destruction of their temples by the Hindus. One point is that the Marxist historians who have been perpetrating this falsehood have not been able to produce even an iota of evidence to substantiate the concoction. In one typical instance, Romila Thapar had cited three inscriptions. The indefatigable Sita Ram Goel looked them up. Two of these turned out to have absolutely no connection with Buddhist viharas or their destruction, and the one that did deal with an object being destroyed had been held by authorities to have been a concoction; in any event, it told a story which was as different from what the historian had insinuated as day from night. (Extract from “Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud” by Arun Shourie)
Just read Ambatth sutta and you will understand what Buddhism actually is. For Buddha Kshatriya are superiors to Brahmins. There are 23 sutta that claims the superiority of Kshatriyas. You will shock to see what is written about so-called Shudras.
HI Print, Can you tag the videos by Anirudh Kanisetty with his own tag , so that followers would be able to search him and his content out and follow it ?
buddhism unlike hinduism does not have a lot of the bhakti aspects and the rituals around it. people realized they could nt connect with it emotionally. nothing like singing rama krishna hare mukunda murare. but the core concepts of moksha, karma and reincarnation are the same i guess except if moksha and nirvana mean the same thing
@@subhashsahay5218 then its not Buddhism Buddha rejected god 😅 its literally different shit than original source material ! I think this same happened like how today Jesus shown as Hindu gods lol 😂
@@svanimation8969 Īśvara is rejected. Deva is not. We all can be Deva. But they too are bound by samsara. Bodhisattva is a fundamental principle of nearly all Buddhist Traditions. Learn to differentiate between Deva and Isvara. Saraswati, Lakshmi, Siva, are either Devas or Bodhisattva Mahasattvas. Moreover there are philosophical and theological understanding of their existence which varies from tradition to tradition. Vaishnava traditions do not generally support Animal Sacrifice. Does that make it Anti-Vedic or Non-Vedic? And unlike Western religions, Buddhists have developed extremely more complex theology and philosophy in regards to all of this. Bhakti, not the term itself but the essence of it which is usually denoted by the word Śraddhā or Prasāda by Buddhists has since times immemorial been integral to Buddhism. Buddhists also have their own well developed worshipping practices and mantras
Even in Nepal 🇳🇵 Buddhism is invasion by sankarayacharya in Medival period Pashupatchetra(current Kathmandu valley)that time Bajrayana,mahatana Buddhism is on peak but after all Shankaracharya and schoolar attacked many monasteries and replace there culture and forced politically converted 8n Hindu.
I think a major point was missed. Shankaracharya ! Just before him, India was supposed to be mostly Buddhist. Buddhism had such an influence that a feared superstition prevailed in the country among whatever was left of other religions. That is, if anyone even heard "Buddham Sharanam Gacchhami" , they would become Buddhist and lose their religion. Debates with Buddhists started with Kumaril Bhatt. The conclusion of this culminated with Shankaracharya re-establishing Vedanta philosophy after defeating Mandan Mishra in debate. Let's not forget, Buddha himself was quite well learned on Hinduism and Vedanta. What Buddha talked ultimately was Vedanta, the Advaita simplified and expressed in the common man's language of that time : Pali.
Budhism collapsed once stupas vihara and monasteries were destroyed.Budhism followers were not instructed what kind of birth marriage death rituals to follow. Their monks were isolated from masses. They depended mostly on kings patronage. Once patronage gone , monks gone! Budhism was more of a life style than religion. In India even a small sect with ridiculous ideology, laws vying in isolation has survived. Why the cousin religion of Jainism survived till this date! Why isolated Jews and late comer Parsis thrived? Why old communities of Christians survived, thrived, prospered among place dominated by Nambudri Brahmins? Why Jews remained molseted who were in India before Portuguese? And only Budhism singled out?
Anyone wanting another facet of the decline of buddhism can refer to a video on the channel "bodhisattva" - because as usual kanisetti is an expert at ignoring the elephant in the room...
The worship of shiva in the form of a pillar in Andhra comes from the indigenous traditions of the tribes of the Nallamalla and were not parts of a stupa.
Vedic & Buddhism both were equally subject of all the ancient Universities with equal zeal why because it's a issue of emphasis on the specific important aspects of human & social endeavours
Please say Tamil Nadu and not Tamil Nad. I'm not even tamil, but that's disrespectful. A lot of buddhist ideas were co-opted into Hinduism and I'm surprised you didn't mention the Bhakti movement. I would also hazard a guess that Hindu religion with its communalistic rituals probably did better under Islamic rule. You see this in present day Sindh, Pashtunistan and Punjab, that was primarily Buddhist before invasion.
The topic and content are very useful. However the reading is too hurried, accentuation is very poor and difficult to comprehend. Kindly kindly slow down, and take time to elaborate each point. It is worth a 25 minute video ...
Ambedkar was rejected by the Mahabodhi Society of India, who refused to accept him as a Buddhist. A person with so much anger and hatred in his mind Ambedkar cannot be a Buddhist. He was a British agent throughout his career; he was against the freedom movement; supported the partition of India, and passed on a constitution written by the British officers as the Constitution of India ignoring the reality of the partition.
I am a regular consumer of THE PRINT's content. I like the video, but i want to raise a point about presentation. I found it hard to understand his words many words are overlapping and the unnecessary accent and speed made it hard. Please take a note.
The first disciple of buddha was his guru ,acharya a brahmin.the poeple who brought mahayana buddhism were brahmin shaivac converts .buddistbof afghanistan converts.
Its not Stupaaaaaaa Cholaaaaa Buddhaaaaaa Lingaaaaa Bhagavathaaaa Puranaaaa ... Please pronounce it correctly as an Indian ... just like u correctly pronounced Tamil and Tamil Nadu
Any religion is stands the time either supported by the ruler or read and followed by the concesous prople. Presently, direct support of the ruler is more or less irradicated by multi cultural society. In present time, Any religion get distorted, when the follower of that religion stop reading their books and concentrate on acting against other religion .It is a negative approach of following the religion and shall be bring doom days. In your statement, you talked about Brahmins, a section of Hindus, as one cause of detoration but not elaborated the functional disabilities of the Bhudhist. In India, Bhudhist were considered as a branch of Hinduism, as everything utter by bhudha was present in the Hindu's philosophy. It is sustainable in other societies, where his teaching were new to that particular society. I have never seen, a common bhudhist to talk about their culture and pricipal. Just, they talk about Brahmins, which is easy to talk. How many of them have read their religious books (at least, one of them) . I am disappointed by your lecture, it was more on history, then analysis of the circumstances, which leads to decline of the bhudhism. Hopefully you will respond to my concern.
Budh means buddi its part of sanstan dharma it doesn't decrease lyk abrahamic culture only in numbers in spritual path sidharth Gautam from kshatriya to brahmrishi inspiration Similarly for cricketers virat kohli or maxwel In bharat we r nt gang lyk Abrahamic religions its philosophers who shape bharat
Adi Shankar appropriated Nagarjuna's philosophy. Nagarjuna is the real guy whom the Buddhists still follow today. Buddhism is not a religion but a science. Unlike Brahmanical rituals rejected by Buddhists, Jains, Charvaks, and many other philosophies. The reason was Caste discrimination and corruption for dominant role in the society.
Then why exactly do buddhist texts repeatedly say that the bodhisattva will be reborn in either a kshatriya or a brahmin family and not in a lineage of "lower" castes or mixed castes?
@@surajs5913Buddha is not born, Buddhahood achieved by Bodhisttvas. Bodhisttva can be born in any of social realm of existence. Bodhisttva can born in candala class as well as all social real. Read following jatakas where Bodhisttva born in Candala class. 180 Satadhamma Jataka 309 Chavaka Jataka 465 Bhadda Sala Jataka 475 Amba Jataka 497 Matanga Jataka 498 Citta Sambhata Jataka There is no single mention of Bodhisttva or Buddha can not born in lower social status in entire Tipitakas. They may be part of commentries/Athakatha.
Buddhisn declined because it is athiestic philosophy suited for monks only, most people can not go through hurdles of life with nihilisn , they need something to put their faith , they either start worshipping statues of buddha or even ambedkar
What about large scale destruction of Stupa and Buddha idols by Islamic tyrants right from Iran upto deep interiors of India..? Islamic warroirs proudly labelled themselves as Butshikan, ie, destroyer of But(Buddha)
You calling your self a brahmin is as funny as The person in this video calling himself a historian and Media group of Channel calling itself as "de-hyphenated" media. Such a meta joke, I'm sure everyone is laughing
See how liberal hindus are! 😀 Swami Vivekananda believed in one god, hindus do politics on his name but do not follow his advice. So tell me the names of your all the gods..
He should learn from Shekhar Gupta how to produce and narrate a story. He is speaking without a pause , causing more clutter of a confusing part of history. This video is a petfect example of how not to make a video
ambedkar made buddhism dirty by rubbing his principles and promoting it as something anti-bramhinical that is what happens when u mix ur ideologies into culture it either prevails or gets shunned for eternity
“We yield to none in our love, admiration and respect for the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha. They are all ours. Their glories are ours and ours their failures.” - Veer Savarkar, Great Freedom Fighter and Patriot
I think u better change the accent.I think the basic rule any media house should follow is ,our content should be understood by an average Indian if not how good is content it is wast
Dont disrespect Buddhism please its facinating produce of this great land by saying it is anti-Brahmin is just putting it into communist container. Yes Buddhism was against ritual based worship but it is just two schools of thought.
We will only read books and then discuss.We will not learn Buddhism and Hinduism by practicing.Anyone really practicing Hinduism or Buddhism will not go about talking all this senseless things
What is logic in punishing such at the time when people are busy and very happy in celebrating Shri Ram temple in Ayodhya. It seems that The Print has some ulterior motives and bias.
When you keep a load of books with you while giving a talk, I would suggest you at least turn the books around and show the titles. That "may possibly" give you an air of authority (even if you have not read those books). Otherwise, we will assume that they are "possibly" your son's text books or a bunch of Marxist ideologic books. 😂 Is the set of photos in your background meant to show any indication of your loyalties or leanings? Also, it is very, very obvious that you are reading off a prepared text on some screen. At least try to read slowly, so that we, mere mortals, can grasp your talk easily. Like Shekar, try to structure the talk logically rather than rush through vague points with high sounding words and phrases.
It's not decline just copy paste with some prejudices and cheap traditional add caste system by traitors of dhamma for sake of their own welfare and boom brahmanism form
@@jerry-ms1bz lol Budhha belong to Shakya clan today's OBC community and according to Brahmins caste system shudra, that's why he Also called shakyamuni, their were no caste system exist at budhha era and you telling this WhatsApp University knowledge
@@jerry-ms1bzBuddha is not born, Buddhahood achieved by Bodhisttvas. Bodhisttva can be born in any of social realm of existence. Bodhisttva can born in candala class as well as all social real. Read following jatakas where Bodhisttva born in Candala class. 180 Satadhamma Jataka 309 Chavaka Jataka 465 Bhadda Sala Jataka 475 Amba Jataka 497 Matanga Jataka 498 Citta Sambhata Jataka There is no single mention of Bodhisttva or Buddha can not born in lower social status in entire Tipitakas. They may be part of commentries/Athakatha.
@@animedc69 It wasn't main religion. Zoroastrianism, Greek folk and Buddhism were collectively dominated. Later, in times of Hindu shahi dynasty, Hinduism became dominated.
The history of India is nothing but the history of struggle for dominance between buddhism and Brahminism : Dr Ambedkar...... If u want to understand how brahmins took over buddhism just read three books viz Buddha and His Dhamma, Revolution and anti- revolution , Buddha and Karl Marx.
So how come Hindus and Buddhists co-exist everywhere in the world ? There are more than couple dozen countries where Hindus and Buddhists today co-exist in South East Asia. This shows Dr Ambedkar was wrong and because of his personal experiences, exaggerted hindu - buddhist interactions to justify his frustration.
@@hindurashtra63read Tvejja sutta, Asslyana sutta, Kuttadanta sutta, Upali Sutta. It becomes clear that Buddha was opposed to brahmins and their practice of animal sacrifice and caste system. U neither read buddha nor did u read Dr Ambedkar. Brahmins destroyed buddhism from India and converted buddhas statues into their gods
