Jump to content

Talk:Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Decline of Buddhism in China

The Decline of Buddhism in India is directly linked to the decline of Buddhism in China for several reasons ...

  • Blockade of the Silk Road by the northern Uyghur and Tangut barbarian tribes kept Chinese Buddhists from freely traveling to and from India. This forced Buddhism in China to change. The older sects of Buddhism (Tiantai 天台宗, Huayan 花嚴宗, Consciousness-Only-School [Weishizong 唯認宗], Vinaya School [Lüzong 律宗]), who strictly adhered to Sutras and monastic rules, where replaced by newer sects (Chan [禪] / Zen and Pure Land [淨土]), who prospered due to their adherance to "meditation" and "simple faith". This "transition" took place during the 5th-6th centuries when Buddhism in India was in a steady decline.
(Anytime a religion is cut off from its homeland, it is forced to Change: Just like "Old Sect" Buddhism changed to "New Sect" (Zen) and the Judaism of the Kaifeng Jews merged with Confucianism.)
  • Constant wars drained China of sorely needed funds. This forced them to raise taxes and also to sell Buddhist ordination "certificates" (to prove a monk's tax, work, and military exempt status) in order to raise money. During the great Tang, Buddhism became rich and powerful because numerous wealthy layman flocked to the temples and monasteries to purchase their ordination. This way they would not have to pay taxes to the state, nor keep the Buddhist precepts since they were not real clergy. It is for this reason that Buddhism surpassed Taoism in popularity, which had been a major political force since the Han Dynasty. With more clergy than civillians, the state lost a major source of tax money and army personnel. This severaly "alienated" the Taoist-based monarchy towards Buddhism.
(Because China adopted and adapted their own "less strict" version of Buddhism (for lack of a better term), many wealthy layman took advantage of the Sangh to obtain tax, work, and military exempt status.)
(These layman brought the vengeance of the Taoist monarchy for trying to cheat the system.)
  • During the late Tang and early Song Dynasties, Neo-Confucianism rose to popularity. The new Imperial Examination (keju 科舉) required young hopefuls to fully memorize the Confucian Classics. Those who passed where rewarded with high paying government posts. This forced some to forsake the Buddhist faith in order to advance their family's social status. Early Neo-Confucians spoke out against Buddhism because its egalitarian philosophies destroyed the proper "Senior-Junior" social structure of the day.
(Since Buddhism believed everyone was "equal", it was condemned by the Neo-Confucians because it went against caste.)

My Sources

(!Mi nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Seems to be False Info

This article seems to reek of bias. Seems to be false information. Do all Indian Buddhists pertain to the view provided in the article ? I seriously doubt it. And the so-called Hindutva view is shared by many other neutral scholars as well. And where are the citations. Please, someone clean up the article. This certainly seems to a POV-pushing agenda. --NRS | T/M\B 13:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the name to a more NPOV title but the article still needs some fixing as you say. GizzaChat © 11:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Yeah, you're right. The article certainly needs to be cleaned. I will do some research, get some sources and then remove the false stuff. --NRS | T/M\B 17:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

I just deleted a section that blamed the decline on Buddhism's ideas to be faulty. This whole article is a train wreak. Zazaban 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a connection between the decline in Buddhist patronage and Hindu resurgence under Adi Shankara. Of course, the section was extremely POV and worded in a partisan manner. I have neutralized it. Hkelkar 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It still seems a bit POV, as though it's talking as if assuming one is not Buddhist but not that one is not Hindu. Zazaban 01:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your position. Could you elaborate a bit? Hkelkar 01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I still see a slight Hindu POV. Seems to be written s though one was speaking to a Hindu audience. I corrected my error above. Zazaban 01:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

User Freedom Skies

Sunga: NPOV states both views must be expressed. If there is disagreement, removing both views is not NPOV nor informative. The Divyaxxx is the source of the persecution allegations alongside a Buddhist tradition, both are cited. Opponents disagree, ergo there is a cloud of doubt, and this is usually attributed to the sense that the Divyaxxx was "exaggerating" or "inaccurate".

Other items that also "disappear" in your revert need to discussed and justified. If you are replacing them with sourced information no problem, but right now they just seem to be deleted or replaced with othere non-sourced information. Lets call the article work in progress, so before making large scale changes lets discuss them, and keep the changes small and localized.--Tigeroo 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your diffs:
  1. (Talk | contribs) (rv, shahis include both, zealous needs to go(NPOV), avatara is repeated twice in the previous version and such)
  2. skies (Talk | contribs)(added new lines...........Tigeroo, you rv even the portion which are not under dispute. Kindly refrain.)
Both cases the description and the diff don't match. In the second one I don't even see the new lines added.
My diffs:(Talk | contribs)(restoration of unexplained blanked materials)
What am I restoring?? Your version diffs show a lot of stuff missing that has not been discussed. So far only the lead, qasim, sunga and Kanva sections pass muster in having been updated and fixed from the version we started working with.
I am a bit confused so let me know what's going on with this?? The way I see it my diff's remove nothing just add/improve or rearrange the article while your reverts ineveitably lead to a loss of lot's of material that needs to be fixed and improved not swept away. Maybe I am missing something here??--Tigeroo 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are, The avatara of Vishnu thing is repeated in your version, the report finds it's place in a list of Buddhism under political rulers, The Shahis for an extended period of time is just written as the initial Shahis, a bulk of meaningless drivel under Adi Shankaracharya (mostly repitition) and more ........ Condense, source, correct instead of enlarge and convert an encyclopedic article into a monstrosity. There are even amateur tiring grammer and styling errors.

Freedom skies 05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why there is a tag indicating active editing, so that you can fix it and explain your fixes as you go. Blanking, blind reverts of other improvements and fixes, in one shot is not the way to go, take up one item on it's own edit it, allow some feedback and then move to the next one makes things easier for all to follow and conflicts to resolved easily. You don't even mark your reverts as reverts but as something else.--Tigeroo 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down

Hey guys, calm down please. This is not a battlefield. Remember, talkpages are meant for constructive discussions for improving the article. Do not resort to revert-wars unnecessarily. If you have any issues, you can just discuss it here and then edit the article as per the consensus. Revert Wars do not serve any purpose. It will make the other party even more stubborn. Try to find the disagreements and discuss it here. So that even others can take a look in and we can have a meaningful discussion for improving the article. So please, heed my advice and discuss your disagreements calmly. --NRS | T/M\B 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually tried to discuss my friend. Tigeroo has unfortunately limited himself to revert warring, something this article does not need. Freedom skies 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

We discussed the Sunga, we discussed the Turk Shahi vs. Hindu Shahi, the possibble layout formats and all of those have been incorporated to mutual acceptability. I don't recall any discussion on the blanked material, and have actually been trying to get you here to take it up and explain yourself and listen to others.--Tigeroo 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tamerlane

Timur probably does not belong in this section as he was more central asian located and his conflicts typically ran with the other mongol empires, the cagathai, il khans, golden horde etc. and while he moved in the Afghanistan and Oxus regions, that is not really considered either "India" or even the "Indian sub-continent" and would fall under a Buddhism and Central Asia much more neatly. Correct me, if I am mistaken I am a bit weak on his goings on in the southern regions but I think it was generally away from the area in focus in this article.--Tigeroo 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits

I've done some copyediting, fixed some typos, and did a bit of re-wording. Probably the most controversial thing I did was change some "saka"s to "sakya"s. Since sakya re-directs to saka, I thought it would be best to keep the nomenclature consistent to the more recognizable version. If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or here. Thank you. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

PS the article so far is like walking into a palace (under construction). NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to help improve it. Just one minor change, I am going to change the sakya in quotes back, I linked them to saka, because thats what seems to make sense, in that it is referring to Buddha caste/tribal affiliation rather than the Buddhist sect which emerged much later. I agree the mixed usage can be confusing. Any ideas to fix this, it seems to occur throughout buddhist articles on the wiki --Tigeroo 04:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I followed both sakya and saka on Wikipedia and learned a lot. Forgive my ignorance! I think explicitly stating the difference in a brief manner would help some articles - I can help as well.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 04:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I am not sure what that hyperlink should be, check out Shakya as well. It's almost more relevant, but there almost seems more info at saka, just not necessarily so directly relevant.

Citation templates

I've been told that one of the things reviewers like when promoting and article to GA or FA is the use of citation templates for all references. The references are also a bit jumbled. I didn't find a book entitled "Ashoka". Is it short for something? NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 06:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that I will help fix the references, if I can get more information about the books. I know how to do it, I just need an ISBN number, or even just the author or full title. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 13:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
So I added an external link using a citation template. The content is an open-source book, so I used the citebook template. However, the citebook template has a spot for both the URL and the ISBN number, so it can be used as a reference as well.
The book is "The Edicts of King Ashoka". A cursory glance at it yields a lot of good information.
I find the citation templates pretty easy to use. You just cut and paste the code, then fill in the "form" to best of your knowledge. Not all fields need to be filled in. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 13:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert Warring

I request both User:Freedom skies and User:Tigeroo to please stop revert-warring. Revert-wars do not help anyone and if you excessively do it, you will unnecessarily get blocked and/or the page will get protected. Please refrain from quick-fix, ego-boosting reverts method. The best way to go about it is discussion. Currently, the version is Tigeroo's. I request Freedon skies to put up his disagreements with the current version here, before reverting. We can discuss, what changes to make. If Tigeroo disagrees, he too can put up his objections here, but don't go on revert-warring please. --NRS | T/M\B 11:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, use the talk page before going with major changes. I am not opposed to widescale changes, infact I am for it, there is a lot to improve but let's do this systematically and by concensus.--Tigeroo 04:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually did think that Tigeroo was sincere but after I accomadated him initially he continued to push versions (including his last revert) that anyone can say are written by an amature. Did you hear about the manual of style, Tigeroo? Try considering it before you revert it to your version which disagrees with something even as basic.

Freedom skies 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this. User Freedom skies refuse to explain why he is blanking information, including cited material. Refuse to explain why he is reverting. Refuses to discuss the issues raised.
Just list the issues and we can fix them, focus on the material. Most of the material I have restored is terrible, I agree, I acceede that. My argument is that it does not merit being blanked just needs to be brought up to par.--Tigeroo 10:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Since you won't be bothered to explain yourself here, I made the changes on the page. I seperated them in each and every section and explained why I made that change there. You can consider them all as issues raised. Maybe now we can have a more civilized discussion towards improving the article, and limit ourselves to topical changes rather than mass reversions. --Tigeroo 12:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you guys explain your changes and unchanges here please? Thanks,Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this, user Freedom skies refuses to explain anything, and his changes rarely capture the edit desc. He blanks a lot of material including cited material. Can someone other editors please do an intervention. Issues have been specifically listed by section on each edit but here is a summary again for other editors.
  1. (cur) (last) 12:00, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Sufis and Bhakti's - restored blanked paragraph,)
  2. (cur) (last) 11:58, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Survival of Buddhism in India - Restored unexplained blanking of section)
  3. (cur) (last) 11:56, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Philosophical divergence with Adi Shankara - restored blanked material. It's not cited, but neither is a lot of stuff here and it's relevant and can use improvement and expansions.)
  4. (cur) (last) 11:51, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Mahmud of Ghazni - Restored citations that were blanked out and comments on incomplete citations)
  5. (cur) (last) 11:49, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Muhammad bin Qasim - restored with more comprehesive and well cited material)
  6. (cur) (last) 11:46, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Buddhism in Southern India - restored cited blanked material)
  7. (cur) (last) 11:45, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Xuanzang's Report - restored cited blanked materials)
  8. (cur) (last) 11:40, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→The Sungas - The sources cited call it Brahmanism, not hinduism. They make a distinction, can explain. Koenraad Elst is being paraphrased here, others who disagree with him obviously don't beleive)
  9. (cur) (last) 11:34, 19 December 2006 Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (LEAD restoring blanked cited material & Tagging material for sources.)
The primary issue I have with user Freedom skies is of blanking. The second is ignoring source or providing cited material for his basis. As I see it this article has a whole of lot of unsourced material, and to improve it we need to replace the material with cited information, not blank it because it is not cited, or replace it by equally dubious uncited information. Without verifable information based on sources this exercise is pointless.--Tigeroo 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again you lie, Tigeroo. I tried to talk to you, offer concessions and reach a conclusion, you responded by accepting my concessions while not accomadating my concerns at all, reverting at the pace of your choice, to a version of your choice which is full of Pejorative terms, inconsistencies, mistakes like an extra = in the heading (consistently you revert to this, why not at least correct it?), downplaying on moslem kings, steadfastly sticking to not mentioning Dalai Lana and Dharamapala when the latter predated Ambedekar, repititions of avatar of Vishnu.

I'll get to an overhaul which will mention additional monarchs, full view books and authoritative research papers in Links. That ought to take care of it.

Freedom skies 16:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll let the edits speak for me. There were three issues, the sunga's which NPOV requires statement of both positions, and I have always made the edits with incorporating the doubts, and when you edited constructively by quoting from Koenraad Elst. (Atleast correct his name when you revert) I welcomed it. I leave out the Turk-Shahi when you insisted, even though the Turk Shahi dynasty is the period being referenced in that sentence. We even have your layout and title headings right now. The whole issue is because you insist on blanking the article instead of constructively improving it. Please when you can bring verifiable reliable sources then come make edits till then refrain otherwise it smacks of vandalism because you are undoing other editors constructive work who can be bothered to make the effort to begin the task. This is not a solo effort. I have invited you to constructively contribute but all you do is blank by indiscriminate reverts. You don't even have the decency to call them reverts but disguise them under some other desc. Leave off the personal attacks and come to the table with specific content issues and let third and fourth editors weigh in with their contributions as well, there is no discussion on this discussion page from you.--Tigeroo 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see ....... Mass blanking , like your removal of the Islam section ? repititions, like your repeating avatara indiscriminately (thrice) to fake damage inflicted by Hinduism to Buddhism?

This is in addition to further acts highlighting your ignorance, Tigeroo. Your version has a "Financial and Social reasons" heading just before the " Ideological and financial causes" heading. This is in addition to the "Xuanzang's Report" being copied and pasted twice in the same article, once in a list of Buddhism under various governments. Why so bent on pushing monstrosities ?

Before I swept in for grammer and citation corrections and eventually took intrest in the article it was not the least bit credible. Judging by your childish insistance of letting the repititions stay and not correcting till I point you to I can understand why.

I'll see to it that it stays corrected till I overhaul it. I can see that outside of repititions and mistakes I can't count much on you, Tigeroo.

Freedom skies 04:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job!! Now that's called constructive criticism, something useful to begin to work towards improving the article. Atleast I can now understand and see some of what you want or are talking about and want to acheive.
  1. I removed the duplicated sections.
  2. Not sure what you mean by removal of Islam section, it's all still there. If anything I expanded them and included citations.
At least we are beginning to talk about specific issues that we can start to work on the rest.--Tigeroo 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm back

So the reference to "Ashoka" has been changed to "Merriam-Webster", which I'm assuming is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I'm getting the feeling that all this cited material is actually original research. Can someone elucidate? Thanks.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure pick an item, if it's one I've put in, I can let you know. I've tended to go ahead and put in the full book name, ISBN and even the relevant page number so that it can be crossreferenced and verified. This particular one of Ashoka is at the bottom in the listed books as references, the notes call it merriam-webster to shorten the notes. It's not been changed, there just wasn't any linked reference before. There is another book in Ashoka in the references but you can't identify what material comes form it.--Tigeroo 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I get it, your using the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of World Religions as your reference. Sorry about that. Is there any way you could find some web references that say roughly the same thing, since the statements are somewhat controversial? Just a thought.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Because you asked nicely :)The Merriam Webster on Google Books. Straight from the horses mouth--Tigeroo 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Deorkothar Stupa, the debate about Pusyamitra and the Divyadana etc. is not really closed. Please step in check that the section is balanced, to indicate there is a debate and disagreement in historical quarters. I am asking coz, I may have gotten a little caught up with the rv's and just wanteded an impartial third party review to assess if there is merit in user Freedom Skies concerns. Then again the general concensus is that Pushymatira was more of a one-off thing, subsequent Sunga's were seen as supportive, I wonder if we lost that somewhere by focusing excessively on the Pushymitra debate.--Tigeroo 15:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits

I've restructured a couple of paragraphs and taken out some words that didn't really make any sense, such as "alleged". The folks in question are not on trial here. They're all long gone, so it really just comes down to differing opinions of the historical facts we have so far. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Today I have added Friend of the Western Buddhist Order as wiki-link in the "revival" section and added it to the top of the external links list. I consolidated the external Koenraad Elst links to link to his website. I converted Tigeroo's reference using the citebook template. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also just removed unsourced material which I feel is written with a combination of POV and/or original research. However, several points in this article are potentially controversial and need to be sourced more thoroughly, in my opinion. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

The "The World Economy: a millennial" perspective cited for Jizya is used in a manner of supporting a theory of Aurangzeb vs. Buddhists. The article actually contains no mention of Buddhists. It does mention jizya, conversion of hindu temples, confiscation of non-muslim princely titles and a general abandonment of Mughal religious tolerance. It however makes no mention of Buddhism or Buddhists. Can this replaced with a more appropiate and relevant citation or source vis-a-vis aurangzeb and buddhism's decline.--Tigeroo 14:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Season's greetings and merry Christmas everyone. I hope you guys enjoy your holidays.

Now, The citation deals with the placing of a head tax on non moslem subjects, something which has very specifically been stated in the sentence for which the citation is used.

And the Islam section covers "But-parast" (Icon worshipper) and Ambedekar's views, not repeated anywhere else in the article.

Freedom skies 19:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the citation covers the head tax as applicable to non-muslims. The question is how is that mention in that section relevant to the books position on the contents of our article on Decline of Buddhism in India as the section makes no mention of Buddhists or Buddhism with respect to Aurangzeb at all. I don't see a But-parast reference in the section cited either but quite specific mention of Hindus and hindu temples. All I am saying is there must be some other more direct and clear cut citation that we can use rather than one that has to be stretched to be interpreted?? After all doesn't this article say that pretty much after Khilji it was all over for Buddhists anyway except for out in the Himalayas? Good and more direct cited source examples are the Mahmud Ghazni quotation which includes Buddhists as targets for iconoclastic zeal, and the Muhammad Qasim quote which directly and unambigiously mentions Buddhists under the Jizya or the manner of their conversions to Islam.--Tigeroo 20:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Season's greetings to you too, Freedom Skies. Thanks for the kind words. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 22:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"All I am saying is there must be some other more direct and clear cut citation that we can use rather than one that has to be stretched to be interpreted??"

How a citation recording the imposition of a head tax on non muslims came to be interpreted as "stretched " still escapes me.

Out of sheer courtesy and assumption of good faith I have provided additional references. The sentence in question is "In India, muslim rulers imposed jizya (head tax on non muslims) starting in the 11th century. Aurangzeb levied jizya on his subjects in 1679." for which the citation is accuracy itself.

Verify (The World Economy: a millennial perspective by Angus Maddison, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Development Centre. Seminars (Paris), page 108)

"doesn't this article say that pretty much after Khilji it was all over for Buddhists anyway"

No it does not.

"I don't see a But-parast reference in the section cited either but quite specific mention of Hindus and hindu temples."

Number 32 and 33 in Notes ought to cover it.

Freedom skies 09:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what the sentence says, more I know exactly what the whole page and section the sentence occurs in is about as well. The Angus reference has nothing to do with Buddhist decline. While the fact that Aurangzeb re-instituted the jizya is correct, using it as a source to imply that it contributed to Buddhism's decline in India is mischarecterization of the source. This article is not about jizya or Aurangzeb so if that quote or article quoted has nothing to do with the topic of this article, which is the decline of buddhism in india, then it does not belong here. Find some other quote that does address the article's purpose, this one is not a valid use and needs to "extrapolated" by guessing at what the writed wanted to say to accomplish that end.--Tigeroo 10:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My revert

Freedom Skies,

I'm planning to revert your recent edits if you cannot explain why you removed two external links, and why you performed a reversion without a satisfactory explanation in the either the edit summary or on this talk page.

On a more general note, it's important that sources and quotes aren't "cherry-picked". I find it had to believe, for example that the current quote from Dr. Ambedkar is his complete view on the Decline of Buddhism in India. It's also important to not give any view undue weight, or obfuscate reality.

NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Out of courtersy and in order not turn this into a more unamiable athmosphere, I am not going to invoke 3RR here. The issues I have your revert are:
  1. Removal of cited material in intro that links revival Ambedkar and the inability to provide a citation for alternative material introduced.
  2. Changing Brahmanism to Hinduism, the book cited makes a clear disctinction that hinduism of today is a syncretic integration of buddhism and bakhtism and therefore charecterize the vedic rituals of the sunga as Brahmanism.
  3. Moving Xuanzangs report out of the chronological sequence. He comes before both the Adi Shakhara and even the birth of Muhammad.
  4. Qasim is longer a discourse, but it is an inaccurate portrayal of his impact. His impact was small beyond conquest. He was welcomed by the Buddhists, and yes he did enact jizya and replace some stupas with mosques.
  5. Aurangzeb, the quotes again make no link with the title of the topic of this article.
  6. Erasure of the Adi Shakanras impact of integrating the Buddhism and "Hindu" worship and beleif systems.
  7. Erasure of the Vasihnavite among other "Hindu" movements pressure and or social pressures upon Buddhists and Buddhism. There were no Muslims in the south to blame for the dissapearance of Buddhism. Quite simply there are many forces acting in unison that led to its demise not a one catchall that you seem to prefer.
  8. Blanking of external sites.
Generally you not only inadequately describe your edits but also misrepresent them and show a strong lack of intention to conduct a dialog.--Tigeroo 11:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut and pasted from my talk page

My question about the "one historian" edit remaining unanswered, I'll assume good faith still in any event.

The recent edits carry additional citations and more information about the Ghurid invasion.

As for Dr. Ambedekar's views, they have been stated as found, his sentiments about a particular religion doing more damage to Buddhism in comparision to another religion which has not been known to support conversions can be backed up by more citations on request. With or without "cherry picking" is purely your call.

The links of "Friends of the Western Buddhist Order" or "Buddies of Satan" do not belong in encyclopedic articles. These websites are best left out of articles in any logbook of knowledge. And yes, if you dispute that try accessing the link. You should come across a "Sorry: We're Unable to Locate that Page" sign promptly.

Still planning on reverting ?

Freedom skies 11:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you asked about Koenraad Elst, I didn't see it. Like most people, I tend to look for new posts on a talk page at the bottom of the page. Please do that here and on my own talk page.

I would prefer non-cherry-picked everything, as a matter of fact. As long as it doesn't give undue weight. Specifically regarding Dr. Ambedkar, feel free to complete the quote.

As for the "Buddies of Satan", I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. However, you are starting to sound and act disruptive.NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 11:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive users, Nina ?

Like the ones who won't even read a sentence before boldly stating "One Historian" ? or the ones who insist on putting blind links in encyclopedic articles ? or maybe the ones who revert to articles to versions with repeated cut and pasted sections and can't even get a heading straight ?

You're right. The incompetence of those disruptive users is there for everyone to see. Let people arrive at their own conclusions.

Freedom skies 14:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Skies, I wrote the longest edit summary of my life when I changed that sentence to one historian. Do you have another historian? Give one or two more names, and that's "a few". Perhaps it's "some". Please answer the obvious before you go on to discuss what I feel are very mundane and human mistakes.

And for the record, I put in Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, not the other external link. Once again, what exactly is the problem with the FWBO external link? It's mentioned in the article and it's a fact that they are present in contemporary India. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 16:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive are those who who insist on blanking even cited material. Refuse to elucidate their specific issues and just go on blanking other people and cited information. If you wanted to be constructive you coul have fixed the titular issues, or even the FWBO link, they were minor typos, instead you chose to revert and undo the constructive work of all editors as well.--Tigeroo 05:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well FWBO are not that notable. Their influence in India is yet to be gauged! अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 16:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


The incompetence speaks for itself, Nina. In this edit You go on to proclaim that "One historian has rejected Pushyamitra’s persecution of Buddhists." in the paragraph mentioned below:-

One historian has rejected Pushyamitra’s persecution of Buddhists. The first accounts appear two centuries after Pusyamitra's reign in Asokâvadâna and the Divyâvadâna. Koenraad Elst posits that historical facts confirm that Pushyamitra allowed and patronized the construction of monasteries and Buddhist universities in his domains, as well as the still-existent stupa of Sanchi. While Marshall states that it is possible that the original brick stupa built by Ashoka was destroyed by Pusyamitra and then restored by his successor Agnimitra. Following Ashoka’s sponsorship of Buddhism, it is possible that Buddhist institutions fell on harder times under the Sungas but no evidence of active persecution has been noted. Etienne Lamotte observes: “To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof.”

Your proclaimation of "one historian", however human a mistake it might be, is fradulent. In case you still don't get it there are two historians within the para itself and more in the article if you read it before a repeated attempt to defend the "one historian" routine.

In case you still don't follow, Koenraad Elst and Etienne Lamotte, two people.

And about that link of yours, Nina. here go to the links and access the link. Aside of being unworthy of a mention in any encyclopedia, it's blind/dead/not working.

Freedom skies 17:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation from Etienne Lamotte leads to a work by Koenraad Elst. If Elst quoted Lamotte in his work, it's still his work and must be cited as such. Please find an original reference for Etienne Lamotte. It's Christmas morning my time. Consider it a present to humor me. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 19:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The links work just fine, actually. You can try them on your own link, or try them here:[[1]].NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 19:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"The citation from Etienne Lamotte leads to a work by Koenraad Elst."

No it does not. You're lying.

Elst's article quotes Lamotte on his independent views about Pushyamitra Sunga, read the notes for additional authors.

And now you have written Two historians contradicting your own little "The citation from Etienne Lamotte leads to a work by Koenraad Elst." line.

There are more now, even the article mentions Romila Thapar. So much for your "two historians" line too, Nina. What are you going to do now? write "three historians" ? Acting like a child and counting the numnber of historians cited and substracting them by one for reasons beyond comprehension is not something people relate to with acts of the sane, I'm sure you know that.

You're begining to act very bizzare and very disruptive, are you ok ?

As for the link. I'll copy and paste it here. Let's see here:-

Friends of the Western Buddhist Order is the first link in this version. Access it.

You lied again, Nina. The link is dead.

Freedom skies 03:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a minor mistake, not incompetence, not some great conspiracy, get over it. Lying is more in the vein of reverts that occur under the guise of some minor superficial edit summaries from your end.
There is no lie there, with Nina's statement on Lamotte citations either. There is no citation to Lamotte in the this article the citation is to Elst who is citing Lamotte. To be entirely accurate the article should state that Elst cites Lamotte as saying "xxx" when using the citation as it stands. While I doubt it, he could have been mischarecterizing lamotte himself. Her concern was justified under attempting to guage how widespread the beleif is among historians. If she made a mistake you can easily point it out civilly. Unlike the way you would wish to portray things there is actually considerable doubt, with camps on both sides of the fence where the majority of references actually lean towards Pusyamitras culpability. That said however, there is a shadow of a doubt about how sure one can be about the events in the academic community that needs to reflected in the article.
Being disruptive and the unconstructive attitude on your part is displayed in your parading of the FWBO link. There is a minor typo there because of an extra |. I fixed it in my edit when I came to be aware of it, but you prefered to blank it because you do not like them. Now if you click the Elst link you will find the same problem too because of a similar issue, does that mean we need to remove the link and all the material that use it as citation because it is a grand lie and fraudulent hoax pulled on your part?? Get real. Get constructive and fix the issues instead of grand-standing and posing. Just because there have a minor problems does not mean they need to expunged, they can easily be fixed and brought up to par.--Tigeroo 05:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

There are serious POV problems on this article and as such I have listed it as {{pov}} and listed it on the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are, with the holidays and everything I had to delay the editing. I'll get to it ASAP. Freedom skies 03:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Freedom skies you mentioned "peregotive terms" used. Can you elucidate what these are? Are you saying Brahmanism is a peregrotive because otherwise I don't see what term you are referring to.--Tigeroo 06:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Are you saying Brahmanism is a peregrotive because otherwise I don't see what term you are referring to."

Exactly. Brahminism. Curiously enough you still reverted it to Brahminism.

May I also know the reasons for citing Ambedekar before Dharmpala when Dharmpala predated Ambedekar ? Why insist on breaking chronology to favor agendas?

Freedom skies 07:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok that is news to me that Brahmanism is peregotive. As far as I know it is not. In the source that is being cited it is not, the source makes a distinction between Hinduism and Brahmanism, that they are not the same thing. It refers to Brahmanism as the system of Vedic rites carried out by an priestly class while identifying Hinduism as a syncretism of Brahmanism, Bhakti and Buddhism. The source is also a Hindu writer who did not seem to beleive that Brahmanism was peregrotive either, e. Therefore it appears to neither be a peregative, nor does it appear to be equivalent term in the manner it was used in the citation for a valid substitution. Hence my reversion to Brahamanism.
Dharmpala, again the cited source is talking about pioneering the mass conversion movement. I do not beleive Dharmpala did that. He may have influced the ideology of Ambedkar and laid the ground, but the mass conversion movement is cited as being pioneered by Ambedkar. If I am mistaken about the mass conversion movement or the source is mistaken, please correct us and provide new sources. If it merely a matter of chronology the sentence structure can be rearranged accordingly. There is no disrespect or belittling intended towards Dharmapala. Again we need to get citable information, the biggest weakness of this article is it's lack of sources.--Tigeroo 08:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed reference to Brahmanism until we can sort it out. My understanding on the differentiation used by academic scholars between the two has been mentioned above. Here is a citation describing the same:
Hinduism grew out Brahmanism....Hinduism is to chiefly distinguished from Brahmanism in this-that it takes scant account of primordial impersonal essence Brahma as well as its personal manifestation Brahman; but honours in place of both the two popular personal dieties Siva and Vishnu. Be it noted that, however that Hinduism includes Brahmanism. It is indeed an unsatisfactory term.....Hinduism is Brahmanism modified by the creeds and superstitions of Buddhists and non-Aryan races of all kinds.Brahmanism And Hinduism: Or Religious Thought And Life in India As Based on the Veda And Other Sacred Books of the Hindus pg.3
The Great Indian Religions: Being a popular account of Brahmanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism is another that makes a distinction in the phases of historical evolution of the religion. No insults were intended, but there is an academic definition that differentiates it as significantly distinguishable earlier developmental period of Hinduism marked by "the sway of Brahmans and their reliance on ritual and sacrifice" (pg. 57).
Hope that clears up issues.--Tigeroo 13:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

South India

There is a link mentioned in this section as a source, so it cannot be offhandedly removed. There are also the Kalabhras and Xuanzang's report on the Chalukya's. No doubt it can be improved or made more accurate, or even depov'd. But there appears to be enough material that it merits a section.--Tigeroo 09:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Dear User:Freedom skies. We seem to have had a communication break down. I am going to invited third parties by posting a request at the mediation cabal to come help us reach an amicable solution. This is a voluntary process, they are not ArbComm or punitive. I am assuming you have a good faith intention to improve the quality of the article, therefore a third opinion may help resolve the conflict.--Tigeroo 12:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My intent towards this article - what's your's?

Since this talk page has been turned into a complete confusing mess (with people adding to their own comments long after their initial posting, and in various random places), I have cut and pasted the very heart of my concern where it should be, at the bottom of the talk page. It was originally in response to Ambroodey's assertion that Friend of the Western Buddhist Order were "not notable":

The section is about the revival in Buddhism in India, which itself is very small. Since I knew about FWBO before I ever hit this article, and I'm an ignorant American, I doubt highly it's not notable.

You and Freedom Skies may very well hate FWBO, and think it's evil and dangerous. I think Koenraad Elst is evil and dangerous. Furthermore, I think he's an apologist for a dangerous right-wing Hindu Nationalist organization. In addition, I think he's manipulating good men for his own twisted ends.

But I will defend to the end his right to be in this article. He is here he should be here, and his views should stay. I'm not just talking about this article, I'm talking about almost every article he's cited in. You have my word on that.

Despite what some (or perhaps all) people think, I'm not an idiot. I submit that our readers aren't idiots as well. If you can't see that I'm trying to make this and all articles more credible, and therefore more influential (which helps everybody), then I might as well walk away right now. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 19:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm adding all links in question back into the article. Let others decide if they can read them or not. As for the historians: Freedom Skies, you need to read up on Wikipedia policy on how references can be used. You can't cite a third party if you haven't read him yourself firsthand. It's that simple. I'm talking about Etienne specifically. I also would warn against just plain making stuff up, which is WP:OR. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 15:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I added back the links, and fixed the first one - which certainly led to FWBO, just not their home page. Here is the appropriate Wikipedia policy on "dead links":[[2]]. Here is the WP link I spoke of earlier[[3]]. Etienne is being used inappropriately - unless you clearly state that it's from a third party in both the body of the article and the reference, it should not be used. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph Revisions

I made some minor grammatical changes to the first paragraph in an effort to make the tone and style consistent. A specific note.

  • Use of BCE and CE in place of B.C. and A.D., both of which have historical references to christianity. Recent scholarship has prefered referencing Before Common Era and Common Era instead.
D. M. Arney, M.A. 08:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Neutrality Project

First Paragraph Neutrality Issues

  • Citations should be added to give quanitative evidence for the claims of expansion and decline.
  • The use of Conquerors should be validated with a citation. If the Muslims did indeed conqueor the region the term would apply. If they did not, it can be a dysphemism and should be changed to a more accurate description of their actions in that region.
D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 08:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that the first point is already satisfied. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by quantitative. What if numbers are not existant, it is hard to be accurate about a period that is so far out.
Muslim did conquer, but only in the 11th century, after the arrival of the Turks. Two small semi-independent states existed in the Sindh established in the 8th century following its conquest.--Tigeroo 09:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

General Style Issues

References to printed sources should include the following.

  • Author (Last, First). Date. Title. Publisher City:Publisher.

Particluar style may be adaptive, the above is the Chicago Manual of Style. However, without such information, there is no way to verify the information.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 08:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, please clarify all dates to BCE or CE, and try to use acurate dates rather than century spans.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Each section, both major and minor, ought to explore one issue. The subsection supporting the development of the larger unit. There is no clear understanding about what the page addresses. Consider usinig the talk page to evaluate the outline presented. In general the Page heading suggests an article describing the decline of buhhdism, (consider giving a date span), but reads more like a simple history. Consider looking at the decline in a timeline fashion, so that the important players/groups fit into a well defined framework. That way their contributions make sense within the larger whole.

Avoid unneccesary information unrelated to the topic. Consider removing references to details that do not specifically address the topic being explored.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 08:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I tried a chronological sequence, but it seems to be objectional. I was looking at chronologically placing both ideological as well political situations into a singular timeline rather than two seperate sections. Anyone think this is a better approach?--Tigeroo 09:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have also stated earlier, that I do not intend to cast doubt on the content, only the language expressing it. I wish only to help clarify issues that may present difficulties in the neutrality of the article. All of the comments made so far are great, and if some of these ideas were written into the article, it would only make it stronger. Please consider these as they were given, suggestions from an outside source. I really think the diaglouge will help to improve the wording, and ultimately the neutrality of the article.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 01:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues: Sungas

  • Use of Historians and Archeology as subjects is misleading, as it does not speak of universal agreement. Consider changing to the particular historian or archeologist asserting the claim, and cite the relevant source material.
  • Use of word possible creates an argument that could be cited as original research. If no evidence exists, then it should be omitted. If a minority of scholars posit the idea, it should be referenced as such. Ensuring that citation is to active and peer reviewed journal, will help balance the claim against a majority position.
  • Consider changing tone from speculative on the part of editor, to presenting those individuals in the literature that hold the speculative view points, while also discussing relative weight of these positions in the academic community.
  • The relative weight of references in this section is very light, especially referencing a television program without broadcast information, or to whom the view is attributed. Consider reviewing relevant material and coming up with stronger statements and attributions regarding the various iformation presented in this section.
  • The second to last sentance re:Hinduism is out of place in this context. Consider removing it to another section, or developing the point more, so that it ties in with the overall topic of the section.
D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The first point is presently covered in the Sungas section. The doubts on the Pusyamitra hoax are not cast by minority but by important historians who are top in their field like Lamont, Marahsll and Thapar. Thapar literally says "exaggerated". Rumpelstiltskin223 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree the language should reflect the academic doubt. There are some who do agree. However all litereature will make the connection with Pusymatira because of the strenght of the Buddhist tradition. No scholary work ignores it. Exaggeration is not quite refutation. But yes STRONG doubt does exist. It may be better to cite the respective the scholars and sources in this case rather than make generalizations.--Tigeroo 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues: Muhammad bin Qasim

  • Citation is needed to specifically address the idea of unpopular. Consider revising to a less general word, and specifically stating some of the actions undertaken that were viewed as unpopular.
  • The section wanders, and lacks specific statements. Consider developing a clear statement of the topic for each section. Then develop that topic. It is unclear what this section is contributing to the overall whole.
  • See general style issues.
  • Use of quotations is generally called for if referencing a specific page. Consider using quotes to develop each point more fully.
D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 08:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Fuller and expansive article was blanked. Is restored for your comment.--Tigeroo 09:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues: Mahmud of Ghazni

  • There is an implicit argument, albeit only half-formed, in this statement.
"He demolished both stupas and temples during his numerous campaigns across north-western India but left those within his domains and Afghanistan alone even as al-Biruni recorded Buddha as the prophet "Burxan".

The relation of the statement re:al-Biruni is unclear to the topic. It could be interpreted as a critisism, suggesting Mahumd of Ghazni is hypocritical in his dealings. Consider evaluating statment for accuracy. Define the purpose that the statement has in developing the topic, and specifically cite sources to confirm this claim. If the argument is not being made in the literature, then it would be inappropriate to make it here. Consider removing it if there is not a clear indication for its inclusion.

  • Again with the inclusion of iconclast in the description. If the subject is important to the main topic, then it should be developed further. As it stands, the statement is out of place and could be considered unsupportive or negative. Though it is cited, the lack of a specific citation makes it specious until that is changed. Consider removing the statement until a specific citation can be given.
D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, iconoclasm is a central issue in this case. For more details on this topic, see Islamic_conquest_of_South_Asia#Iconoclasm. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Ghazni was iconoclastic in the lands he raided. Temples and stupas were repositories of wealth and were looted and then sacked to boot. Within his own realms and to his own subjects he was accomodating. Al Biruni is recording the more common popular conception by the layman which sought to see Buddhists in a more idelogical similar frame of conception. Can be improved to convey that sense better I suppose.--Tigeroo 09:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The murder of millions of budhhists by arabs ..... Is entriely overlooked in this whitewash of the horrors inflicted upon the human race by the arabs and their religion used to cover up their perfidy, islam . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.128 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues: Ideological and financial causes

  • Use of "Many believe" is a categorical statement that cannot be cited. Consider revising to "prominent historians". However, it would be best to simply cite the sources that believe as such, specifically any census data concerning the majority opinion on the subject.
  • The paragraph begins to become an argument in the later portion. Consider removing statements such as:
"both of which showed the influence of Buhhdist thought."
As stated, this statement leads to a conclusion on behalf of the audience by the editor. Consider removing it unless there is a specific source to draw upon. In which case, the entire sentance should be reworked to show that link. Grammatically speaking
  • To whom were these changes important?
  • How does this sentance fit with the last Hindu kings?
  • The last thought is worded as an argument for the effect that Buddhism has had on Hinduism. Though intended to express the idea that such an interaction resulted in a decline in Buddhism, it is unclear as stated. Consider reworking it so that the focus is on the decline of Buddhism, rather than claims as to the effect that Buddhism has had on Hinduism.
  • In Finanncial Reasons, the use of categorical statements is again employed. Consider letting the content make these statements, rather than the editor. (Grammatical note: introducing the sangha at this point is too sudden. They were not mentioned anywhere in this section, or the preceding. Clarifying their relationship to the topic would be helpful.)
  • In Philosophical divergence with Adi Shankara, "could not be explained by Buddhists" needs citation. As it stands it makes a categorical claim, that seems dubious in light of continuing religous scholarship that occurs in all religions. Consider limiting the scope of this statement to the particular time period that it occurs in, and citing sources to demonstrate the majority opinion on this subject. This would also be a key area to address any minority view points, since the claim is hostile toward the sagacity of this time period's Buddhist thinkes.
  • In general, show, don't tell. Wherever appropriate follow up general statements with specific items that demonstrate the truth of the claim, within the context of the article.
  • In Islam, the quote is used as the basis for an argument. It is a classic sylogism, in which the quote serves as the middle term. Consider removing this paragraph. If not, then the argument needs be cited, and it should be demonstrated whether this is the majority view on the subject. Consider also including any opposing opinions, and their relative weight in the literature.
D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 09:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues: Survival of Buddhism in India

  • Though attributed, without citation, to Rajatarangini of Kalhana, any statement that begins "There must", should automatically be revised. Consider starting with "Rajatarangini of Kalhana believes..." instead.
D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 09:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues: General

The article contains many instances wherein Buddhist monestaries or idols were destroyed. Nearly every entry contains some reference to them. Such facts would be ideally suited to descrbing the persecution of the time periods, but instead stand alone. As such, the article takes on a tone, however involuntarily, of being condeming of historical religous traditions for these destructions, and ultimately the decline of Buddhism, without relevant data to support that claim. Ultimately I find that when working on this article, there were many points were it felt as though I were reading a thesis. Consider reworking the article in accordance with some of my general style comments. Place the list of references to persecution within a framework that shows their relative impact on the decline. Additionally, seeking to come to a consensus on the topic of the article might bear out most of the disputes concerning its neutrality.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OF Dharmapal and Ambedkar

I put them in chronological in appearance in the intro. While Dharmapala was indeed a pioneer, Ambedkar is the one who has had the most influence, and coutinues to do so to this day. He is easily the more famous and notable of them therefore skipping him or passing over reference to can be described as incredelous.--Tigeroo 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of Qasim

Qasim was not like Ghazni, his Buddhists were not just the Samani's of Nerun, as the quote you use implies. Please read up some on him and visit the sources and the context of why he got his support. He did demolish a handful of stupas in select captured town, but even more important was his adoption of the more liberal Hanafi school of thought and the way he initiated policies such as inclusion of Shramanis and Brahmins into the administration, contractually accepting their places of worship for upkeep, maintenance. Also important is the rate of conversion and the sector that conversion came from. When he placed the jizya on them what did that mean? What was the nature of it?

Ideological and financial causes

It is out of the BBC News article you cite for your evanligize quote. However by mixing it with the other quote you are mischarecterzing both sources. Obviously the article also see's no dispute between evangelization and supression by Hindu monarchs. Maybe you should clarify the context it is used in the article rather than pulling up the singular sentence on it's own.

OR

If you feel there are any parts that "I have made up" please use the fact tag so that I know what you are talking about and can then address them specifically by either removing them myself or bringing in the source material to back them up.--Tigeroo 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits

Hope this helps:). Will work on Decline of Buddhism in China as well. Nina Odell 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My Restoration

The reasons are listed in indivual edits as well up here in the talk page. Please explain why you are reverting. For even more explanations they are listed at the Mediation page for this article please contribute constructively. Or atleast indicate in your summary what you have done. Reference to a tool is not really sufficient explanation.--Tigeroo 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tigeroo! I am concerned with this Xuangzang report. The web refs do not mention anything about any persecution of Buddhists by Shashanka (unless I missed it), and I dunno how to get this hemingway book. Could you give me some details about it? also, could you provide some excerpt or something? Thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Details are listed and running a web search i got the following results for the book Amazon. Grr.. the reference in the hemingway book is about the Eastern Chalukhya's and the Vaisnavite creed replacing the Buddhist rule, and not Gouda. It seems to have gotten removed in the many edits, not Gouda as it has come to represent instead. Anyway is the source which speaks of a predominantly Buddhist region ravaged by war and conquered by the Chalukyas in the wake of which it was thinly populated and many stupas were in ruins. I have fixed it by restoring the information from an an earlier version. I wonder how many other dangling strands have been created by the blanking and editing of the originally sourced material without checking on the source. Shahshanka and his persecution has not been cited but I have seen him mentioned more than once I am sure I can dig up a reference for him as well, and predates my edits I think.--Tigeroo 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Shashanka is infamous for burning/ cutting down the Bodhi Tree at Bodh Gaya and replaced Buddha statues with Siva lingams etc. Anyway it was just a cursory search, haven't verified the credentials or for POV on the books yet but here are a few of the references that say the same thing [4], [5], [6], [7]. At first glance the source seem slightly slanted, and probably need some looking into before we can use them.--Tigeroo 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Your Amazon link points to a dead page. I think a book with "Uproot Hindutva:" in it sounds partisan and political rather than reliable academic source.[8]

. Who is "Jayant Gadkari"??? Any historian or scholar? Does he have any publis? Nonetheless both Gadkari and Karunyakara refs seem to indicate about Shashanka. My point is that the Chalukya thing be explained that it is a war situation when the stupas etc were destroyed and not an act conducted during peacetime.Perhaps we should cite reliable sources like Thapar etc. rather then people we don't know anything about. What is the way to verify academic credentials of Gadkari and Karunyakara? The Hemingway ref [9] does not seem to attest to any specific religious persecution as such. it says Buddhist shrines were ruined and deserted. It could have been due to neglect rather than deliberate demolition. It is certain that the Chalukyas were biased against Buddhists and preferred Vaishnavism, but the ref does not say that the Chalukyas actively destroyed the Buddhist shrines, merely didn't care about them. Without state support, they decayed.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, sorry about the amazon page it skipped but you can search via the ISBN number etc. It's there so it can't be impossible to find. I agree about the refs, and that they are no about Shashanka, and the sentence can be cleaned up to split them from the Chalukya's, which should automatically create a distance from the persecution because it is not explicit. It's just bad sentence construction, run-ons I think. I did not cite or intend to cite those 4 without checking up, I mentioned that they seemed POV just by the tone and language, it was just a quick thing to see if there is anything or not. The Bodhi tree thing seems to indicate that should be better discussed material available somewhere else. I think we are saying the same thing. I am too sleepy to work on it or validate them or find more WP:RS sources atm, why don't you take a shot and fix it up. Cheers.--Tigeroo 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to do a fix-up. i found an article on Shashanka in Banglapedia [10] where the objectivity of Huen Tsang is questioned. The Banglapedia cite is temporary and the article cites books that I will try to get for details, like:RC Majumdar (ed), History of Bengal, Dacca, 1943; Sudhir R Das,Rajbadidanga, Calcutta, 1962; RC Majumdar, History of Ancient Bengal, Calcutta, 1971; PK Bhattacharyya, 'Two Interesting Coins of Shashanka', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, London, 2, 1979.If you can get any of the books then please do so also.Thaa.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag

I have added a POV tag to this article due to a report on the Wikipedia Neutrality Project. Please discuss the POV problems here, and please do not remove the tags until the issues have been resolved, and when you do, please leave a note on the WNP request on it so we know to close the request.

The rationale for the report which was filed is as follows:

On the behalf of the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reference my comments above for any help that I can offer.

D. M. Arney, M.A. Neutrality Project 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

sources

Phillip, if you're going to remove the info concerning the decline of Buddhism in India and two unsourced statements (1: the role of absorption of Buddhist concepts into Hinduism and 2: causes within Buddhism as it was practiced at the time), then you'd better also remove the mention of the 'white huns' and 'support of the kings'. Take them all out or leave them all in. Or find some sources to what you want to keep in. Greetings, Sacca 15:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to have both the POVs mentioned as is mandatory for a GA class article. This version was sufficiently sourced except for the begining, which is mentioned in the main article. Tigeroo has provided some more sourced content which should balance the article quite nicely. I'll further introduce sections on patterns of proselytism, which is my original topic of interest here.
Regards, Phillip Rosenthal 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Islamic rulers have been known implement a policy on their subjects to either accept conversion to Islam or flee the land under Islamic rule; otherwise punishable by enslavement or even execution.[1] The Mahabodhi Movement in 1890s held the Muslim Rule in India responsible for the decay of Buddhism in India.[2][3][4] Revivalists Anagarika Dharmapala and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar[5] also laid the chief blame for the decline of Buddhism in India at Muslim fanaticism.
I'm moving this here for discussion. If this is in for GA nomination it needs to be accurate:
  1. ) Pipes is not a mainstream academic source. He is POV and his stance is quite clear.
  2. The google scholar quote actually shows that the Mahabodhi stance as well is dated and was dicatated by the politics of the time. I'll reproduce the whole here
     :::Many events of Burmese history can only be properly understood if we putthem against the then (1886-1937) prevailing mood of Hindu-Buddhist brotherhood. The Buddhist renaissance, inaugurated by Anagarika Dharmapal through his Mahabodhi Movement in 1890s, had a conservative character for it made the Muslim Rule in India responsible for the decay of Buddhism in India. Be that as it may, this “conservatism” has to be reinterpreted.
  3. The Mahabodhi society or Ambedkars if necessary need to go in the section dealing with the revival if at all where these characters show up. They are notable because of their particular source. The Buddhism revival is quite a political and POV charged affair. The Mahabodhi quotes are unverifiable at this stage as well, we don't have the details of the book. As far as I can tell it is an organizations member journal that has been in publication for over 120 years. Right now they just repeat information and thereby give undue weight to the role of Muslim conquest. Buddhism was practically dead, during its heyday you could travel to sri lanka passing through Buddhist lands, by the time of the Muslim arrival it had receded all over significantly and fused with Brahmanism, Vedic , Saivite, Tantra, Bhakti, Vashnivite et al. towards the modern form of Hinduism. By the destruction of monasteries fortified by the Sena dynasty they merely finished it off by demolishing the bastions of political refuge that existed. Monasteries in the south had already begun being converted into hindu temples.
  4. Ambedkars quotes are not entirely factually correct from the historical point of view, all those regions turned Muslim when the Chagatai Khanates after conquering Muslim land slowly converted to Islam. Secondly he laid a huge amount of blame on the Brahmins and casteism as well. To quote him “brahmanism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders could look to the rulers for support and sustenance and get it. Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders had no such hope. It was uncared for orphan and it withered in the cold blast of the native rulers and was consumed in the fire lit up by the conquerors.”
  5. Nalanda was still functioning and standing after Khilji's assault so destroyed is wrong.--Tigeroo 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Pipes has a PhD in medieval Islamic history from Harvard. I doubt you'd object to quoting Esposito whose stance is equally clear. Arrow740 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with Pipes is not his academic credentials but his peer credentials. He is notable, but for his extreme views and as a "hatemonger" primarily in the political and popular press, not among academics. Yes, he is an alternate view and can be mentioned but place it in the right area and don't give it undue weightage. Plus the quoted sentence was not even about Buddhist/ Muslim interaction in the sub-continent or even about a certain time period but a generic blanket statement yanked in and inserted into the article. When someone claims academia is full of professors who present disinformation in class rooms he is clearly not holding the prevailing view.--Tigeroo 05:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Tigeroo, your conduct is increasingly becoming a matter of concern. Saying that Ambedekar is wrong and removing his quote is objectionable. I've seen your contribs and am inclined to think that you have a POV which is going to damage the article. Kindly refrain from blanking sourced material from figures like Daniel Pipes in future;Wikipedia is a place to observe WP:NPOV, not present a single side and feverishly fight battles to rem the opposing POV. Regards,
Phillip Rosenthal 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I have provided multiple and detailed reasons on why the information is inadequate and inappropiate. As for WP:NPOV especially the one one undue weightage, I have not removed any POV. Partisan sources like Pipes need not be removed but "must be treated with caution". I have just changed the sources. Some ARE better than others, also detailed are objection from WP:RS. There is no "battling" on my part, if you think I have a POV please state what that you beleive that might be so we can address it directly. I have moved the disputed content to the talk pages for discussion not blanked it. That is perfectly acceptable behavior. Please respond on the content and refer to WP:CIVIL.--Tigeroo 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Tigero was involved in the Decline of Buddhism medcab case and he left. I'll provide quotes and better sources in case anyone requests for them. The sources as pointed out are from noted authorities on Buddhism. Freedom skies| talk  09:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Rosenthal

Checkuser has identified Phillip Rosenthal as a likely sockpuppet of Freedom skies. JFD 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Rosenthal has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet. JFD 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Transferred material

I've deleted the following from the Buddhism article, as I don't think all this detail belongs in such a general article. I put it here for any use it may be to this article.

Decline of Buddhism in India and Central Asia

See also: Decline of Buddhism in India

Buddhism was established in the northern regions of India and Central Asia, and kingdoms with Buddhist rulers such as Menander I and Kaniska. Under the rule of tolerant or even sympathetic Greco-Bactrian and Iranian Achaemenid kings, Buddhism flourished. The rulers of the Kushāna Empire adopted Buddhism, and it continued to thrive in the region under the rule of the Turk-Shāhīs.

Buddhists were briefly persecuted under the Zoroastrian priest-king Kirder. Syncretism between Zoroastrianism and Buddhism had resulted in the rise of a 'Buddha-Mazda' divinity, which Kirder treated as heresy.[6]

The Hinayana traditions first spread among the Turkic tribes before combining with the Mahayana forms during the 2nd and 3rd centuries BCE to cover modern-day Pakistan, Kashmir, Afghanistan, eastern and coastal Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These were the ancient states of Gandhara, Bactria, Parthia and Sogdia from where it spread to China. Among the first of these Turkic tribes to adopt Buddhism was the Turki-Shahi who adopted Buddhism as early as the 3rd century BCE. It was not, however, the exclusive faith of this region. There were also Zoroastrians, Hindus, Nestorian Christians, Jews, Manichaeans, and followers of shamanism, Tengrism, and other indigenous, nonorganized systems of belief.

From the 4th Century CE on, Hindu dynasties had achieved preeminence elsewhere in India. Even in regions of Buddhist predominance, such as the northwest (Pañjāb) and the lower Gangetic plain (Uttar Pradesh and Bengal), the Indian caste system was found. In political contests between Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms, Buddhist rulers were gradually replaced by Hindu ones. By the 4th to 5th century Buddhism was already in decline in northern India, even though it was achieving multiple successes in Central Asia and along the Silk Road as far as China.

The Buddhist states of Central Asia were weakened in the 6th century following the invasion of the White Huns and Buddhism suffered as recorded by Xuanzang. Later Buddhist regions in Central Asia came either under the sway of the Persian Sāsānids or Tibet. When the Muslim Arabs overthrew the Sāssānids they encountered Buddhists in the eastern provinces of the Persian Empire. They called them by the Persian name of butparast, literally meaning "buddha-worshipper", although the term has come to be used generally for any religion in which cult images play a role. Several high officials of the Abbāsid Caliphate, notably the Barmakids, were descended from these East Iranian Buddhists.

When Muhammad bin Qāsim led the invasion of Sindh at the mouth of the Indus river, he was aided by some Buddhists in his campaign against their Hindu overlord, Rājā Dahir. Relations with later Iranian rulers such as the Saffarids and Samanids were more difficult; Buddhist monasteries and stūpas were not exempt from looting under Arab rule.[7]

After the disintegration of the Abbāsid Caliphate, the Muslim Turks rose to prominence among the Persian emirates that emerged in Central Asia and Afghanistan. In the 10th century CE, one of them, Mahmūd of Ghaznī, defeated the Hindō-Shāhīs and finally brought the region firmly under Muslim rule through Afghanistan and the Pañjāb. He demolished monasteries alongside temples during his raid across north-western India but left those within his domains and Afghanistan alone and al-Biruni recorded the Buddha as a prophet "burxan", the Mongolian word for a Buddha.

The originally pagan Turkic tribes who lived in western Central Asia converted to Islām as they came to be increasingly influenced by Persian culture. As the Turkic tribes of Central Asia battled for control of land, similarly an ideological battle waged within them as Sufis, faced with an increasing hostile environment in Arabia, moved to Transoxania and found fertile ground here for converts among the Buddhist and non-Buddhist Turkic tribes alike. Buddhism persisted, together with Christianity, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and shamanism in areas to the east (modern Xinjiang) for several centuries, which did not become overwhelmingly Muslim until the 15th century CE; however, under the two-pronged onslaught Buddhism waned and over time Central Asia gradually became predominantly Muslim.

In 1215 Genghis Khan conquered Afghanistan and his horde devastated the local population indiscriminately; in 1227 after his death his conquest was divided and Chagatai established the Chagatai Khanate while Hulegu established the Il Khanate where Buddhism was the state religion across Muslim lands. In the Chagatai Khanate the Buddhist Turkic tribes slowly converted to Islam, including the occasional Khan. [8] When Tarmashirin came to power he made Islam the official religion of the region in 1326. In the Il Khanate, Hulegu and his successors Abaqa and Arghun also established Buddhism as the state religion but were hostile to the Muslims. Many mosques were destroyed and numerous stupas built; however, when Ghazan came to power in 1295 and converted he reverted the state religion to Islam and the climate became hostile towards Buddhism. Today no stupas built by the earlier Mongol Khans survive, and after Ghazan's reign little mention of Buddhism can be found in Afghanistan and Central Asia.[9]

Buddhists retained power in parts of northern India, in Kaśmīr and especially in Bengal, where the Buddhist Pāla kings ruled from the 8th–12th centuries CE. These last Buddhist strongholds played an important role in the evolution of the Vajrayāna and the transmission of that form of Buddhism to Tibet before they collapsed under assault from the Hindu Sena dynasty.

Elsewhere in India, Buddhism suffered from pressure by Hindu dynasties, such as the increasingly powerful Rajputs, as well as competition from a Hinduism that had gained ideological coherence and emotional vigor from such movements as Vedānta philosophy and Bhakti devotionalism. One symptom of increased Hindu confidence with regard to Buddhism was the identification of the Buddha as an avatāra of the Hindu god Vishnu – an identification which contradicted basic Buddhist understandings and the Buddha's own unequivocal words about the nature of a Buddha and of nirvāna.

In 1193, only a few decades after the fall of the Pāla kingdom, Muhammad Khiljī destroyed Nālandā, the great Buddhist university. Khiljī was one of the generals of Qutbuddīn Aybak, a subject of the Afghan Ghurids but soon to become the monarch of a Muslim sultanate at Delhi. Khiljī's march across northern India caused a precipitous decline in the fortunes of Indian Buddhism, as he destroyed Buddhist walled monasteries fortified by the Sena kings (which he thought were cities), killed the monks and burned their libraries. At about the same time, the Buddhist king of Maldives, a country that had been trading with Bengal, converted to Islam and ordered all his subjects to do likewise.

After the Mongol invasions of Islamic lands across Central Asia, many Sufis also found themselves fleeing towards the newly established Islamic lands in India around the environs of Bengal. Here their influence, caste attitudes towards Buddhists, previous familiarity with Buddhism, lack of Buddhist political power or social structure along with Hinduism's revival movements such as Advaita and the rise of the syncretic bhakti movement, all contributed to a significant realignment of beliefs relegating Buddhism in India to the peripheries.

By the 13th century CE, Buddhism had become a marginal religion in central India; without a monastic infrastructure, Buddhism could not easily maintain its identity, and many Buddhists, especially in Bengal, were converted to Islām, Hinduism, or left for the Himalayan foothills. In Kaśmīr Buddhism remained a significant religion down to the early 15th century, when it was displaced by Islām and Hinduism, except among the Tibetan peoples of Ladakh.

Elements of Buddhism have remained within India to the current day: the Bauls of Bengal have a syncretic set of practices with strong emphasis on many Buddhist concepts. Other areas of India have never parted from Buddhism, including Ladakh and other Himalayan regions with a primarily Tibetan population. Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim are the other Indian states where Buddhism is practiced in great numbers. The Newars of Nepal also retain a form of Buddhism that differs from the Buddhism of Tibet. Furthermore, much of Buddhist philosophy was eventually absorbed into Hinduism.

Peter jackson 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Brahmanical

See the following link for the word appearing in a dictionary. Not to mention that it is a word used in numerous scholarly works which define it as a particular version of hinduism that existed alongside Buddhism in the early part of the first millennium, see discussions above on the subject.--Tigeroo 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The main issue is that you are removing paragraphs from the chachnama. Arrow740 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That was for IndoHistorian.--Tigeroo 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Chachnama

Is a primary source. It's WP:OR to quote it as is "IndoHistorians analysis" on it. The excessive focus to it is also results in undue weight age being given to both the Chachnama as well as Qasim in the context of the article.--Tigeroo 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about his personal analysis. However, there is nothing wrong a priori with quoting from a primary source without interpretation. Arrow740 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of the quote? Since this is not a collection of quotations page it's purpose is to advance a thesis, tends to fall foul of WP:SYN or WP:PSTS under WP:OR. Primary sources must be treated with care, not to mention the section is getting too long to have info that does not make a point.--Tigeroo 15:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The use seems to be to report what it says. Arrow740 19:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Not really, it is preceded/ introduced by the following OR commentary "The Cachanama text composed by Mohammed Al bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi is extremely biased against the non-Muslims as it supports the plunder, oppression and destruction of the non-Muslims by the Islamist invaders." If we struck that sentence, it would still stand as an awkward set of quotes in the middle of the section. All they then do is make for awkward and disjointed reading.--Tigeroo 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversial

This is a potentially contentious topic, and could turn into a slanging match among various forms of religious fundamentalism in India today. Please take care with the 'facts' being presented in these pages; as religious bigots of various hues are known to be active on the Net, insulting and blaming each other's religion.

^ Agreed, there seem to be many factually 'anti' correct edits since I last saw this page, I would loathe to get into an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.128.111 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is page is a glory. While I understand the political climate and refrain from any kind of incitation in the main page. Please, remember that we exist. Love from Bangladesh. Whoever wants truth would find it and find peace.And whoever wants to run away from it would try to find social acceptance, but they would always continue to see strife and eternal turmoil. It wasn't the reality that was in turmoil, but their own eternal selves. How else would you define peace other than the ability to see order, where others see chaos? Rmraihan (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Terrible article

This article puts the decline primarily down to two sources; violent Hindu repression and violent Muslim repression. The collapse of Buddhism is in fact due to socioeconomic changes. Buddhism required strong central authorities to collect and channel economic surplus to monasteries. As Brahmins took increasing control over the economic structure of India in expanding the scope of the caste system, power became localized and it was impossible for strong states to form. Buddhism withered inversely with this process. I am added this material, found in The Sociology of Philosophies, by Randall Collins, published by Harvard University Press. Mitsube (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, please feel free to help out in making it a better one.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. But what does it change? That which you hope for will not see the light of day, because this article will not be written by any of us. This article itself is a geopolitical concern. This will be used to create hate by both parties. This is not a place for scholars. Socioeconomic changes? You make me laugh, try to debate with racist "Sanatan dharma" professors with their own references, cited by each others. In their own fanatical and apologetically unreasonable circle. If you somehow defeat them, you'd face Muslims who want zero blame. Truth will be in the niches of academia, not here. Man, Japs are the best people on earth. I respect them to no bounds. And I beg forgiveness for our nature. Buddha came to us, but all his teachings only lived with you. Rmraihan (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Removals

I removed those two sentences for a couple of reasons, none of them being because they are inaccurate:

  1. The main reason being that the Muhammad bin Qasim section is starting to show signs of dissproportionate importance (WP:Undue) in context of the article title, especially when he only ruled only a couple of years on the fringes, during a period of strong social change in the rest of Indian lands that affected Buddhism rather more severely. Also after him the region reverted to local mostly rulership, minus small runt states, until the arrival of the Ghaznavids. It made little sense to have such a big section devoted him when it can be summarized more concisely.
  2. The monk ruler of Nirun being Buddhist does not really forward an argument for Chach being a buddhist, nor is it likely presented as such in the source, but that is the way it appears in the article, WP:OR. The Eliot and Dawson doubt on the situation as quoted in the preceding sentence is enough.
  3. Again the Warder quote essentially repeats information already present in the preceding paragraph is being inserted without context of its usage in the source. This section is really longer than its historical impact.

Hope this helps explain it. If you agree with the above we can remove them as well.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not read the part about the monk surrendering as forwarding an argument. I thought it was an interesting fact. I suggest that it remain. I am fine with removing the Warder quote. In discussing the impact on the religious environment of Sind of Qasim's invasion an excerpt from the primary text isn't very encyclopedic. I will read what Warder has to say and also Wink. Also who is Gier exactly? Mitsube (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"Gier also believes that Chach of Alor and his kin were regarded as usurpers of the earlier Buddhist Rai Dynasty.[35] It is believed by some scholars that Chach himself may have been a Buddhist.[38][39] Further, after Dahir took control, he allowed for a Buddhist monk to run the city of Nirun in his kingdom. However in the war with Qasim, the monk surrendered to Qasim.[40]" I think the problem is the word further.. it seems to imply that the next sentence is related to the first which is refuting Giers proposition ... otherwise I am not sure what sentence is supposed to be doing where it is especially followed up with the next sentence wit however which again appears to be trying to refute the earlier one. It's all a bit confusing at the least.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
There isn't much there in Warder. Have you looked at Wink [11]? He contradicts Gier completely. I think we should remove Gier unless his reliability can be established, as he is contradicted by a variety of reliable sources. Mitsube (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have just looked at Wink and it does seem rather plausible but does not necessarily contradict Gier either. Even Wink acknowledges the "popular" Buddhist traitor theory when he disagrees with it. There is a link to the cited Giers article from where the citation is made, where Gier essentially says the same thing about the blurring and diffusion of religious lines while noting that the brahmanical bureaucracy had gained a political foothold. It just used to be the popular explanation which is being queried right now. I don't see an issue with noting both and saying that there exists a difference of opinion on this point.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
If the reliability of the webpage has not been established then the claims should not be repeated. Mitsube (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ofcourse WP:V must apply. A for on Gier turned this up, so whats your opinion. Seems bonafide and the article appears to be a paper he presented at a conference. I also just noticed that also cited is the preface material to the Chachnama that says the same thing. I think its OK on both counts then, source and not being a strange view. Whats your opinion? On the other item, I think I will take a stab at simplifying the convoluted sentences.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The books of Wink and Appleby seem more authoritative, since they have been published by reputable publishers. I think their view should be given priority and then Gier's mentioned after. Mitsube (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Genocide in India

The genocide is mentioned in one whopping sentence, surely it deserves greater recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.150.25 (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of Modern India

This article needs to also consider the state of Buddhism in modern India. I have checked the other articles such as History of Buddhism in India, and they do not seem to have treated this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.101 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased Western sources used in this articles

I would like to raise my concerns over the reference material used in this article. Writer seldomnly mentiones any Indian sources to outline the causes of decline of Buddhism. Here and there, writer used the Indian reference from B. R. Ambedkar who was severely biased against structure of the Sanatan Dharm. Not sure if this article sheds any insights on causes of decline. Those who point fingures at Brahmins, should know that, Theravada and Vajrayaan branches were established by Brahmins.

Richard Gombrich, Peter Harvey and Randall Collins were frequently used - some of the points that's been excerpted from their work... for instance, "While Shankara is given credit for the defeat of Buddhism in Hindu literature, he was in fact active after Buddhism had faded from prominence in some areas. In particular, he was not a contemporary of the great Indian Buddhist philosopher, Dharmakirti. When Shankara came north to the intellectual centers there, he borrowed many of the ideas that had been formulated by Buddhist philosophers of the past.[55]" are absolutely their own opinion.

By looking at the Adi Shankar's work, Buddhist idea's were predominantly neglected in his approach.

Do not know what message writer wants to convey in this article.- Saarleya141.160.26.251 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions? There have been about 300 'writers' (we call them editors) of this article. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Seldom mention of "Indian" sources may be due to the fact that such sources might not exist or are not readily available. Just because a researcher is "Western," and might write about historical facts that does not always illuminate the Hindus or the Brahmins in the best of light, doesn't mean the research is biased. Also, Brahmins had nothing to do with the establishment of Theravada and Vajrayana branches; Theravada having emerged from the many Buddhist Councils of debate on monastic Vinaya codes, and Vajrayana emerging from Eastern movements that began to incorporate tantric practices into Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.133.196 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Did Sri Sankara Destroy buddhism Physically ?

Almost all the works relating to Decline of Buddhism declare unanimously that Sri Sankara was the one who did it. The wikipedia itself has references to refute this. Buddhism was decaying much before Sankara's time due to reasons such as 1. too much dependance on ascetism 2. Tantric interference in Buddhistic thought 3. Lack of enthusiasm of rulers in Buddhism.

According to the current version of history dismantling of Buddhism began in full force in Tamilnadu which was begun by Appar in the fifth century, i.e before Sri Sankara. Appar and Sambandar's ground work almost pushed Bouddha and Jaina sects to the fringe of the society eventually leading to their decline.

Given this all references such as " Buddha's embrace of Buddhism was fatal" are without any ground whatsoever. It is also equally unclear why Sankara will embrace the thoughts of a dying sect.

The only reasonable explanation may be that " Sankara learned Buddhism to negate its philosophy." I think the quoting of many scholars in bits and pieces as confirmed opinion is misleading. Not a single Sankaracharya is quoted nor any Smartha or Advaita practitioner quoted in this subject. The whole article has to be deleted immediately.

Max Weber?

The sentence "By that time, Buddhism had become especially vulnerable to hostile rulers because it lacked strong roots in society as most of its adherents were ascetic communities." is sourced to....Max Weber: an intellectual portrait By Reinhard Bendix??? Seems like a source which is not on the topic of the article. — goethean 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"before it collapsed at the hands of the attacking Sena dynasty."

That is not what Taranath mentions. There is no support whatsoever of Buddhist persecution by the Senas, although it is widely mentioned in textbooks in West Bengal and Bangladesh.

For continuation of Buddhism during Sena period see

Malaiya (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How can you use the term Hinduism?

How can you use the term Hinduism since it is a western invention? 'Hindu' is not even an Indian term, but of Persian origin - Hindustani! This shows how problematic Wikipedia is! You do not spread knowledge, but common misconceptions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.10.2.149 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The term "Hindu" is not of Indian origin. It was actually used by Persians to refer to the people who lived beyond the Indus River. The term "Hindustan" is also of Persian origin and means "land of the Hindus."The word "Hindu" was first used by the ancient Persians to refer to the people who lived in the region that is now known as India. The Persians called this region "Hindustan," which means "land of the Hindus." The term "Hindu" was originally used to refer to the people who lived in the region, regardless of their religion.Over time, the term "Hindu" became associated with the religion practiced by the majority of people in the region, which is now known as Hinduism. Today, the term "Hindu" is used to refer to someone who practices the Hindu religion or is a follower of Hinduism.In modern times, the term "Hindustani" is used to refer to the culture and language of the people who live in the region of Hindustan, which includes the countries of India and Pakistan. The term "Hindustani" is used to describe the culture and language that developed in the region as a result of the influences of various cultures, including Persian, Turkish, and Arabic. RsEkanayake 09:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Decline of Buddhism in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

India and Bangladesh

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#POV pushing

Could you please tell me how I'm POV pushing? Chittagong is not located in India, it's in Bangladesh so how is that POV pushing? The incorrect information was located in the section, "Survival of Buddhism in India". Chittagong and the people of Chittagong people are not part of India or Indian, I was only removing incorrect information so I reverted your edit. (121.219.51.186 (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC))

"India" in this article does not refer to the present nation of India, but to the Indian c.q. south Asian subcontinent. There is no reason to remove information about Buddhism in Bangladesh from this article; it is within the scope of this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: I understand your move to be more inclusive but I completely disagree with it. Sri Lanka and Bhutan are majority Buddhist countries in South Asia and 10% of Nepalis are Buddhist. I don't think it's right to insinuate that Buddhism has declined completely in South Asia when Sri Lanka and Bhutan have Buddhist majority populations. A better name would be, Decline of Buddhism in pre-partition India. What do you think? (110.148.155.13 (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC))
Very good argument. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Maybe we can have a disclaimer at the top that says, This article is about the decline of Buddhism in ancient India which includes the present day nations of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, as opposed to India only. Similar to the disclaimers of the Yama article and the "Model minority stereotype" section of Stereotypes of East Asians article. What do you think? (110.148.155.13 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC))
Go ahead! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Joshua Jonathan:. I'll add it and we can see what everybody else thinks of it. (110.148.155.13 (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC))

Sri Lanka and Anagarika Dharmapala

@101.160.163.49:, This source is non-WP:RS and suggests possible WP:COI, because the article declares at the end that "The writer is a grand-niece of the Anagarika". Do you have a peer reviewed scholarly source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Firstly, I reverted your edit and then tried to revert my edit again after seeing the talk page discussion, however I noticed it was already reverted, so I guess that's okay. Apologies I shouldn't have reverted your edit without reading your entire edit summary.
Secondly, I found these sources:
  • [12] → I also included the search term, "anagarika dharmapala revival of Buddhism" to make it easier to find in the book.
  • [13] → I'm not sure if it's a reliable source for Wikipedia though, it's a research paper.
(110.149.143.226 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC))
The Christopher Queen source is WP:RS, and it is far more clear and guarded in explaining the contributions of Anagarika Dharmapala. I will add a few lines. The Lokamitra source endorses interesting claims such as "Nath yogis" and "Puranic Hinduism is a hybrid of Brahminism and Buddhism", but it isn't RS and it is inappropriate (fringe-y) to include in wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks for doing that. (121.219.135.194 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC))

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.76.246 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio?

@Capitals00: I suppose that the first part of the following is a WP:COPYVIOLATION?

Conversion from Buddhism to Hinduism is a stock story in Buddhist and Hindu sources. Taranatha's History of Buddhism in India records one such example under Muslim invasions, "There is no doubt that many siddhas and sadhakas lived at this period. But since the karma of the people in general was unalterable, all these could not be prevented. At that most of the yogi followers of Gauraksa were fools and, driven by greed of money and honour offered by the tirthika kings, became followers of Isvara (Shiva). They used to say, 'We are not opposed even to the Turuksas (Turks).' Only a few of them belonging to the Natesvari-varga remained insiders (Buddhists)."[10]

References

  1. ^ In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power By Daniel Pipes (page 45)
  2. ^ A Close View of Encounter between British Burma and British Bengal
  3. ^ The Maha-Bodhi By Maha Bodhi Society, Calcutta (page 205)
  4. ^ The Maha-Bodhi By Maha Bodhi Society, Calcutta (page 58)
  5. ^ "there can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism was due to the invasions of the Muslims.” (B.R. Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol.3, p.229 - Chapter “The decline and fall of Buddhism”). He wrote: “Thus the origin of the word ["but", Persian for "idol"] indicates that in the Muslim mind idol worship had come to be identified with the religion of Buddha. To the Muslims they were one and the same thing. The mission to break idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhara and Chinese Turkestan (…) in all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism.” (B.R. Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol.3, p.229-230.)
  6. ^ Berzin, Alexander (November 2001). "Historical Sketch of Buddhism and Islam in Afghanistan". Berzin Archives.
  7. ^ Berzin (2001).
  8. ^ Applied History Research Group (1998). "The Chagatai Khanate". The Islamic World to 1600. University of Calgary. Retrieved 2007-07-31.
  9. ^ Applied History Research Group (1998). "The Mongol Invasions (The Il-Khanate)". The Islamic World to 1600. University of Calgary. Retrieved 2007-07-31.
  10. ^ Johan Elverskog. Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 96.

The source, Elverskog, writes:

The shift away from Buddhism toward Hinduism is in fact a stock story in both Buddhist and Hindu sources. One such example is found in the Tibetan historian Taranatha's early seventeenth-century History of Buddhism in India:

Actually, I find the quote quite odd. It was at the wrong place, in a section on conversion to Hinduism in the post-Gupta era; if it is to be used, it should be in the section on the Muslim invasions. And the preceding alinea is actually more interesting; it describes how tantric Buddhism became more and more obscure, leading to a growing appeal of Hindu devotionalism for "the Indian masses." I've added that piece of information. On a personal note, I can understand that Bhakti is more appealing than cryptic Tantrism. Tantric texts are hard to follow, while devotion is intuitively appealing, and a concrete and practical way to embody and practice your religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
But... checking Elverskog, regarding the "increasingly esoteric nature of tantric Buddhism," it turns out that he is quoting David Gordon White, (2012), The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India, p.7, who is writing about Hindu tantrism... According to White, only the Nath Siddhas remained attractive, because they were concerned with the attainment of wordly power, not with abstract metaphysics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Causes of decline

@Joshua Jonathan: Actually My Lord was correct with his removal. See this edit the IP introduced same content that has been already explained here. He in fact copied it from Buddhism and Hinduism without attribution. Basically, Competition from Hinduism and Jainism is same as Loss of patronage and donations. Capitals00 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I see; thanks. Might be wothwhile, though, to try to merge the two sub-sections. If that's too much work for either one of you, you might tag it. I'm willing to give it a try, later (working on a cellphone now; quite inconvenient). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Decline of Buddhism due to Hindu persecution.

This article already has a subsection that illustrates the persecution of Budddhists by Islamic Dynasties. Why not create another one, detailing the persection of Buddhists by Hindu dynasties ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhiupasaka (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decline_of_Buddhism_in_the_Indian_subcontinent/Archive_1&oldid=1151885288"