Ashoka was Buddhist to start with,his greatness is a myth propagated by the extreme left distortions.
Mughals the golden age where they burnt down thousands of temples, libraries and universities. Plundered, looted, raped and took hundreds of thousands of sex slaves.
> While Borobodur is many things, it is not Hindu. The friezes on the site are stories from the life of the Buddha
Technically, the term "Hindu" as defined by the British just meant non-Muslim. In fact, it was the British who popularized the term Hindu in the first place since prior to British influence, there was no such religion, just a broad set of different religions such as Shivaism, Buddhism, Vishnuism and numerous others. In many places such as Assam, Buddha is revered by people who are labeled as Hindu.
Amazing that Greece and India were essentially neighbors for some 250 years. The indo-Greek king Menander became Buddhist before it was adopted by Ashoka.
Many Indians have folklore stories of Jesus visiting India and taking a mix of Buddhist literature, even early days Christianity believed in reincarnation until it was removed. And of course Buddhism took its roots from Hinduism
You are making a naive assumption here that there was no religion present in India before Buddha, and that after Buddha established his Dharma everyone should have abandoned their respective religions to take up Buddhism.
Ashoka converted to Buddhism and ruled almost the whole of the Indian subcontinent at one point. But that doesn't mean he converted all Hindus to Buddhist. Few Hindus may have converted, but 'land of Buddha' also happens to be the 'land of Sanatana Dharma' where there are several other deities people worshiped and traditions people practiced.
additionally this history is supported by the Ashoka stamba erected at the historical birth site of the Buddha in Kapilvastu, Nepal as well. you will find though a recently inaugurated Kapilvastu city in India, and one can speculate around why :)
Sure. I'll have to dig up the literature but I'd be happy to do so. Can you be more specific ?
If you are interested in investigating, It'd be illuminating to contrast the belief systems in Vedas and Puranas. (Rigveda and Puranas to be more specific. ) If my memory serves right, Narayana(Vishnu) was a minor diety in Rigveda whose only claim to fame was carrying Indra on his back to circumnavigate the universe 108 times. He gradually started gaining more prominence as time passed, as a benevolent and sophisticated alternative to replace the more belligerent/primitive Indra. By mid 15th century(I could be wrong), this process was complete, with Vishnu taking over Indra completely, as established in that Govardhanagiri tale where Indra was utterly humiliated by Krishna.
Coming to the claims on Buddhism, once again, examining the Rigvedic and post Rigvedic belief systems can help you hypothesize how things unravelled. (Replacement of Horse with Cow as the sacred animal, renouncement of non vegetarianism, incorporation of Tantric belief systems etc ) Destruction of Buddhist monasteries and massacring the monks is quite well documented too. Read about Pushyamitra Sunga for example.
While Borobodur is many things, it is not Hindu. The friezes on the site are stories from the life of the Buddha (and his past lives) and the monument itself is capped by a large number of Buddhist stupas.
The interactions between the Indian and Greek civilizations during the fourth century BCE and later have been quite well studied, and what the article describes is not surprising.
For some context, the emperor Ashoka, scion of the Maurya empire, consolidated various smaller republics into an empire that covered most of Afghanistan and North-West Pakistan of today. These areas bordered the regions that were controlled by the Greeks at the time. Ashoka's time was one of consolidation and relative peace, people were more mobile, trade and cultural exchange flourished.
This article [1] sheds a little more light on the story. In fact, the visual image & depictions of the Buddha had significant Greek influence, the first images of the Buddha apparently surfaced outside India centuries after his death. The common depiction with curly hair was most probably not what the historical Buddha looked like [2].
Aryabhatta to Bramhagupta were all pretty much Hindus. Jain or Buddhists might be distinct religions in modern political parlance but were generally considered from the same family of Hinduism.
Amazing. This is fantastic. I like reflecting on the fact that an ancient Greek kingdom used to border ancient India — and that a Greek king became Buddhist before Ashoka—and that Ashokan pillars had Greek written on them.
Sure, there's a lot of mathematical mysticism in India and I have seen this at Jain sites. However, the Buddha subject would suggest a Buddhist reference. My recollection is that Cambodian sites with bitraditional syncretism were periodically built out or converted between the two traditions - not constructed blended, ie. a Buddha figure would not be carved with a Hindu item.
"On the other hand, the Sri Lankan tradition suggests that Ashoka was already a devoted Buddhist by his 8th regnal year, converted to Buddhism during his 4th regnal year, and constructed 84,000 viharas during his 5th–7th regnal years.[89] The Buddhist legends make no mention of the Kalinga campaign.[91]
Based on Sri Lankan tradition, some scholars, such as Eggermont, believe Ashoka converted to Buddhism before the Kalinga war.[92] Critics of this theory argue that if Ashoka were already a Buddhist, he would not have waged the violent Kalinga War. Eggermont explains this anomaly by theorising that Ashoka had his own interpretation of the "Middle Way".[93]
Some earlier writers believed that Ashoka dramatically converted to Buddhism after seeing the suffering caused by the war since his Major Rock Edict 13 states that he became closer to the dhamma after the annexation of Kalinga.[91] However, even if Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the war, epigraphic evidence suggests that his conversion was a gradual process rather than a dramatic event.[91] For example, in a Minor Rock Edict issued during his 13th regnal year (five years after the Kalinga campaign), he states that he had been an upasaka (lay Buddhist) for more than two and a half years, but did not make much progress; in the past year, he was drawn closer to the sangha and became a more ardent follower.[91]"
On the contrary, Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism after Kalinga war is told in Ashoka's edicts, which I think is just too convenient. But then, Sri Lanka has had historical wars with Hindu kings from India, so that is there...
At the end, I should not have spoken so authoritative.
Other than his works, he was the prime minister in Maurya empire, credited with its rise. Maurya empire is considered to be one of the greatest Indian empires along with Guptas(known for progress in science, medicine) and Cholas(mercantile empire crossing oceans). It spread west upto present day Afghanistan at its peak. Maurya king Ashoka is quite famous because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka#Kalinga_war_and_convers...
Buddha considered himself very much a Hindu.
reply