From: bandi@mega.cs.umn.edu (Vijay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Debating (was Re: Babri Masjid, Hindus and Muslims)
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:44:49 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

(Vidhyarath K Rao) writes:

>In article <bandi.724882721@mega> bandi@mega.cs.umn.edu (Vijay) writes:
>>The ruins of hundreds of buddhist monasteries and 'stupas' tell a different
>>story altogeather.

>But you must still prove that they were destroyed deliberately, and not by
>neglect etc.

	You meen all of them? It is reasonble to assume that the structures
might have been abondoned for the lack of followers. But the point I made 
was that the statement in the original article was a bit 'holier than thou'
type. I said 'blanket statement', didn't I?

>In India itself, quarrying of old structures, ignoring the artistic and
>acheological value is well known and has happend to various kinds of unused
>structures.
see above; 

>>Adi Sankaracharya himself had some 'aramaa's demolished and the monks
>>executed after winning a prologed theological debate with them.

>There are some relevant comments from the Brahmanas, Upanishads etc:

	Yeah, losers were *expected* to become disciples, etc..; But the
ideal is not always put into practice. I can concede that in many debates,
this was the case. Nevertheless, the winner + loser didnot always walked
away togeather and lived happily ever after.  And, look , it was an age
when boths faiths were at each others throats. So, persecution was not
very rare to begin with. 

	I keep saying that the acts do not stand out perticularly cruel
vis-a-vis the times and practices of the era. But if u want to justify
the act r deny that they didnot happen, I'm sorry, you cornered yourself.
This applies to the following well written para, but missing the point.

	So, finally lets clarify it all:
i) You made some comments in the original article.
ii) I pointed out that a statement is not completely true ( and said
why I thought so )
	And, saying that the actions are dependent on the soocio-political
environment charecterized by the era or the time frame, I ended the
article with some hopeful phylosophy.

iii) You posted what the practices are *ought* to be. And also, said that
	this is the way in a lot of cases.

iv) I am saying that this is not so, and there fore a blanket statement
	is unwarrented. 

	Finally, if u say that history of our country  is one big, happy
lullaby in those times , I would have to disagree with you. Also, let me
assure you that it is not finger-pointing. Both sides did it.
	And for the spread of budhism ( or lack thereof) in india: Budhism
in indian context was always dependent on the political patronage. The kings
would take it up first and the general populace would follow. And, the
demise of buthism in india is attributed to the lack of the imperial
and later chota-kings' support. The violent incidents we were talking
				-------------------------------------
about were merely side-kicks in the over all phenomenon. This, of course
--------------------------------------------------------
is valid only for 'mahayana' budhism. tantrik budhism stayed around for
a lot longer.
	
>I have no idea of when this practice stopped. Shankara is depicted to won
>debates with others who became Shankara's disciple (I can't think of the
>names right now. The most famous was the proponent of Purva Mimamsa.)
>Buddha is also said to hav defeated some vedic brahmans who then became his
>disciples (One name mentioned is Vashista, with long a, meaning descendent of
>Vashista, with short a).

>-- 
>Vidhyanath Rao			It is the man, not the method, that solves
>nathrao+@osu.edu		the problem. - Henri Poincare
>(614)-366-9341			[as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian