Talk:History of Buddhism in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee History of Buddhism in India was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
April 15, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

sources[edit]

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) THERE was a rich man who found his gold suddenly transformed into ashes; and he took to his bed and refused all food. A friend, hearing of his sickness, visited the rich man and learned the cause of his grief. And the friend said: "Thou didst not make good use of thy wealth. When thou didst hoard it up it was not better than ashes. Now heed my advice. Spread mats in the bazaar; pile up these ashes, and pretend to trade with them." The rich man did as his friend had told him, and when his neighbors asked him, "Why sellest thou ashes?" he said: "I offer my goods for sale."

After some time a young girl, named Kisa Gotami, an orphan and very poor, passed by, and seeing the rich man in the bazaar, said: "My lord, why pilest thou thus up gold and silver for sale?" And the rich man said: "Wilt thou please hand me that gold and silver?" And Kisa Gotami took up a handful of ashes, and lo! they changed back into gold. Considering that Kisa Gotami had the mental eye of spiritual knowledge and saw the real worth of things, the rich man gave her in marriage to his son, and he said: "With many, gold is no better than ashes, but with Kisa Gotami ashes become pure gold."

And Kisa Gotami had an only son, and he died. In her grief she carried the dead child to all her neighbors, asking them for medicine, and the people said: "She has lost her senses. The boy is dead. At length Kisa Gotami met a man who replied to her request: "I cannot give thee medicine for thy child, but I know a physician who can." The girl said: "Pray tell me, sir; who is it?" And the man replied: "Go to Sakyamuni, the Buddha."

Kisa Gotami repaired to the Buddha and cried: "Lord and Master, give me the medicine that will cure my boy." The Buddha answered: "I want a handful of mustard-seed." And when the girl in her joy promised to procure it, the Buddha added: "The mustard-seed must be taken from a house where no one has lost a child, husband, parent, or friend." Poor Kisa Gotami now went from house to house, and the people pitied her and said: "Here is mustard-seed; take it!" But when she asked Did a son or daughter, a father or mother, die in your family?" They answered her: "Alas the living are few, but the dead are many. Do not remind us of our deepest grief." And there was no house but some beloved one had died in it.

Kisa Gotami became weary and hopeless, and sat down at the wayside, watching the lights of the city, as they flickered up and were extinguished again. At last the darkness of the night reigned everywhere. And she considered the fate of men, that their lives flicker up and are extinguished. And she thought to herself: "How selfish am I in my grief! Death is common to all; yet in this valley of desolation there is a path that leads him to immortality who has surrendered all selfishness."

Putting away the selfishness of her affection for her child, Kisa Gotami had the dead body buried in the forest. Returning to the Buddha, she took refuge in him and found comfort in the Dharma, which is a balm that will soothe all the pains of our troubled hearts.

The Buddha said: "The life of mortals in this world is troubled and brief and combined with pain. For there is not any means by which those that have been born can avoid dying; after reaching old age there is death; of such a nature are living beings. As ripe fruits are early in danger of falling, so mortals when born are always in danger of death. As all earthen vessels made by the potter end in being broken, so is the life of mortals. Both young and adult, both those who are fools and those who are wise, all fall into the power of death; all are subject to death.

"Of those who, overcome by death, depart from life, a father cannot save his son, nor kinsmen their relations. Mark I while relatives are looking on and lamenting deeply, one by one mortals are carried off, like an ox that is led to the slaughter. So the world is afflicted with death and decay, therefore the wise do not grieve, knowing the terms of the world. In whatever manner people think a thing will come to pass, it is often different when it happens, and great is the disappointment; see, such are the terms of the world.

"Not from weeping nor from grieving will any one obtain peace of mind; on the contrary, his pain will be the greater and his body will suffer. He will make himself sick and pale, yet the dead are not saved by his lamentation. People pass away, and their fate after death will be according to their deeds. If a man live a hundred years, or even more, he will at last be separated from the company of his relatives, and leave the life of this world. He who seeks peace should draw out the arrow of lamentation, and complaint, and grief. He who has drawn out the arrow and has become composed will obtain peace of mind; he who has overcome all sorrow will become free from sorrow, and be blessed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.186.246 (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2010 (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 ::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)
I see,
My response
1) Daniel Pipes is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum and Campus Watch, a former member of the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and a regular columnist for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem Post. He contributes regularly to David Horowitz's online publication FrontPageMag.com, and has had his work published by many newspapers across North America, including the Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal. He is frequently invited to discuss the Middle East on American network television, as well as by universities and think tanks, has appeared on the BBC and Al Jazeera, and has lectured in 25 countries. I have yet to find a more mainstream source than Pipes in this article.
2)The article mentions Ambedekar's opinion and even goes on to quote him. He is one of the pivotal figures in Buddhist history of South Asia and his opinion has enough weightage to find a mention here.
3) In response to There is no "battling" on my part I would put forward these diffs, in which you blanked material and then invited me to talk.
Phillip Rosenthal 12:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
1) I never said Daniel Pipes is not notable. He is indeed all over the popular press and involved in all sorts of political movements and is such quite a public figure. He was a well-documented bias rooted in Israel-Palestine issue among others, which is indeed the focus of Campuswatch (some have called it a McCarthyesque blacklist). We could go on about this, but to put it simply if this is going to be GA nominee it needs to draw from more academic sources. He is not the best of source under [Wp:rs#Aspects_of_reliability]. I am not here to expunge the impact of Muslim conquests upon Buddhism. The the same information can be drawn from more reliable and impartial sources with a more holistic approach to the narrative. To quote him for his own self-declared bias from the same book "Just as fascism was the ultimate enemy in World War II and communism was the ultimate enemy during the cold war, so militant Islam is the ultimate enemy in the war on terrorism." His preface to the 2002 version of the same book acknowledges just how different his analysis is from contemporary views "How has the book stood up since its original publication in 1983?... No subsequent analysis of Islam in history has remotely the same outlook or conclusions as this one;" Furthermore the quote "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." is too sweeping a generalization, it does not differentiate in anyway between the Muslim rulers in India vs. those elsewhere among other problems.
2) Ambedkar's view while mired in the peculiar politics of caste, communalism and partition is indeed extermely notable for its influence and would be appropriate if moved to the section a little further along where he is talked about. Same goes for the Mahabodhi quotes, infact reference 15 even ascribes the stances to one based on communal tensions.
3) The diff was labeled moved for discussion. It is not the same as blanking. Anyhow, it seems to be based on a different reading of protocol, lets cool heads and move a discussion along.--Tigeroo 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

===Re:sources===--Tigeroo 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would favour retaining Ambedekar's views in the decline section as he is perhaps the most notable reformer in the recent history of Buddhism in South Asia. The mention of the revivalist opinion is especially valuable when a precise quote is at hand, as is the case here.

Other sources that deal directly with the role of military force other means during the spread of Islam in South Asia are given below. Some of these deal directly with Buddhism.

1) Wink, Andre (July 2002) "Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries (Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World)." Brill Academic Publishers.

The temples, with their incumbent images, rather than being turned into mosques directly, most often appear to have been destroyed, after their portable wealth was taken, and then replaced with mosques or muslim shrines built from the rubble.

On the first discovery, temples and icons would immidiately be stripped of their valuable parts, gold or red gold, silver, precious stones, the eyes made of jewels picked out first. Temples were destroyed with nafta and fire (nafta wa-l-diram), and with the aid of elephants. The greatest statues, like the one at Somnath, which was almost five meters in height, were first mutilated by the sultan himself with a mace, and then destroyed -- like any temple -- by lighting fire around it so it would burst into pieces.

2) Eaton, Richard M. The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1993 1993.

The oldest theory of Islamization in India, which I shall call the Religion of the Sword thesis, stresses the role of military force in the diffusion of Islam in India and elsewhere.

In the Begumpur mosque in Delhi (ca. 1343). Clues to the circumstances surrounding the construction (or restoration) of the mosque are found in its dedicatory inscription:

Zafar Khan, the lion of lions, has appeared
By conquering the towns of India in every expedition, and by restoring the decayed charitable institutions.
And he has destroyed the obdurate among infidels with his sword and spear, and lavished the treasures of his wealth in (helping) the miserable.

Zafar Khan’s claims to have destroyed “the obdurate among infidels” gains some credence from the mosque’s inscription tablet, itself carved from materials of old ruined Hindu temples, while the mutilated figures of Hindu deities are found in the stone used in the monument proper.

3) George F. Nafziger and Mark W. Walton(August 30, 2003). "Islam at War: A History" . Praeger Publishers (August 30, 2003).

Aurangzeb reimposed on the newly ordained dhimmis the hated jiyza that his predecessor Akbar the Great has wisely abolished early in his reign. The ruler's aim was to curb the infidels and demonstrate the distinction between the Dar ul-Islam (the land of Islam) and the Dar ul-Harb (The land of warfare and infidels). With that decision he brought warfare to the Dar ul-Harb to make the distinction clear for all to behold.

Concurrent with the war on Hinduism, the muslim invaders of India waged war against the Buddhists.

4) Levy, Robert I. Mesocosm: Hinduism and the Organization of a Traditional Newar City in Nepal. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1990 1990.

It was, of course, Islam that was the particular variant of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world revolution which made the first great iconoclastic invasion into South Asia, one of its furthest raids touching Bhaktapur itself in the fourteenth century.

5) Getting To Know Buddhism (Sunthorn Plamintr, Ph.D)

With the Moslem invasion of Sind in 710 AD, and especially when they gained more control over India in the 11th and 12th centuries, Buddhism suffered a great loss at the hands of Moslem fanatics. Buddhist monks were killed by the thousands, people were forced en masse to embrace Islam, and Buddhist monasteries were destroyed.

I am of the opinion that the sources as they stand now in the article are just fine and the section can do without an expansion of the muslim invasion.

Regards,

Phillip Rosenthal 10:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am quite familiar with the works of Wink/ Eaton and numerous others. All of them do talk about looting, raiding, iconoclasm, jizya etc. circumstances varied by age and ruler. Yet they also add that it was limited to opponents encountered during war and not carried out over those who were already subjects. I agree with the issues, but none of them lay it down to the decline of Buddhism. Just go back and read the conclusions of those books if you want to verify. Infact they lay the spread of Islam to multiple factors such as a prolonged process over centuries due more to economic reasons of joining the global Islamic trade-network, syncretic prolestyzation of Sufi's, that it was generally an urban phenomenon etc. etc. Like you notice Eaton say the "oldest", he in-fact talks of three distinct theories before offering his own in that book. They all talk about a general detheoficization of the ruling regimes. All this is covered without getting into the "debate of the details" by the sentence "A continuing decline occurred after the fall of the Pala dynasty in the 12th century CE, continuing with the later destruction of monasteries by Muslim conquerors[12] and their attempts to convert the region to Islam.[13]" The Daniel Pipes sentence is wrong, because if stands then it is concommitant that other POV on the theories of Islamization also be also gotten into. I don't think we want to do this in this articl. Similary I wouldn't mind leaving in the other two sentence eithers but then they must also paint a bigger picture, because both the Maha Bodhi and Ambedkar laid a huge deal of grief on hinduism, the caste system and Brahmis in particular as well, and as reference [15] points out their views were based on political-social dynamics of the time. This is much more easily done in the revival section, though it could also works well as it is if their opinions on the decline were more comepletely mentioned. The very next section is about revivalists anyway.
Summary of my Intent: Generally I think right now only one theory of Islamization is being used to account for Islam's impact on the decline of Buddhism in this section. Instead I beleive that for the scope of this section it only requisite that for this article and section we only mention that Islamization was a factor and let the sub-article explore the details. I didn't really want to expand this section much in this article to address POV balancing issues that I see with it, but maybe a couple of sentences are in order. Ofcourse the other problem with this approach is also that none of this will be specific to the Buddhist experience.--Tigeroo 16:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
These sources seem quite good, and perhaps we should let them speak for themselves in this article. Arrow740 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have done some minor expansion using a few academic sources. Phillip Rosenthal 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Made a minor expansion myself with some context and moved your addition into the narrative flow.--Tigeroo 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Failing GA[edit]

I am removing this article from the GA candidates page for the following reasons:

  • Lead is too short. See WP:LEAD.
  • Inconsistent dating (mixture of Christian and secularized dating systems). The 12th century probably does not need a date suffix.
  • Poor formatting. The pictures leave large white spaces, and several of the subsections are very, very short. Many of the paragraphs should probably be combined for better flow. The terms being explained by bullet points should be highlighted.
  • Mahayana's and Vajrayana's See Also links need to be standardized.
  • Some of the text needs copyediting; there are spelling and punctuation errors, and some sentences are short and awkward.
  • Further sourcing needed for why Hinayana is controversial, S. N. Goenka's statement, the early history sections, etc.
  • There are POV problems with this page, for instance in the "decline of Buddhism" section, and I'm not surprised to find that the main article is currently under mediation. The conversation being held on this page is evidence of its current instability, which makes it ineligible for GA status until the POV problems can be sorted out.

Chubbles 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the very insightful review, I'll take steps to enforce those recommendations. Phillip Rosenthal 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Rosenthal[edit]

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 00:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy[edit]

There's a fair amount of suspicious material here: what I suspect is out-of-date scholarship or just legend. I've corrected a few points, but it could do with looking at by people with differentareas of expertise. Peter jackson 10:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Vajrayana section was somewhat degrading and uninformed. I changed the date from 7th to 4th century AD to conform to the main article on Vajrayana. Also the claim that Vajrayana was merely a mix of Buddhism and local popular practices was quite inaccurate. I corrected that to show how Vajrayana came from the forest meditation traditions (which are at least as equally valid and old as any monastic tradition). Furthermore, the remaining description of Vajrayana is still unsatisfactory and in need of attention. Dutaguna 01:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?[edit]

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Please give more complete information about footnotes 3, 4, and 5. The information doesn't seem right. Mitsube (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. No rationale provided for move and need for move is not self-evident.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


History of Buddhism in IndiaBuddhism in India — 19:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.155.97 (talkcontribs)

Question Why do you think it should moved to Buddhism in India?--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 19:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inappropriate Photograph[edit]

Buddhism is a religion which does not command, simply guides an individual on the path to righteousness. There is no 'God' to be worshipped in Buddhism. The idea of 'puja' is of Hinduism, where it is believed that worshipping an idol of what symbolises God will bring them peace. Why then is a picture inappropriately tagged to be of Buddhists performing puja at the Ellora caves when they are just sitting to acknowledge The Buddha's idea of Nirvana? Most Indian Buddhists will agree with me because we do not worship the Buddha. We simply revere him, and vow to try to come one more step closer to becoming better people, as suggested by the Buddha. Please consider this view and someone tag the photograph accordingly or simply change the picture. I'll wait of a few days and do it myself if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amey ambade (talkcontribs) 09:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this some kinda of jokes?[edit]

"hindus continued to absorb Buddhist practices and teachings, such as Ahiṃsā and the renunciation of the material world."

Whoever wrote that should be ashamed!! Krishna in the gita talks about The "giving up material objects" and "Material temporary pleasures" so this statement above is nothing more then false claims!

I will be removing that passage as it is very offensive and a crude notion to say a older scriptures such as the gita has some how copied the young Buddhas methods, if im correct buddha came to india to learn, he did not read his own buddhist scriptures to be enlightened.02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)82.38.160.13 (talk)Ved

No, probably not. Nice observation. And you are justified in removing this passage; it's unsourced. But the observation on Krishna is WO:OR. I've undone several of your edits, since they were not neutral c.q. not based on sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

not based on sources? You keep doing this out of spite and i've caught you out a few times now, i will be adding Buddhas characteristics involving his blue eyes and curly hair this week![edit]

I added on this page buddhas description which is found on Wikipedia, i stated he had blue eyes which was true so why did you take that out when even Wikipedia details this on The buddha page?

Buddhas text is part of indian history and as this page is about buddhism in india, i think its fine for me to place his characteristics mentioned in his indian pali scriptures.82.38.160.13 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Ved

@82.38.160.13: Please "avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence". See: good faith, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. JimRenge (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You have not answered the question[edit]

If i added to this page "Buddha characteristics" would it be removed, if so why?

This page talks about the history of Buddhism in India, We should be allowed and not suppressed on knowing what buddha looked like and what was "a Buddha stated characteristics", this neo-western controlled editing is just what the buddha hated!!

He hated the fact that the rich corrupted brahmins held information from the poor, thats why buddhism was created, it was to hand information OPENLY and publicly.

Children in school wish to draw images of the Buddha adding "a Buddhas characteristics", Blue eyes & curly hair so no excuse for not allowing this on this page82.38.160.13 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Veda

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Buddhism in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  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.)