Your basic point is wrong. You are saying as though Hinduism and Buddhism were fighting with each other, which is totally false. Buddhism was considered to be a part of Hinduism. It was never seen as a threat.
Only politicians like Ambedkar started projecting as though they were different.
In ancient India, there were only intellectual debates between Buddhist and Hindu philosophies. They were similar to a great extent and differed only a little.
"Buddhism and Jainism were alternatives to brahmanism (read hinduism)."
This is your ignorance.
The problem with you (and others like you) is you are anti-Brahmin. That is the reason for your biased thinking.
In one of the mesages here, you also wrote about "Brahmins' supremacy over the masses".
Brahmins never had any supremacy over the masses.
According to the varna system, Brahmins lived a life dedicated to spiritual pursuits and service of God. They were not allowed to amass any wealth. They are supposed to live like beggars with limited means.
Throughout the history, most of the Brahmins (there will always be exceptions) lived a frugal life. Even when kings donated land and money to them, either they gave it away in charity to other caste or donated that to temples, so that it will be sueful to the entire community.
Brahmins may have been arrogant due to their knowledge, but they were never "powerful". They were the least powerless among the varnas.
You know very little about Brahmins, for that matter, about the four varnas. But you keep commenting on that.
Yet another point is: caste by birth is a recent phenomenon.
According to the original varna system, "janmanaa jaayathe sudrah", which means that everyone is a sudra by birth.
Lord Krishna too says in Gita, "chaathur varnam mayaa srushtam guna karma vibhaagasah", which means that the four varnas were created on the basis of guna and karma, not on the basis of birth. Some ignorant people translate "karma" as profession or occupation, but nowhere in the Gita, krishna talks about any professional duties. "karma" means action, and it is classified as selfish and slefless actions, to put it simply. So, a person belongs to one of the varnas on the basis of his qualities and the type of actions he performs. Varna does not come by birth.
When barbarians after barbarians started plundering the country, these structures that were there were destroyed by them. Sometime during these invasions, murders and rapes, everything degenerated and people started following caste by birth.
What I want to say is don't just accuse Brahmins for everything. They were the most powerless people all along. But they were respected for their knowledge.
People see the Brahmins of the last two or more centuries and form their opinions about ancient Brahmins and Indians. You are bound to be wrong.
RE:Persecution
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 05:10 PM Permalink
brahmins were always at the back of kings who usually kshatriyas. They always side with powerful kings to dominate the society. In the name of beggars and priests they exploited the public wealth. In trvancore kingdom 7.5% of the govt. expense was for maintaining ootupuras, places where brahmins were fed.
RE:Persecution
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 04:42 PM Permalink
The persecution of Buddhists was started by the Brahmins long time back. The authority of Brahmins over the masses was tremendous. Masses following Buddhist tenets was a great danger to Brahmin supremacy. They had tried to sabotage Buddhist sangha and Asoka had to drive away sixty thousands of fake bhikus. Real persecution of Buddhists had started at the time of Pushyamitra Shunga, who burnt monasteries and killed many monks.
Persecution by Mihirgula was so horrible, that he was declared by Brahmins to be an avatar of "Kalanki", the tenth avatar of Vishnu, which now they say is yet to come. He built big temples for the benefit of Brahmins and wiped out all Buddhist monasteries.
All this had happened before the Brahmins brought in the Rajputs. But there was some life left in Buddhism, the religion of masses. This was wiped out during the Rajput period. this period was the "Dark Age" of India. Mentioning about this period, Swami Dharmateertha rightly observes:
"But so long as India had at least a glimmer of national life and freedom, she made incessant efforts to assert her self-respect and thwart Brahman tyranny and it was only when the country ultimately fell a victim into the hands of foreigners the Buddhism was crushed to death and Brahmanism spread its fangs over the prostrate people.
If you are trying to project as though Buddhism declined because of Hindus or Hindus persecuted Buddhism, you are totally wrong.
A couple of Hindus were definitely anti-Buddhist, but many other kings encouraged and spread Buddhism (inclusding Ashoka).
Hindus never considered in the past or present as though they were opposed to Buddhism. In fact, Hindus can never oppose any religion, leave alone Buddhism. Because the basic thought in Hindus is that God can be worshipped in several forms and in several ways.
Even if Buddhism preached a diametrically opposite philosophy, Hindus would still welcome it, because Hindus believe that there can not be one single definition of God. Tolerance is inbuilt into our religion.
RE:Persecution
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 05:06 PM Permalink
I am talking about history. You are talking what you think. Again hindus, I mean common people, never opposed any religion but it is brahmins self-styled authors of hinduism made kings as puppets to persecute buddhists and jains. Ashoka patronized buddhism but later on brahmins could find kjngs who can dance to their tune. Read Indian history before muslim invasion from available sources you may get some wisdom.
RE:Persecution
by Nanchil on Mar 13, 2008 04:40 PM Permalink
Formerly a feudatory of Chalukya, Dantidurga was the founder of Rastrakuta dynasty, a strong, aggresive and militant supporter of Brahmanism. Cave XV at Ellora called Dasavtara, which has a long undated inscription of Dantidurga carved on its entrance, was originally a Buddhist Vihara, which was converted to Brrahmanic Temple, by chiseling out Buddhist images. [Yazdani: 1960: 731]
