Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Ancient Buddhist monastery found in Afghanistan

JasonJason God EmperorArrakis Moderator
edited December 2010 in Buddhism Today
Wow, has anybody seen this story in the Guardian? I'm not sure that the temple is actually 2,600 years old, but still, it's a pretty impressive discovery. Too bad they're going to eventually raze the site to mine for copper. Hopefully they'll be able to salvage a lot of it.

Comments

  • edited November 2010
    one part of me wants all the buddhas to die, the other part of me wants all the copper-crazy capitalists to die too, another part of me is just bored
  • edited November 2010
    You're a strange sad little man. :lol:
  • edited November 2010
    Jason wrote: »
    Wow, has anybody seen this story in the Guardian? I'm not sure that the temple is actually 2,600 years old, but still, it's a pretty impressive discovery. Too bad they're going to eventually raze the site to mine for copper. Hopefully they'll be able to salvage a lot of it.

    I think they might have to, the people are starving. I hope it never has to come to that, but if necessary for the people's happiness it must be done, we shouldn't get too upset about it. :o They need to live and surviving off copper is better than selling drugs. Afghan people have little resources they can thrive on, and the war makes only selling poppies for drugs a good option. If they can survive better I hope they do what is right. I just think keeping the temple intact can serve as a good tourist attraction, but with the war going on we cannot expect people to protect the building.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Experience says that China will ship in foreign workers, set up isolated camps, and the locals will continue to starve. Without the rule of law, rich government officials will get richer. The locals will actually come out worse off, since an important source of revenue for them, digging up artifacts and selling them on the black market, will be gone.

    At least the black market trade rescued a few works of ancient art. If the Taliban had their way, it would have all been bulldozed, anyway. So now the bulldozers are in the name of capitalism, so there are no villians in the picture. Just progress.

    It's a strange world out there.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited November 2010
    Cinorjer wrote: »
    Experience says that China will ship in foreign workers, set up isolated camps, and the locals will continue to starve. Without the rule of law, rich government officials will get richer. The locals will actually come out worse off, since an important source of revenue for them, digging up artifacts and selling them on the black market, will be gone.

    At least the black market trade rescued a few works of ancient art. If the Taliban had their way, it would have all been bulldozed, anyway. So now the bulldozers are in the name of capitalism, so there are no villians in the picture. Just progress.

    It's a strange world out there.

    Sadly, I agree. It's a strange world indeed.
  • NirvanaNirvana aka BUBBA   `     `   South Carolina, USA Veteran
    edited November 2010
    I more or less agree, too, and am also saddened. However, I think these some of these treasures need to be gotten out of that country, considering how "iconoblastic," to coin a word, the Taliban and their ilk is. (Iconoclastic is too weak.)
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited November 2010
    How about "crazier than a hootie-owl?"

    It's interesting that Afghanistan was one of the early centers of Buddhism. In fact, three ancient Theravadan schools had their bases in Afghanistan. What's also interesting is that when Islam came in they didn't go around chopping off all the Buddhists' heads. They actually lived in peace for hundreds of years, and Buddhism just sort of faded away. I guess the Muslims were a bit more liberal in those days...

    Palzang
  • StaticToyboxStaticToybox Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Palzang wrote: »
    How about "crazier than a hootie-owl?"

    It's interesting that Afghanistan was one of the early centers of Buddhism. In fact, three ancient Theravadan schools had their bases in Afghanistan. What's also interesting is that when Islam came in they didn't go around chopping off all the Buddhists' heads. They actually lived in peace for hundreds of years, and Buddhism just sort of faded away. I guess the Muslims were a bit more liberal in those days...

    Palzang

    More often than not it turns out that the founders/early practitioners of religions are more tolerant, more liberal, than their later followers.
  • conradcookconradcook Veteran
    edited November 2010
    What's also interesting is that when Islam came in they didn't go around chopping off all the Buddhists' heads. They actually lived in peace for hundreds of years, and Buddhism just sort of faded away.

    Do you know, were they united in opposition to Hinduism?

    Buddha bless,

    Conrad.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited November 2010
    conradcook wrote: »
    Do you know, were they united in opposition to Hinduism?

    Buddha bless,

    Conrad.

    I'm far from an expert on the Middle East, but what I've read seems to indicate that Islam was already in its militant stage when it swept through what is now called Afghanistan, and the Buddhists and Hindu and whatever other religions were already in the area got trampled pretty hard and fast as various warlords and empires turned it into a battlefield for the next thousand years. I think there was even a Christian warlord at one time from Georgia.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited November 2010
    To my knowledge, there is no history of Hinduism in Afghanistan. You have to remember that Hinduism is a fairly recent thing. When the Buddha lived there was nothing called "Hinduism". There were the Vedas and the caste system, but nothing organized as Hinduism. That came later and never moved into Afghanistan to my knowledge. It was transplanted to Indonesia, but that's the other direction.

    Afghanistan was a predominantly Buddhist country before the Muslims came in. Yes, there were bloody wars fought by Muslim armies where Buddhists died, but they weren't targeting Buddhists per se. They were just there, like everybody else in the country, and when the armies came through, they killed everybody in their path basically. But once the armies were gone and Islam was established, there was no conflict between Muslims and Buddhists. As I said, Buddhism just faded away as more and more people became attracted to Islam, for whatever reason.

    Palzang
  • conradcookconradcook Veteran
    edited November 2010
    This is very interesting to me. I'll have to read about it when I have time.

    Can you tell me, during the timeframe that this happened, had Islamic law been established?

    Buddha bless,

    Conrad.
  • TandaTanda Explorer
    edited November 2010
    There were the Vedas and the caste system, but nothing organized as Hinduism. That came later
    Even now there is no such thing as' Hinduism', let alone an 'organised' thing.

    There was a land that was called as BHARAT in all the ancient literature. People of this land had sevaral streams of thinking; there were believers,non believers and enquirers, with both die hard and regular types in all these catogiries. These streams of thought flourished, evolved, adapted and they are so even to this day. In fact there are diametrically opposing philosophies, for example, Adi Sankara's Advaita and Madhwacharya's Dwiata are irreconcilable.

    Even Bhagavat Geeta, the most revered and most discoursed literature, states that there are various paths,all leading to the same destination. Gnana Yoga, the path of knowledge appears to me as having some similarities to Buddhist 'observation-inference- understanding- liberation' technique. But it also teaches 'Bhakti Yoga' the path of devotion, surrendering to the Lord, which reminds of taking refuge in Buddha.

    In fact Advaita seems to have been heavily influenced by Buddhist thinking.

    Current thinking also has absorbed something from religions. You can see 'Hindus' visiting Velankanni shrine of Christians or Ajmer Dargah of Muslims without any sense of conflict. I too have no problem in exploring the Buddhist path, despite 'calling' myself a "Hindu".

    So it has never been an 'organised' thing. The word 'Hindusim' must have been coined by the British who saw a common thread in the warp and woof of the all encompassing cultural fabric that has come to be called as India. The word Hindu and Hinduism have come to be freely used in both politics and law and of course society. Such usage is never opposed for the same reason: nothing is organised.

    If you ask the Indian government to show legal definition of Hindu or Hinduism as per the Constitution of India or any other Indian law you will get --let me borrow internet parlance- you will get a zero sized reply.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited November 2010
    conradcook wrote: »
    This is very interesting to me. I'll have to read about it when I have time.

    Can you tell me, during the timeframe that this happened, had Islamic law been established?

    Buddha bless,

    Conrad.

    No idea.
  • PalzangPalzang Veteran
    edited November 2010
    Tanda wrote: »
    Even now there is no such thing as' Hinduism', let alone an 'organised' thing.

    There was a land that was called as BHARAT in all the ancient literature. People of this land had sevaral streams of thinking; there were believers,non believers and enquirers, with both die hard and regular types in all these catogiries. These streams of thought flourished, evolved, adapted and they are so even to this day. In fact there are diametrically opposing philosophies, for example, Adi Sankara's Advaita and Madhwacharya's Dwiata are irreconcilable.

    Even Bhagavat Geeta, the most revered and most discoursed literature, states that there are various paths,all leading to the same destination. Gnana Yoga, the path of knowledge appears to me as having some similarities to Buddhist 'observation-inference- understanding- liberation' technique. But it also teaches 'Bhakti Yoga' the path of devotion, surrendering to the Lord, which reminds of taking refuge in Buddha.

    In fact Advaita seems to have been heavily influenced by Buddhist thinking.

    Current thinking also has absorbed something from religions. You can see 'Hindus' visiting Velankanni shrine of Christians or Ajmer Dargah of Muslims without any sense of conflict. I too have no problem in exploring the Buddhist path, despite 'calling' myself a "Hindu".

    So it has never been an 'organised' thing. The word 'Hindusim' must have been coined by the British who saw a common thread in the warp and woof of the all encompassing cultural fabric that has come to be called as India. The word Hindu and Hinduism have come to be freely used in both politics and law and of course society. Such usage is never opposed for the same reason: nothing is organised.

    If you ask the Indian government to show legal definition of Hindu or Hinduism as per the Constitution of India or any other Indian law you will get --let me borrow internet parlance- you will get a zero sized reply.

    Well, that is the crux of the problem actually. Hinduism is a nebulous concept that includes anything and everything. That is how Buddhism was absorbed until it no longer resembled Buddhism anymore in India.

    I am surprised that someone living in India would have no idea of the derivation of the word Hindu. You blame it on the British?! Hindu derives from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which derives from the Indus River. The Arabs referred to people living in India as al-Hind, which means the people who live across the Indus. Later the land was called Hindustan, the land of the Hindus. It was only later that it became to be used for the Vedic religion of India. Nothing at all to do with the British.

    Palzang
  • edited November 2010
    Palzang wrote: »
    How about "crazier than a hootie-owl?"

    It's interesting that Afghanistan was one of the early centers of Buddhism. In fact, three ancient Theravadan schools had their bases in Afghanistan. What's also interesting is that when Islam came in they didn't go around chopping off all the Buddhists' heads. They actually lived in peace for hundreds of years, and Buddhism just sort of faded away. I guess the Muslims were a bit more liberal in those days...

    Palzang
    Simply moron-buddhist's perception :hiding:, Buddhists then knew Islam religion is the same as Buddhism and love them more than Muslim love themselves. Therefore, peace prevailed in those days :cheer:
  • TandaTanda Explorer
    edited December 2010
    Well, that is the crux of the problem actually. Hinduism is a nebulous concept

    The real problem is somehow the label HINDUISM has come to stay and mean heterogeneous and often contradicting streams of thought. When you agree that there is no such thing as HINDUISM except as a arbitrary concept in arguers' mind, the nebulousness ceases t exist.
    Nothing at all to do with the British

    I am citing from: http://stephen-knapp.com/about_the_name_Hindu.htm
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The real confusion started when the name “Hinduism” was used to indicate the religion of the Indian people. The words “Hindu” and “Hinduism” were used frequently by the British with the effect of focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and the people who became known as “Hindus”.[/FONT]

    Anyway these differences are not the core issues. I meant to say HINDUISM is not, has never been an organised thing.
    how Buddhism was absorbed
    .

    Not sure. My personal theory is that Buddhism challenged the local tenets while depending on the locals for food and robes and shelter. Economically unsustainable scheme. Jainism,almost contemporary religion survives even today because they have chosen trading as a mean of living and were economically self reliant.

    This is what is really bothering me. While Buddhist meditation has aroused my keen interest I am not able to reconcile it with the instincts and drive needed to live in this world and sustain yourself until your second foot is released from this world while attaining Nibbana
  • ShiftPlusOneShiftPlusOne Veteran
    edited December 2010
    Why is the issue of the term 'Hinduism' brought up again and again? Just because something was labelled by the Brits, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Maybe it has changed slightly, but it's still the most ancient and most persevered religion... that didn't change just because we have a new word for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.