Apologetics

Hindu desecration

  • False claim: Hindu kings desecrated temples with equal frequency too .. (Or the “rare idol abduction = frequent idol desecration” false equivalence.) [The same probably applies in the Mesopotamian case.]
  • Koenraad Elst’s Eaton rebuttal (LM).
    • “So, what is the “dominant pattern” in the sixteen remaining cases? As we saw in the case of the Lankan idols in Kanchipuram, the looted (or otherwise acquired) idols were respectfully installed in a temple in the conqueror’s seat of power, e.g., a solid image of Vishnu Vaikuntha, seized earlier by the Pratihara king Herambapala, “was seized from the Pratiaharas by the Candella king Yasovarman and installed in the Lakshamana temple of Khajuraho”. So, the worship of the image continued, albeit in a new location; and the worship of the old location was equally allowed to continue, albeit with a new idol as the old and prestigious one had been taken away. In both places, the existing system of worship was left intact.”
    • In fact, the movement of the gaNapati statue from vAtApI by the pallava king is well known (thanks in no small part to the karNAtaka sangIta song ). This movement of revered persons (maybe idols in your lingo) of worship from one place to another was not necessarily condemnable – certainly not the same way their breaking, use in latrines etc.. were/ are.
    • There is NO hindu text that glorifies movement of mUrti-s from one shrine to another (much less their destruction). By contrast, Islam does.

Example occurances

  • “In 642 A.D., according to local tradition, the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I looted the image of Ganesha from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi. Fifty years later armies of those same Chalukyas invaded north India and brought back to the Deccan what appear to be images of Ganga and Yamuna, looted from defeated powers there.” (Eaton)

Buddhist interchange

Repurposement

Buddhist temples were repurposed as Hindu temples and Hindu temples were repurposed as Buddhist temples (Bayon Temple, Preah Vihear, Angkor Wat, Vat Phou, etc.), but the goal was not to erase the other religious beliefs. When the Turks destroyed temples, they buried the idols under the courtyards of mosques so that the believers could trample over them.

Chola

massive gold statue of Buddha was looted and melted to gild a Shaiva temple!

Divyasuri Charitam (DC) was written at least 700 years after the said incident allegedly happened. DC is a hagiography which has made up stories, not a historical fact. What’s a historical fact: The cholas allowed a massive Vihara (Chudamani Vihara) to be built in the same Nagapattinam centuries after this alleged incident is said to have happened.

Maratha state and pre-state lords:

  • These are all notable exactly because they are exceptions. They were the actions of rouges, and by no means the policy or ideal of the marATha state (which were well enunciated in documents such as the AjnApatra and rAmadAsa’s letter to sambhAjI ).
  • paTTavardhana’s stealing of tirupati’s collections
  • murAri rao’s abduction of ahobilam’s idol.

shRngeri plunder

  • Plunder of shringeri under raghunAtha rAv associated with his brother parashurAma bhAu
  • The marATha chiefs, especially the peshva-s, had a long and strong reverential relationship with shRngeri guru-s [A history of Sringeri - Tonnemane, A K Shastry [SG]], so this was a rare unintentional blip.
  • Primary sources show that Parshuram bhau did not attack or oversee Sringeri - on the contrary some pindaris and ’lam(b)aans’ under his brother Raghunath rao attacked Shringeri. Particularly the attack on the maTha was in no way consented or condoned beforehand by even raghunAth rAv - as is clear from the 14 May letter of his son tryambaka rAv - rather the offenders were arrested as soon as the commander knew. … The Maratha polity was anguished over the act and efforts were on to compensate and appease the Swami for nearly a year after. In 1791, Tipu seemed to have changed his approach to temples and Brahmins when faced with an all round attack. Due to past excesses, Tipu’s vakeels were denied an audience by the Maratha chiefs in the run up to the siege of Srirangapatnam. The Maratha letter writers remark on Tipu’s acts as they were uncharacterisitic of him. [SW]

vIrashaiva-jaina rivalry

  • vIrashaivism is something of a counter-religion, denouncing the varNAshrama dharma, brAhmaNa practices and the veda-s.
  • Certain erstwhile jaina temples were taken over by vIrashaiva-s.
  • The literary output of the period shows continued poetic works from both sides.

ಎಪಿಗ್ರಾಫಿಯಾ ಇಂಡಿಯಾದ ಇಪ್ಪತ್ತನಾಲ್ಕನೆಯ ಸಂಪುಟದ 141-144 ಪುಟಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ದಾಖಲಾಗಿರುವ ಸಂಗತಿಯಿದು- ’ದಕ್ಷಿಣ ಭಾರತದ ರಾಜ ವೀರ ಗೊಗ್ಗಿದೇವ ತನ್ನನ್ನು ತಾನು ಜೈನ ಶಾಸನಗಳ ಪಾಲಿನ ಬೆಂಕಿ ಎಂದೂ, ಜಿನ ಅನುಯಾಯಿಗಳೆಂಬ ವನ್ಯಮೃಗಗಳ ಬೇಟೆಗಾರನೆಂದೂ, ಬೌದ್ಧ ಕಟ್ಟಳೆಗಳ ನೆಲಸಮಗಾರನೆಂದೂ’ ಬಣ್ಣಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾನೆ.

Takeovers

  • “Doddappa Temple at Adargunchi, Karnataka. Built sometime between 10th and 11th centuries, the temple today is fronted by a stone sculpture of the bull Nandi (Shiva’s vehicle) and houses a massive black stone statue of a Jina, placed alongside a Shiva linga” [DO17 - linked for the data not the narrative]
  • “Megudi temple was reused as a Virashaiva shrine sometime in the 12th century. Here the Jina idol was uprooted from garbagriha, smeared with sacred Virashaiva ash, and placed in the central aisle that now leads to the sanctum sanctorum housing the Shiva linga.”[DO17]
  • Mitigated
    • “Veerashaiva officer stamped Linga mark on the pillars of Vijaya Parshvanatha temple of Jains. A complaint was lodged with the Mandaleshwara who engaged his minister Krishnapayya to mitigate. A mediation held & it was resolved that Jainas will offer Vibhuti & betel-leafs to Veerashaivas & thus the Jainas can carry out their worship.” (Epi Carnatica Vol 5 Part 1 (Hasan dist) Pg 128)

Plausibility of hostile takeovers

  • Adayya, hero of the kannaDa somanAtha-chAritra by rAghavAnka (nephew and protege of the famous vIrashaiva poet harihara), vows to destroy a jaina structure before every breakfast. (RG) “Somanatha charitra, a propagandist work which describes the life of saint Somayya (or Adaiah) of Puligere, his humiliation after being lured by the charms of a Jain girl, and his achievement of successfully converting a Jain temple into a Shiva temple.”
  • “Basava Purana, a long hagiography dedicated to Basava narrates that not only did he successfully plot a regicide, but also sanctified violence against Jains, in rather gruesome ways such as putting “a sharp spear on the skulls of Jains”."[DO17]
  • Discussions: FB.
    • There is some plausible speculation of Hindu-s taking over and re-purposing Jain temples. If temples were converted, I’d think that it’s probably because the original patrons abandoned it or became extinct in the area. That’s about as good as anything to account for the facts in most cases. That one prefers the “shoot kill destroy” narrative points to an unfortunate difference in perspective.

Shared use in some places

  • “Several syncretic examples exist such as the temple at Kagvad, Karnataka, where both the Virashaivas and the Jains worship side by side. When the Virashaivas appropriated the temple of Kagvad they took the ground floor and lined up all the Jina statues on a stepped pedestal at the centre of the temple. The Jina statues were consecrated to Virashaivism this time by dabbing sandalwood paste on to the statues. Unlike the other two examples, no Shiva linga or Nandi sculpture was constructed at the Kagvad temple. Instead, the Jina idols are framed in tiny metal trishula (trident, weapon of Shiva) symbolising Shiva. Thus, the ground floor is today full of Virashaiva worshippers venerating Jina idols encased in trident frames, while the first and second floors houses Jain worshippers.” [DO17]

jaina-vaiShNava-rivalry

An interesting incident involving Srivaishnavas and Jains is recorded in the inscriptions in the Jain basadis in Karnataka. During the reign of King Bukka Raya (1368 AD) a dispute arose between Jains and Bhaktas with regard to the Jains using their five great musical instruments and kalasa. When the Jains represented the matter to the king , he entrusted the protection of the Jains to the Vaishnavas. He decreed that Srivaishnavas of the eighteen naadus or districts including the Acharyas of Srirangam, Tirumala, Kanchipuram and Melkote were responsible for protection of the Jains and their faith. The King also decreed thus: “The Jain creed is, as before, entitled to the five great musical instruments and the kalasa or vase. Any loss or benefit to the Jain creed should be looked upon by the Sri Vaishnavas as loss or gain to their own creed. The Srivaishnavas will to this effect kindly set up a shaasana or inscription in all the Jain basadis of the kingdom. For as long as the sun and moon endure, the Vaishnava creed will continue to protect the Jain creed. Tatayya of Tirumala, will, out of the money levied from every Jain house throughout the kingdom, appoint twenty servants as bodyguards for the God at Belagola and repair ruined Jina temples. He who transgresses this decree shall be a traitor to the king, a traitor to the sanga and the samudaya.”

This inscription is found in three Jain bastis of Karnataka according to Epigraphica Karnatica Vol.II (475/ 344) .

University destruction

  • False claim: “Non-muslim rulers destroyed centers of bhAratIya learning with comparable frequency and intensity.”
  • Observe Koenraad Elst’s note on “Negationism in Indian History” - esp. the section “2.7 THE NEGATIONISTS’ SECOND FRONT”. [video] Also Sitaram Goel here [ch3].
  • In the rare cases where kings from a dhArmika background did plunder religious and educational institutions, they did not explicitly desecrate them. (KE: “There is no known case of a Muslim marauder who merely stole from temples without bothering to explicity desecrate them, much less of a Muslim ruler who plundered the sanctuaries of his own religion.”)

Mihirakula

  • Probable falsehood (Primary source unknown): “Nalanda University was not far from the capital, Pataliputra, and its fame had also reached Mihirakula’s ears. The buildings of Nalanda were then probably destroyed for the frst time, and its priests and students dispersed and perhaps killed.” (“Heras, A Note on the Excavations at Nalanda and its History, J.B.B.R.A.S., II, N. S., p. 215-216.”)

  • What primary sources say according to Koenraad Elst:

    • “Romila Thapar herself admits that Hsuan Tsang’s account about “the destruction of 1.600 Buddhist stupas and sangharamas and the killing of thousands of monks and lay-followers” sounds exaggerated, but she has faith in Kalhana’s more detailed version which mentions “killing innocent people by the hundreds”.

      But Hsuan Tsang gives an interesting detail which does not sound like a fairy-tale and may well be historical. Mihirakula, “wishing to apply his leisure to the study of Buddhism”, asked the Buddhist sangha to appoint a teacher for him. But none of the more accomplished monks was willing, so they appointed a monk who had the rank of a servant. The king found this procedure insulting, and ordered the destruction of the Buddhist church in his kingdom. This king was not anti-Buddhist, was open-minded and took a sincere interest in Buddhism. But once a king’s ego is hurt, he can get violent, regardless of his religion. That is regrettable, but it is something else than religious fanaticism.”

Shashanka

  • What primary sources say according to Koenraad Elst: “Hsuan Tsang’s story from hearsay about Shashank’s devastating a monastery in Bihar, killing the monks and destroying Buddhist relics, only a few years before Hsuan Tsang’s own arrival, is contradicted by other elements in his own report. Thus, according to the Chinese pilgrim, Shashank threw a stone with the Buddha’s footprint into the river, but it was returned through a miracle; and he felled the bodhi tree but a sapling from it was replanted which miraculously grew into a big tree overnight. So, the fact of the matter was that the stone and the tree were still there in full glory. Hsuan Tsang is notorious for his exaggerations and his insertions of miracle stories, and he had to explain to China, where Buddhism was readhing its peak, why it was declining in India.”

Late tibetan stories

  • Claim: 18th Century book Pag-Sam Jon-Zang by the Lama Sum-Pa and 17th Century Lama Taranatha’s monumental book “A History of Buddhism in India” states that Nalanda was burned down by tIrthaka mendicants.
  • “An analysis of the chronology of Buddhism in India as given in the works of both Taranatha and Sum-pa would place the “Burning of Nalanda by Tirthika mendicants” (assuming it’s a real event) before the period of the logician Dignaga who belonged to the 6th century. Thus, the magical events described by the Tibetan traditions are at least a thousand years removed from the times in which Taranatha and Sum-Pa lived. That means, the only two mentions we find in the annals of history about the burning of Nalanda by Tirthikas is from two sources which are a millennia removed from the events that they’re describing. There’s no other source, nearer in time to the alleged event, which records it. … The Taranatha version8 of the legend has the Buddhist King Buddhapaksha and two Brahmanas9 Shanku and Brhaspati rebuild the temples destroyed by the fire. The story is incomplete without this information. Thus, even the magical legend, taken as a whole, cannot count as an example of Hindu-Buddhist animosity. " [R14]
  • " The two sources can be said to corroborate each other only if they’re truly independent. The fact that both the sources are from Tibet and the traditions narrated in the two sources are very similar in detail, it won’t be terribly out of place to infer that both the books have drawn this tradition from a common source. " [R14]
  • “Dharmaswamin’s account gives a good insight into Hindu-Buddhist relations in India in the twilight of the Buddhist faith in India. The picture that one can glean from it is that, though there was religious competition between the faiths in terms of whose sadhakas were more accomplished in siddhis and such things, there weren’t great social tensions between the Buddhists and non-Buddhists. Dharmaswamin specifically mentions 10 that the monks of the Sangha were given alms by the Non- Buddhists and revered by them. We also learn that education in Nalanda continued even after the Islamic onslaught due to the munificence of a rich Brahmana Jayadeva. Dharmaswamin also mentions 11 that the Raja of Tirhut, Rama Simha, a devout Hindu himself, asked for the former to become his preceptor. The general portrayal in his account doesn’t suggest any great social tension between the two groups. " [R14]

shaiva-vaiShNava rivalry

  • Claim: “vaiShNava temples of hampi were destroyed by shaiva-s. The Tuluva dynasty was staunchly Vaishnavite, which is thought to have given rise to sectarian disturbances in the traditionally Saivite Hampi.” Reason:
  • hindu-s are not iconoclasts, and it is not something praised by their holy texts - so it would be out of character.
  • “to this day the area around Hampi, Anegondi have Islamic names and the foot soldiers who allegedly vandalised the sculptures were rewarded on the degree of the damage they did, I was told, that there exists an inscription of a Jagir awarding an equivalent of 17 acres of land for cutting the trunk of an elephant’s sculpture… The one Vaishnavite temple which is on the highway near Kampli, was abandoned during construction due to the fall of the empire and its priest’s family took the idol to their family home in a village around fifty kms away. "
  • kaDalekALu gaNesha and the sAsivekALu gaNesha, which were ruined shaiva shrines - lay abandoned to this day.

rAmAnuja vs krimikaNDa

  • “The Chola king about this time was krimikaNDa and he was a staunch Saivite. He ordered Ramanuja to subscribe to his faith in Siva and acknowledge Siva as the Supreme Lord. Two of the disciples of Ramanuja, Kuresa and Mahapurna, donned the orange robes of Sannyasins and visited the court of krimikaNDa in place of Ramanuja. They argued there for the superiority of Vishnu. The monarch refused to hear them and had their eyes put out.”
  • " the chola king krimikantha was most probably not kulottunga I but one of the usurpers who rules before kulottunga. Kulottunga I was not anti vaishnava. He worshipped narasimha very much with great devotion as per his own inscriptions..”
    • The above was an exception to the general norm of supreme mutual tolerance - it wrong to generalize it.

Govindaraja of chidambaram

  • Removal of govindarAja idol out of chidambaram temple complex.
  • Claim: “during the reign of Kulothunga Chola-II, a Saivite, the idol of Govindaraja Perumal was dumped in the sea. When it was reinstalled later by a chieftain of the Vijayanagar empire, as many as 20 Dikshitars committed suicide as a mark of protest.”
  • “In another movie, Dasavataram, Kamal Hassan portrays the Śaivas and the Śaiva king Kulöttuṅga Chöḷa as religious fanatics who persecuted the Vaiṣṇavas. Kulöttuṅga is also portrayed as a selective iconoclast who casts away the mūrti of Śri Gövindarāja from the Chidambaram Temple into the sea, an anachronistic claim first made in a late medieval work by the Śaiva partisan Oṭṭakkūttar. Epigraphic evidence confirms that Kulöttuṅga patronized numerous Vaiṣṇava temples making it unlikely that he could have been intolerant towards Vaiṣṇavism. In all likelihood, this claim was no more than a literary fiction by the partisan Oṭṭakkūttar amplified by later Vaiṣṇava hagiographers in the milieu of the non-violent Śaiva-Vaiṣṇava rivalry.” - KV.

mAmallapuram vandalisms/ take-overs by vaiShNava-s

  • Target examples
  • Ramanuja Mandapa, Mamallapuram was originally a shaiva temple, but was vandalized and taken over by vaiShNava-s.
  • " Vaishnavas - destroyed relics and established Vishnu temple here during the times of Vijayanagara Empire. In process the beautiful sculptures were chiseled away - but new values were not installed.”
  • “The sanctums inside this Mandapa doesn’t have any deities in them. They might probably have been removed while these cave being attacked. The front façade which has a striking dissimilarity with the rest of the construction was originally built during the Vijayanagara empire (1409-1542). However due to some unknown reasons the construction wasn’t carried out further.”
  • “Even after being vandalized, an inscription praising Rudra(Shiva) was found on the floor of this cave and it reads as “Six times cursed be those in whose hearts does not dwell Rudra (Shiva), the deliverer from the walking on the evil path” . It is quite intriguing that after being the idol is removed and the sanctum is completely destroyed, the inscription was not rubbed off the rock.”
    • References
      • ‘Cave Temples of the Pallavas’ by K.R. Srinivasan, 1964
  • koneri maNDapa [FB]
  • Lore from the vaiShNava side (via Ravilochanan, FB discussion):
  • The cave shaiva sculptures were destroyed during vnagar period by some vaishnava fanatics. Later the local vaishnava acharya cane to know abt this. And put a stop to such practice. So other shaiva caves escaped. Shaiva vaishnava rivalry was high in mamallapuram even from pallava era. Parameshvaravarman changed a few vaisnava caves to shaiva during his reign. Then he also had an inscription carved in a famous varaaha shrine that those who don’t worship and accept Rudra as greatest god, is moksha pradaataa, go to hell. It says they are cursed six times or so. Taken to mean diff types of hell by some scholars. The vaisnavas of the area were supposedly very angry at these insults. When during early part of vnagar rule the town became v majority. The vanniyar vaisnavas are known to have caused havoc there. Running amok destroying the biggest shaiva cave Sthalasayana achaarya, the Sri vaisnava achaarya, of the town put an end to this.
  • A note on the sources: The so called hagiographical texts of sthalasayana acharyas mention it, I am told.. No published work as of yet.. As far as I know only koil ozhugu of srirangam has been published till now.. Other similar texts remain unpublished and in danger of being lost forever. In case of ramanuja mantapa, no vaishnava or shaiva published text metionsit AFAIK.. Its called as vaisnava act as the outer walls have sankha and chakra carved in them..

Apologetic

  • They were minor, Few and rare.
  • And in cases like these, the acharyas themselves condemned it.
  • And the cave temples were not in worship.

Fake massacres

  • Fake massacre 1: “Ashoka had Jain monks killed even after his vow of ’non-violence’.”
    • The Ashokavadana, written 4-5 centuries after Ashoka (a buddhist type purANa record), cannot be reliable information about massacres. Do you understand allegory and hyperbole? If anything, Ashokavadana only exposes the biases of its Buddhist author, rather than that of any ruler.
  • Fake massacre 2: “The massacre of Jains in Madurai is celebrated and commemorated annually at the temple”.
    • periyapurANa is as unreliable as ashokavadana. The massacre is not mentioned in any Jain accounts, and there is no historical record of an actual massacre having taken place. The incident could be a Shaivite legend created to prove the superiority of the Shaivite sect over the Jains.
    • It should be noted that, according to the Periyapurana, there is no indication that anyone was “impaled” against their will, as against mounting the stakes themselves, after loosing the contest (started by jaina-s burning down jNAnasabandha’s cottage) and refusing to convert. [ JC KE]

Miscellenia

  • The jaina-shrIvaiShNava conflict and accord

  • The king Bukka declared

“The Srivaishnavas to this effect, may kindly set up a proclamation (Sasana) in all the basadis of the kingdom. As long as the Sun and the Moon endure, the Vaishnava creed will continue to protect Jaina darsana.” … “The inscription further lays down a condition that the Srivaishnavas were to appoint twenty servants and a bodyguard and arrange maintenance of the holy place of Belagola, from the specified levy-money. “He who transgresses this rule is a traitor to the king, to the Sangha (united body) and Samudaya (Community at large),” the inscription warned. Both the communities or creeds uniting bestowed the title of “Sangha Nayaka” (Community Leader) on Basuvi Setti, who made petition to the king. He was perhaps a mediator who guarded interests of both the communities.”(KPP, TW)