OK, the statue showed us that Mahayana buddhism did reach Sri Lanka but how do you draw conclusion that there was a war between Theravada sect and Mahayana in Sri lanka from that statue alone?

Kindly provide links of the war, all I read is just civil war, and invasion from India which wiped out most buddhist monks at that time, that they needed to import the Monks from burma to reintroduce the THeravada lineage there.

THere was definitely an ethnic wars in Sri lanka at that time, and we can surmise that the Sinhalese held on to their Theravada tradition , and the invaders from India might have come from another ethnic group from HIndu-Mahayana background.

Actually, by 10th century, buddhism was almost non-existent in India already. Some scholars put the type of buddhism in india at that time was a more like "hinduism" more to buddhism. Mahayana buddhism which emerged at 100CE probably had already found it ways northward to Tibet and China, leaving behind India to their slowly declining buddhist practices.

The invasion of the arabs in the 10th century and coperation with local hindus opposed to the Buddha's teaching sealed the demise of Buddhism in INdia. Unfortunate.

This post has been edited by soul2soul: Aug 19 2010, 03:50 PM

if he's happy its okay. different people different goals. I need to be more robust and my mind needs to be more advanced to help more people.

here: http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/2/12560_space.html
and here: http://sigiriya.org/89.htm

but its not really too important. because it dosent benefit anyone. Also most sri lankans and theravardans would not acknowledge this anyway. The wars were more political in nature and not warlike.

This post has been edited by Joey-kun: Aug 19 2010, 03:52 PM

Buddhism in india died with the sacking of the world's first University: the Nalanda University. It took 6 months to burn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda

hello guise

Christian Buddhists are everywhere throughout the world. (Yes, i didn't mistype, CHRISTIAN BUDDHIST) lol

I'm Agnostic.

yes.

some christians from phillipines practice buddhism as well.

here: http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2007/2/12560_space.html

This is an opinion from a reader whom I suspect could be the Tamil who would write anything to discredit the Sri Lanka Sinhalese government which waged a war against the local Tamil Tigers. Possible for the local sinhalese to resist outsiders in the similar manner in their treatment to the Mahayana. Possible, but more ethnic driven than religious war in my opinion.


http://sigiriya.org/89.htm

This link shows us that Mahayana buddhism definitely reach Sri Lanka, but what about the history of war between Theravada and mahayana? was there a Theravada Army vs Mahayana army?

AFAIK, even the Mahayana concur that there has never been a war fought between the different buddhist sect, and this is the first i have heard.

This post has been edited by soul2soul: Aug 19 2010, 04:07 PM

It's alright, I forgive those who fail to understand and couldn't/can't think further than what I said.

i cant find any links to prove it but why is it important again?

perhaps Robert Thurman would know. I'm not too interested because it dosent help much in actual practice. It's just general knowledge to prove that its not a religion problem, its a people problem.

I think it's more to the Ethnicity problem where the local Sinhalese were Theravada and they may have tried to resist the outsiders who might have been hindu-mahayana. ANyway, looks like a ethnic war rather than a religious war.

But then, Sri Lanka is the cradle of Theravada buddhism> without them, Burma and thailand will not be a theravada country today.

actually, they got their sources from Nalanda as well and have kept the practice alive. the whole 'religious' issue was more political of nature and was more about gaining the king's favor.

traces of this 'war' can be found in some tibetan buddhist literature: http://www.khandro.net/deities_female_paldenlhamo.htm

note that this isnt exactly accurate; its a myth. the actual origins of Palden Lhamo is far more simpler and less scandalous.

hard to verify. What exactly happened in INdia also at that time that caused the decline of buddhism was also not well understood. Some scholars said that the local Buddhism in India evolved slowly , incorporating more and more of Hinduism practices until the end there wasn't anything that is buddhist anymore. The Islamic invasion in the 10th century also destroyed many records in the buddhist universities, and sealed the end of buddhist era there.

it was actually the other way round. also during that time as recorded in some histories the abbots of Nalanda was declining and this contributed to the decline of Buddhism in india.

sad.... many monks were killed at that time. Surely the people who commit such acts will be in Avici already

it was because the monks eventually became lax in their Dharma practice and lost focus. this kinda triggered the whole thing to happen. In any case, there must be an end to everything so this was more or less eventual.

oh well..at least it produced Nagajurna, Vimalakirti, Chandrakirti, Shantideva, Atisha, and so many other great scholars.

Chinese Mestizo ?

Don't worry, I too forgive those who think it's morning when it's just the room's light being switched on.

However, we could still continue to discuss if you care to elaborate what you think I misunderstood you of.

I read there were some political motive behind it. The local tribes opposed to Buddha's teaching also colluded with the invaders to put the final nail to the coffin.

But we should be glad, that buddhism was able to propagate beyond the shores of INdia (nortwards to china/tibet) and southward/eastwards to Sri Lanka/southeast asia.

what dat?

Thats more or less the important point. And that the practices and teachings were intact and well perserved.