I love how instead of imposing your own ideology you carefully examine all evidence and opinions of scholars and after critical analysis put forward your own hypothesis ❤
Is there any chance the karkotas were continuation of huns ( just curious) cuz i heard some possibilities, i know many current day hindu castes claim them too
@MOONEDITZZZ69 kayastha as kayastha nanihaal is nagvansh . Kayastha genetics are similar to kashmir tharus . Kayastha were in kushan empire which was mostly in North India. Pok was filled with ambastha kayastha . Read battle of Malli vs Alexander they mention ambasthanois. Not to mention main god of kayasthas are chitragupta durga and surya dev . We find surya temple in kashmir .
hinduism, jainism, buddhism, sikhism became religion once the abrahamic believers came to India. these were all just different schools of thoughts pre abrahamic view. they all respected each other and freely followed and studied each others philosophies.
@@mksrathore it's kinda funny how you are forcing your own faith on me and now using typical sanghi adjectives like abrahamic/leftist. The whole idea of Buddha being a Vishnu avatar is only on hindu scriptures. Vishnu Puran (book 3 chapter 18) demonizes Buddha saying he was accomplished so that the daityas could be further led away from truth in kaliyuga. No Buddhist ever accepted this nonsense. You have not seen buddhism outside of your hindutva glasses which forces other religions to be sub-sects of hinduism. modern hindutva loves to copy all the worst aspects of Islam.
@@witchilichlol,in Ancient India a father could be a follower of Hinduism while his son a follower of Buddha.Modern India is polarised where a buddhist family will have only buddhist son and a hindu family will always have hindu son.Both Buddhism and hinduism grew together.Only after Bhim some converted buddhists started hating hindus.Even tibetian and Thai buddists loves and respect Hindus
@@Abhisekhdutta by the time of bhim buddhism was already dead. They revived it. Also, it's funny how you appropriated Sikh culture for hindu-buddhist relations without any proof of hindu-buddhist relations. Hindus and Sikhs don't have the fierce debates since it's Sikhism that validates hinduism, Buddhist scriptures don't do that.
I don't understand why Indians are so much hate Buddhism. Ironically their national symbol also a Buddhist Darmachakra(Ashoka Chakra). Buddhism never do any harm or never prevents a nation's progress. Look Japan,China..Adi Shankaracharya's movement failed to prevent the converting Hindunism to Islam.
We would have been like how Thailand is today we would have had hindu-buddhist kind of a thing, the royal family of Thailand practices hinduism infact the king and queen are seen as the incarnation of lord Rama and goddess Sita, so we would have been a hindu-buddhist-syncretic country
As a Vaishnav, I don't think it's a problem to also follow Bhagwan Mahaveer and Buddha at the same time. Nobody is contradicting anybody in theory and practice of Dharma. 🚩Jai Shri Mahaveer🚩 🚩Aum Namo Narayanaaya🚩 🙏Buddham Sharanam Ghachami🙏
कौन सा चीनी यात्री पढ़ लिया तूने चूतिये, धतूरा खाये ऋषि जो १२ सदी में गप्प हाँक कर गए है उनको सही मानता है तू ! फिर तो "कुटिल अँधा सांप" भी तू भी लेता होगा
Yes. Highly possible As u can still see this Practices prevalent in Nepal and Srilanka Among Hindus and buddhists there. They go to each oer temples and worship budhha Shiva Vishnu and Ganesha Many temples have Hindu gods and buddha statues.
I think there wasn't any concept of religion in ancient India,( like modern Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) It may have mostly been mutually beneficial alliance, sort of things between different sects of Dharmic people!
It is right buddhist sre traitors they are the only one due to whom yavan have been able to live off the land and they are reason why babur could find the path to invade India they make India weak Internally by theri cowardice
Hello Jay. Please make a video on books on your shelf, bookshelf tour kind of and also please make a video on book recommendations to understand correct Indian history. Thank you
Shaiv Samprdaye itself came out of Mahayan Branch of Buddhism.. and what we currently follow is the mixture of Vedas and Mahayan sector one day it will be proved ..
1st of all maheshwara is a buddhist character belong to mahayana and tantra yana he is the protector dhamma and harsha was tha devotee of both avalokiteshvara and maheshwara...
In ancient Bharat I think there was not much difference between Hinduism and Buddhism Lord Buddha was just like an another god of Hinduism or religious guru whom everyone respected. Keeping aside the Ambedkarite Buddhists, even today as a Hindu I visit Mahabodi temple in Gaya with same devotion and Bhakti as any Hindu temple. For me Lord Buddha is not part of some other religion.
Revival of Hinduism and sivisam as against not only budhism but also vishnavism which was evolved by the migrants who settled down in north India after the eclipse for unknown reasons and who came by horse back with bow and arrow and rude form of sanskrit and who embraced the existing religious Hinduism with all their deities.but unfortunately these migrants considered the then original people who were primerly agrarian life with modern living standards ,as secondary citizens .this is reason for the north south divide in india .
Descendents of imperial pratihar are today rajputs only... The question is whether the pratihars were some gujjar tribe, or one of the progenitor pratihars were brahman... And last were they kshatriyas of Gurjara Desha... this is the question, but they evolved into rajputs is mostly true
Another very articulate presentation. One suggestion to help foreign subscribers like myself: Please put up a date and geographical location very early on in the presentation. I had to break off to find out when and where you were talking about. The content might be self evident to most Indians, but is probably not to most outsiders. A suggestion for a future investigation. When in Peshawar Museum in 1984, I noticed how similar the face of Buddha on most Gandharan statuary seemed to be to Greek representations of Alexander the Great. Given Gandharan cultural inheritance from the Greeks, is it possible that the image of Buddha that later spread to China and elsewhere was a melange of Alexander and earlier Indian representations of Buddha? Has anybody investigated this possibility?
Date and geographical location as in?? Can you provide an example, so that I can better understand. About your suggestion. I have made a video on the beginning of Buddhist iconography. You can watch it here. It covers what you're talking about. ruclips.net/video/UZ-A4F3r9To/видео.html&ab_channel=JayVardhanSingh
All ancient universities are Buddhist University like Nalanda,takshashila etc. If they are hindus ,why they can't write in Sanskrit. Why all ancient kings write in pali Prakrit. Visitors are Buddhist,so kings also Buddhist. Mythological stories are jatak kathas of Buddhist literature.
Vedas, upanishads,puranas, Mahabharat, Ramayan etc were the main subjects of Those ancient Universities you mentioned. Takshashila existed from the time of Mahabharata , Buddha was not even there. Nalanda was Established by Emperor Kumargupta , a Hindu and the seals of Nalanda are too Hindu symbols. Most of the teachers were also Hindus. They were by no mean Buddhists.
Taxila me Buddha ka vaidhya jo tha jivak wo bhi padta tha toh Buddha se pehle se waha university thi...brahmi script me wo inscription hai aur maximum sanskrit language me hai..Ashok ne different different prakrit me likhwaye inscription na ki pali me..pali ke inscription ginti ke shayad 4-5 hi hai bas aur oldest Myanmar se milta hai wo bhi 3 ce ke baad ka..
One Question : Why did the Mughal emperor Jahangir write on Ashokan piller at allahabad we know that Gupta emperors were kinda inspired by Mauryan Era which is even denoted in their tradition and them adopting the lion sculpture thus they specifically chose that piller of ashoka not a random rock or something but Mughals? Were they also fascinated by Mauryan Legacy or even know about the Mauryans even after 1500+ years. (Can you please make a video or like a detailed comment as a reply regarding this)
Rama, Siddhartha, and Mahavira belonged to Ikshvaku dynasty. Rama propagated the vedic worhship of fire. Siddhartha and Mahavira revolted against the ivory tower snobbery of brahmins in vedic worship. They focused on the philosophy of daily life in common language rather than complex rituals in a strange language. Brahmins eventually infiltrated buddhism and established the monastic gurukula system to control buddhism from inside. Gradually, they brought in the elements of shaivism to strenthen the gurukula. This ended up diluting buddhism. By 12th century, resemablace to original buddhism was almost lost. Adi Shankara established a new monastic order to propagate shaivism as a separate sect without any remants of buddhism. The new sect involves idol worship contrary to the vedic worship of fire. Today, the earlier fire worship and the later idol worship is together called hinduism. The middle buddha worship is a separate religion.
Vaishya is caste not religion? What was the caste of Siddhartha? Kshatriya! What was the caste of Mahavira? Kshatriya! Rama, Siddhartha, and Mahavira belonged to Ikshvaku dynasty.
Great video but after watching many history videos(not just yours) I am finding one thing common whenever Buddhist sources are mentioned, the role of Buddhism is exaggerated making sources unreliable.
0:53 but aditya exist in Buddhist vocabulary too, Āditya (आदित्य) refers to one of the various Grahas and Mahāgrahas mentioned as attending the teachings in the 6th century Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa: one of the largest Kriyā Tantras devoted to Mañjuśrī (the Bodhisattva of wisdom) representing an encyclopedia of knowledge primarily concerned with ritualistic elements in Buddhism. 1:24 So does "maheshwara" (Pali: Mahissara) is the ruler of all three realms of samsara in Buddhist mythology. He is also sometimes referred to as Sabbalokādhipatī Devā in Pali literature. His main duty is to give spiritual knowledge. Maheshvara is sometimes revered as a Bodhisattva. I am genuinely interested to know how do you assign the origin of these words to Hinduism alone ?
If we go by inscription then the title of Aditya or Maheshvara doesn't suggest any relation with Buddhism. It is certainly true that some of these names appear in Buddhist tradition as well, but most scholar are of the opinion that when these terms appear in inscriptions they do not refer to Buddhist deity.
@@ashketchum5466 your whole point was already debunked by jayvardhan's video. There were very few king who patronized only buddhism and those were mostly local kings. While kingdom like Guptas, palas patronized hindus, Buddhist. After Islamic invasion kings patronized only hinduism. So buddhism survived on its own
@@akitodaisuke6532lol, only dharmic kings patronised Buddhism. Muslims were actively destroying it like they did in Khotan, Kashmir, Afghanistan. It survived where dharmic kings existed. Anyways by 9 th century apart from vanga, Gauda, magadh, gandhara and kapisa Buddhists have vanished from rest of India thanks to Huns and adi shankara, later entire northern plains kings were replaced by Muslims after ghurids, hence Buddhists vanished.
@@akitodaisuke6532Islamic kings didn't patronise Hindus, Hindus survived because they were decentralised and not a monastic community. Islamic kings actively destroyed all dharmic faiths. Also Hindu is not a faith but a name given to collection of different faiths, each place had its own version. Though bhakti movement helped to form a somewhat singular Hindu religion by syncing various ones and also saving Hindus from conversion to Islam.
@@ashketchum5466 at some point hindus lost almost whole india to muslims , the reason they survived was because of martial and agricultural castes' rebellions from time to time ( hence sikh nd maratha empire were created) and in the early days of muslim rule the upper caste hindus decided to serve under mughals or afghans even to the extent of marriage alliances which they didn't even form with their own lower castes , whereas buddhism survived in south east asian even after attacks from hindu shaivite kings and british kings cuz it became there prime religion whereas in india people didn't totally abandon hinduism because it was brought down from generations
Buaddh koi dharm nahi tha sanatan dharm ka ang tha jaise shaiv vaishnav .harshvardhan bhi bauddh nahi tha wo buddha shiv sabhi ko pujta tha Sanatan rup se aaj ke itihaskar ye samjh nahi rahe
I said it in the "The Making of Harshavardhan's Empire" video. I will say it again. Odisha being part of Harsha's empire was also an info only giving by Xuanzang, even though we have contradictory evidence to otherwise. I will repost that comment here. From Inscriptions of Orissa by Snigdha Tripathy - Page 59 - The Vigraha rulers(ruling South Toshali or as they called it - "Kalinga rashtra") and Bhanudatta(who ruled over Balasore and Midnapore) accepted the suzerainty of Sambhuyasa of Mudgalas dynasty (they originally ruled North Toshali and captured South Toshali from the Vigrahas, Mahanadi river serving as the border between North and South Toshali). They have a history of 50 years from year 250 of Gupta Era to year 300. Bhanudatta's successor Somadatta has copper plate grant from his 19th regnal year claimed subbordination of Shasanka with the title of "Samanta Maharaja") as the ruler of Dandabhukti (south western Midnapore) and Utkala(or North/Uttar Toshali aka Mayurbhanj, Keonjhar, Dhenkanal, Balasore and Cuttack). By year 300 of Gupta era, all these regions came under Madhavraja of Shailodbhava Dynasty who served as the feudatory of Shasanka over the entire region as the ruler of "Kongoda mandala". They had the title "Maharaja Mahasamanta". From the epigraphic records of Vigrahas and Mudgalas, it is understood that Shasanka invaded Kongoda mandala in year 283 of Gupta era (603-4 CE) From Page 64 In 620 CE, Madhavraja II assumed the title of "Sakala-Kalingadhipati" or "ruler of the whole of Kalinga"(though parts of the historical Kalinga region was then also under early Eastern Ganga rulers with their capital at "Kalinganagara"). It is usually believed based on Xuanzang's account that Harsha also invaded Kongoda. But none of the their records found in Khordha after claiming independence from Shasanka refer to any overlordship. It can be presumed that Harsha's conquest of Kongoda if any was short lived and the Shailodbhava rulers do not seem to have become his feudatories unlike Shasanka. The Shailodbhava dynasty rulers became independent from Shasanka in 620 CE. Sadly most Indian historians do not try to analyze local odia history and instead assume Kalinga was part of Harsha's empire based on Xuangzang's account. Many maps of Harsha's empire online often show Kongoda/Kalinga/Toshali/Odra-desha (thats's all the names that Mudgalas , Bhanudatta and Shailodbhava rulers used) as part of Harsha's empire
I love how instead of imposing your own ideology you carefully examine all evidence and opinions of scholars and after critical analysis put forward your own hypothesis ❤
Make a video on 👇
1)Rastrakutas
2)Karkotas of Kashmir
3)Chach dynasty of Sindh
Chach is clear
Is there any chance the karkotas were continuation of huns ( just curious) cuz i heard some possibilities, i know many current day hindu castes claim them too
@@aizen_yadava no
Karkotas claimed to be nagas
There are 2 possibilities
1)They were Kayasthas Of Northern India
2)They were Kashmiri pandits
@@aizen_yadavaZunbils and Turk shahs were related to huns
@MOONEDITZZZ69 kayastha as kayastha nanihaal is nagvansh . Kayastha genetics are similar to kashmir tharus . Kayastha were in kushan empire which was mostly in North India. Pok was filled with ambastha kayastha . Read battle of Malli vs Alexander they mention ambasthanois. Not to mention main god of kayasthas are chitragupta durga and surya dev . We find surya temple in kashmir .
hinduism, jainism, buddhism, sikhism became religion once the abrahamic believers came to India. these were all just different schools of thoughts pre abrahamic view. they all respected each other and freely followed and studied each others philosophies.
buddhists never considered themselves part of hindu religion neither did they consider Buddha as Vishnu's avatar. this was always from hindus POV.
@@witchilichThen you don’t know India and its school of thought but making your knowledge biased by Abrahamic or Leftist views
@@mksrathore it's kinda funny how you are forcing your own faith on me and now using typical sanghi adjectives like abrahamic/leftist. The whole idea of Buddha being a Vishnu avatar is only on hindu scriptures. Vishnu Puran (book 3 chapter 18) demonizes Buddha saying he was accomplished so that the daityas could be further led away from truth in kaliyuga. No Buddhist ever accepted this nonsense.
You have not seen buddhism outside of your hindutva glasses which forces other religions to be sub-sects of hinduism. modern hindutva loves to copy all the worst aspects of Islam.
@@witchilichlol,in Ancient India a father could be a follower of Hinduism while his son a follower of Buddha.Modern India is polarised where a buddhist family will have only buddhist son and a hindu family will always have hindu son.Both Buddhism and hinduism grew together.Only after Bhim some converted buddhists started hating hindus.Even tibetian and Thai buddists loves and respect Hindus
@@Abhisekhdutta by the time of bhim buddhism was already dead. They revived it. Also, it's funny how you appropriated Sikh culture for hindu-buddhist relations without any proof of hindu-buddhist relations. Hindus and Sikhs don't have the fierce debates since it's Sikhism that validates hinduism, Buddhist scriptures don't do that.
Had Adi Shankaracharya not been there India would have been Buddist country.
Thanks to Adi Shankaracharya for saving Hinduism
Especially Vajrayana Buddhism.
I don't understand why Indians are so much hate Buddhism. Ironically their national symbol also a Buddhist Darmachakra(Ashoka Chakra). Buddhism never do any harm or never prevents a nation's progress. Look Japan,China..Adi Shankaracharya's movement failed to prevent the converting Hindunism to Islam.
That would have been great
@@unknkw2225nah
We would have been like how Thailand is today we would have had hindu-buddhist kind of a thing, the royal family of Thailand practices hinduism infact the king and queen are seen as the incarnation of lord Rama and goddess Sita, so we would have been a hindu-buddhist-syncretic country
Make a video on history of vegetarianism, what did different communities ate before adopting vegetarianism
Thank you, yet another insightful video. I do think there is more of Xuanzang though, since he visited Pulakeshin too
As a Vaishnav, I don't think it's a problem to also follow Bhagwan Mahaveer and Buddha at the same time. Nobody is contradicting anybody in theory and practice of Dharma.
🚩Jai Shri Mahaveer🚩
🚩Aum Namo Narayanaaya🚩
🙏Buddham Sharanam Ghachami🙏
EXCELLENT EXPLANATION ❤ JUST PHENOMENAL
चीनी यात्री सिर्फ बुद्धिज़्म को जानने भारत आया इसलिए वो सबको बुद्ध बताएगा जबकि हर्ष के खुद के अभिलेख उसे शैव बता रहे ह तो बहस ही खत्म
हर्षवर्धनबुद्ध धर्म के महायान शाखा का अनुयायी था वहां शिव भगवान को अवलोकेश्वर कहा जाता था
कौन सा चीनी यात्री पढ़ लिया तूने चूतिये, धतूरा खाये ऋषि जो १२ सदी में गप्प हाँक कर गए है उनको सही मानता है तू ! फिर तो "कुटिल अँधा सांप" भी तू भी लेता होगा
abe chutiye maheshware or mahadev tere shiv se pahle puje jaate rahe hai, alpgyani...jaa kar padh le saddharmpundrik
@@virendrakumarsinghsingh3082chal haat bhimte 🤡 💩💩💩.
@@virendrakumarsinghsingh3082इस बात का कोई प्रमाण नहीं हे। भला कोई बौद्ध खुद को शिव भक्त क्यों बताएंगा बुद्ध भक्त छोड़ कर
Harshvardhan was undoubtedly a Hindu
He probably worshiped budh without abondoning his chief god. like today hindus go to tamples of every gods and godesses.
@ajaysamanta9661 kidhr jae to fir chamarutiye? tu chala ja africa.
@ajaysamanta9661please don't speak Hindi than , as so called Aryan gave us the Sanskrit language which later became Hindi
@@HhshhsHh-dw3qq Aryan picnic Theory 🤡
@@HhshhsHh-dw3qq😂😂😂 we have a linguist between us
Yes. Highly possible
As u can still see this Practices prevalent in Nepal and Srilanka
Among Hindus and buddhists there.
They go to each oer temples and worship budhha Shiva Vishnu and Ganesha
Many temples have Hindu gods and buddha statues.
Harsha calls himself a shaiva.
While xuangzhang called Harsha a Buddhist.
So debate over, Harsha was a Hindu.
shant Vanar,
History aese nahi chalti
@@albusdumbledore6669Chup suar. Kahi aur jake oink oink kar 😂
There was no word like Zandu😂 in indian history😂
@@googleuser4534 Chota bheem bhi kahi nai likha hai! 😄 😄 😄
@@kbrv89 Maheshvar/ Avlokiteshvara was Bodhisatva, later it merged with Vedic God Rudra, And resulted today’s lord shiva !!
I think there wasn't any concept of religion in ancient India,( like modern Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism)
It may have mostly been mutually beneficial alliance, sort of things between different sects of Dharmic people!
All Glory,praise and Devotion towards Great Adiguru Shankaracharya ji.😊🎉जय सनातन धर्म संस्कृति। 🎉🎉❤💐💐
Harsha Vardhan was a
pure shaivaite hindu ❤
He was purely buddhist😁
@@mr.spongebob13 lmao no 🤣🤣
@@Error_BhoiMaheshvar was Bodhisatva, later it merged with Vedic God Rudra, And resulted today’s lord shiva !!
@@Daniyaal_Hind no chuddist
@@Daniyaal_Hindsource?
Great argument....so rational logic ...
Some secret sources say..that bauddh panth does not belong to Bharat even.
It is right buddhist sre traitors they are the only one due to whom yavan have been able to live off the land and they are reason why babur could find the path to invade India they make India weak Internally by theri cowardice
Harsha was devotee of Avaloketeswara (later become shiva)
No Harsha was shaiva
Maheshvar was Bodhisatva, later it merged with Vedic God Rudra, And resulted today’s lord shiva !!
@@Daniyaal_HindNope
Even I sometimes mistake Harsha as a Buddhist.
Hello Jay. Please make a video on books on your shelf, bookshelf tour kind of and also please make a video on book recommendations to understand correct Indian history. Thank you
Thanks for the suggestion. Will do so at 100k subs.
Bro can u make a video on the topic were ancient Indians Vegeterian or non vegeterian?
Shaiv Samprdaye itself came out of Mahayan Branch of Buddhism.. and what we currently follow is the mixture of Vedas and Mahayan sector
one day it will be proved ..
Maheshvar was Bodhisatva, later it merged with Vedic God Rudra, And resulted today’s lord shiva !!
Ghanta
@@Mani-my8ob not ganta, Say it Lingam 😕
@@Daniyaal_Hind looks like the maulana has circumcised your brain too.... go worship that pedo's imagination....
@@Daniyaal_Hind neela kabutar niichh
1st of all maheshwara is a buddhist character belong to mahayana and tantra yana he is the protector dhamma and harsha was tha devotee of both avalokiteshvara and maheshwara...
Make video on what was kushan empire ethnicity ?
And are huns and Gurjar or jaat same or they are related with kushan empire ?
No they are not.
@@Zzmaster_-mj2xv nah
@@Error_Bhoi yes they are not. Kushans were related to yuezhi people of china and ethnicity that do not exist today.
@@Zzmaster_-mj2xv
I'm not talking about kushans
@@Error_Bhoi you literally wrote that
Bro why you can't make video on medieval and modern Indian history... If possible please make ❤❤ Ane love you
Is the book shelf behind u real?
If so, can u please share some book names of ur library? Please .
In ancient Bharat I think there was not much difference between Hinduism and Buddhism Lord Buddha was just like an another god of Hinduism or religious guru whom everyone respected.
Keeping aside the Ambedkarite Buddhists, even today as a Hindu I visit Mahabodi temple in Gaya with same devotion and Bhakti as any Hindu temple. For me Lord Buddha is not part of some other religion.
Revival of Hinduism and sivisam as against not only budhism but also vishnavism which was evolved by the migrants who settled down in north India after the eclipse for unknown reasons and who came by horse back with bow and arrow and rude form of sanskrit and who embraced the existing religious Hinduism with all their deities.but unfortunately these migrants considered the then original people who were primerly agrarian life with modern living standards ,as secondary citizens .this is reason for the north south divide in india .
Aryan invasion is a myth proven
Educate yourself
It's my humble request make video on Gurjar-pratihar empire
Caste, what caste were they Brahamn, gurjar or rajput ? 🤧
Bhai Yaha 😃
@@MOONEDITZZZ69 🙌🏻 ye Mera one of the favourite history related channel hai .
@@Error_BhoiSame
What ever they are they were great hindu and great hindu kings who protected india from muslims for 300 years
Descendents of imperial pratihar are today rajputs only...
The question is whether the pratihars were some gujjar tribe, or one of the progenitor pratihars were brahman...
And last were they kshatriyas of Gurjara Desha...
this is the question, but they evolved into rajputs is mostly true
Jainism,bhudhism Sikhism are all branch3s of Hinduism
Hinduism classifies adherents of these 3 faiths as nastik, because they don't follow the schools of thought of Hindu dharma.
Harsha was a Budhist as he was urged to establish Bodhidharma after the persecution of Budhists by his Prime Enemy Shashanko !!
Another very articulate presentation. One suggestion to help foreign subscribers like myself: Please put up a date and geographical location very early on in the presentation. I had to break off to find out when and where you were talking about. The content might be self evident to most Indians, but is probably not to most outsiders.
A suggestion for a future investigation. When in Peshawar Museum in 1984, I noticed how similar the face of Buddha on most Gandharan statuary seemed to be to Greek representations of Alexander the Great. Given Gandharan cultural inheritance from the Greeks, is it possible that the image of Buddha that later spread to China and elsewhere was a melange of Alexander and earlier Indian representations of Buddha? Has anybody investigated this possibility?
Date and geographical location as in?? Can you provide an example, so that I can better understand.
About your suggestion. I have made a video on the beginning of Buddhist iconography. You can watch it here. It covers what you're talking about.
ruclips.net/video/UZ-A4F3r9To/видео.html&ab_channel=JayVardhanSingh
Need more like u in these times. Connect with sanatan samikhsa i would say
You seem to be ignorant about history. Shiva is another name of Avaloketeswar Bodhisattva of Vajrayana Buddhism. Please read history properly
Chinese traveller Dharmswamy who came to India during the destruction of Nalanda university, clearly stated that Avaloketeshvar is a non Buddhist God.
Abe mavboudh khud history padhle dusro ko bolne se pahle
Kal tk to Avlokteshvar Buddh Vishnu Tha aaj shiva Ban Gaya😂😂😂
Waahhh re tunni waahhh😂😂😂
Kanhase ate ho tum😄😄😄😄
Tell us starting history of shaivism
You haven't made much on art. Stella kramrisch. Abhinavagupta. Please
Harsha was a Hindu Shaiva
I said we will know everything
From Banbhatt,s Harshchar.
I never said he was Buddhist.
All ancient universities are Buddhist University like Nalanda,takshashila etc.
If they are hindus ,why they can't write in Sanskrit.
Why all ancient kings write in pali Prakrit.
Visitors are Buddhist,so kings also Buddhist.
Mythological stories are jatak kathas of Buddhist literature.
Vedas, upanishads,puranas, Mahabharat, Ramayan etc were the main subjects of Those ancient Universities you mentioned. Takshashila existed from the time of Mahabharata , Buddha was not even there. Nalanda was Established by Emperor Kumargupta , a Hindu and the seals of Nalanda are too Hindu symbols. Most of the teachers were also Hindus. They were by no mean Buddhists.
TF do you mean visitors are Buddhists,so kings are Buddhists? Are you brain dead?
Yes Buddhists jatakas are nothing more than mythological stories. 😂
Taxila me Buddha ka vaidhya jo tha jivak wo bhi padta tha toh Buddha se pehle se waha university thi...brahmi script me wo inscription hai aur maximum sanskrit language me hai..Ashok ne different different prakrit me likhwaye inscription na ki pali me..pali ke inscription ginti ke shayad 4-5 hi hai bas aur oldest Myanmar se milta hai wo bhi 3 ce ke baad ka..
One Question :
Why did the Mughal emperor Jahangir write on Ashokan piller at allahabad we know that Gupta emperors were kinda inspired by Mauryan Era which is even denoted in their tradition and them adopting the lion sculpture thus they specifically chose that piller of ashoka not a random rock or something but Mughals? Were they also fascinated by Mauryan Legacy or even know about the Mauryans even after 1500+ years.
(Can you please make a video or like a detailed comment as a reply regarding this)
Hard to say what inspired Jahangir to write an inscription on this pillar. We can only speculate as Jahangir himself doesn't provide any reason.
please make a video different between mahayana buddhism gods and hindu gods.
Rama, Siddhartha, and Mahavira belonged to Ikshvaku dynasty. Rama propagated the vedic worhship of fire. Siddhartha and Mahavira revolted against the ivory tower snobbery of brahmins in vedic worship. They focused on the philosophy of daily life in common language rather than complex rituals in a strange language. Brahmins eventually infiltrated buddhism and established the monastic gurukula system to control buddhism from inside. Gradually, they brought in the elements of shaivism to strenthen the gurukula. This ended up diluting buddhism. By 12th century, resemablace to original buddhism was almost lost. Adi Shankara established a new monastic order to propagate shaivism as a separate sect without any remants of buddhism. The new sect involves idol worship contrary to the vedic worship of fire. Today, the earlier fire worship and the later idol worship is together called hinduism. The middle buddha worship is a separate religion.
Maheshwara was a Bodhisattva.
Yes 🙌🏻
Nope
Sun and moon are also Bodhisattva
Harshvardhan was devoted to alokiteshwer
No he was shaiva
Harshavardhana was a vaishya. Tell me what religion was it?
Vaishya is caste not religion? What was the caste of Siddhartha? Kshatriya! What was the caste of Mahavira? Kshatriya! Rama, Siddhartha, and Mahavira belonged to Ikshvaku dynasty.
Can u plz make video on Nalanda University......that who destroy it ??
Great video but after watching many history videos(not just yours) I am finding one thing common whenever Buddhist sources are mentioned, the role of Buddhism is exaggerated making sources unreliable.
Bro by any chance you know professor abhishek mishra from hindu college??
No, I don't know him.
Shiladitya was mahayana Buddhist... according to famous Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang notes harsa was devoted avlokiteswara (shiva)
Avalokiteswara Mahayani Buddhism ka god hai Jo ki kanishk ke time pe bana aur hindu god Shiva ke evidence bce se milne start ho jate hai..
0:53 but aditya exist in Buddhist vocabulary too, Āditya (आदित्य) refers to one of the various Grahas and Mahāgrahas mentioned as attending the teachings in the 6th century Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa: one of the largest Kriyā Tantras devoted to Mañjuśrī (the Bodhisattva of wisdom) representing an encyclopedia of knowledge primarily concerned with ritualistic elements in Buddhism. 1:24 So does "maheshwara" (Pali: Mahissara) is the ruler of all three realms of samsara in Buddhist mythology. He is also sometimes referred to as Sabbalokādhipatī Devā in Pali literature. His main duty is to give spiritual knowledge. Maheshvara is sometimes revered as a Bodhisattva. I am genuinely interested to know how do you assign the origin of these words to Hinduism alone ?
If we go by inscription then the title of Aditya or Maheshvara doesn't suggest any relation with Buddhism. It is certainly true that some of these names appear in Buddhist tradition as well, but most scholar are of the opinion that when these terms appear in inscriptions they do not refer to Buddhist deity.
fair points @@JayVardhanSingh
Rakshitaji आप कह रही हो तो सच होगा.मैने तो हर्शचारीत pada ही नही है
लेकीन मैंने इतिहास pada है.हो सकता है इतिहासकार गालात हो.
Harsh was Buddhist or not we
Can very well know from Banbatta,s writing.
Banbhatt ne use Buddhist likha hi nahi hai bas xuanzang ne likha hai,wo bhi xuanzang aane ke 5-6 saal baad harshvardhan mar gaye the..
Make video on rajputs and their original ancestory from turks /huns
क्या बकवास कर रहे हो।
Baas kar madrasachap
What rubbish
Thats great if harshavardhan wasnt buddhist first place.
That clearly indicates buddhism survived on its own ❤
Buddhism failed because it worked on donation from kings when Muslims came no more donation, hence they all ended
@@ashketchum5466 your whole point was already debunked by jayvardhan's video. There were very few king who patronized only buddhism and those were mostly local kings. While kingdom like Guptas, palas patronized hindus, Buddhist. After Islamic invasion kings patronized only hinduism.
So buddhism survived on its own
@@akitodaisuke6532lol, only dharmic kings patronised Buddhism. Muslims were actively destroying it like they did in Khotan, Kashmir, Afghanistan. It survived where dharmic kings existed.
Anyways by 9 th century apart from vanga, Gauda, magadh, gandhara and kapisa Buddhists have vanished from rest of India thanks to Huns and adi shankara, later entire northern plains kings were replaced by Muslims after ghurids, hence Buddhists vanished.
@@akitodaisuke6532Islamic kings didn't patronise Hindus, Hindus survived because they were decentralised and not a monastic community. Islamic kings actively destroyed all dharmic faiths. Also Hindu is not a faith but a name given to collection of different faiths, each place had its own version. Though bhakti movement helped to form a somewhat singular Hindu religion by syncing various ones and also saving Hindus from conversion to Islam.
@@ashketchum5466 at some point hindus lost almost whole india to muslims , the reason they survived was because of martial and agricultural castes' rebellions from time to time ( hence sikh nd maratha empire were created) and in the early days of muslim rule the upper caste hindus decided to serve under mughals or afghans even to the extent of marriage alliances which they didn't even form with their own lower castes , whereas buddhism survived in south east asian even after attacks from hindu shaivite kings and british kings cuz it became there prime religion whereas in india people didn't totally abandon hinduism because it was brought down from generations
So in short Harsha was a Shaivaite but nonetheless interested in Buddhism.
they co existed at that time
I think xuangzhang had mistaken Harsha's generosity
590 CE harshavardhan was bor
Harsha was hindu, worshipper of shiva
Buaddh koi dharm nahi tha sanatan dharm ka ang tha jaise shaiv vaishnav .harshvardhan bhi bauddh nahi tha wo buddha shiv sabhi ko pujta tha Sanatan rup se aaj ke itihaskar ye samjh nahi rahe
Hay ! Come out of Hindu fever then you may sound better. Phd hi kyu na Kare ek bramehin kabhi gyani nahin hota hai
India ki history hi Hindu se start hoti hai..kuch history padi likhi bhi hai ya nahi?? bewakoof
Abe navboudh apni ma mat vhuda ambedkar ke ❤de
@@Rakshita442bhai yeh log chidtet in fact all hate Hinduism influence in world
Maheshvar was Bodhisatva, later it merged with Vedic God Rudra, And resulted today’s lord shiva !!
@@Daniyaal_Hindno chotu
Bhaiya Hindi mw video bnaiye
Tuje khud kuch ni pta bas kitabi gyan deta h 😂😂😂
Nahi to Bhai aapke paas time machine ki suvidha hai to bata den ham bhi labh le len uska
First view !
Propaganda chalu hai
Mc proofs examine nhi kr pata tu 😊
how ?
just because your faith fails and you dont like hinduism so its a propaganda.
@@ishaanrohmetra3447
He is bhimta I think 🤣🤣
@@vaibhavthakur9234
Never mind bhimtas words 🤣
Hinduism
I said it in the "The Making of Harshavardhan's Empire" video. I will say it again. Odisha being part of Harsha's empire was also an info only giving by Xuanzang, even though we have contradictory evidence to otherwise. I will repost that comment here.
From Inscriptions of Orissa by Snigdha Tripathy - Page 59 -
The Vigraha rulers(ruling South Toshali or as they called it - "Kalinga rashtra") and Bhanudatta(who ruled over Balasore and Midnapore) accepted the suzerainty of Sambhuyasa of Mudgalas dynasty (they originally ruled North Toshali and captured South Toshali from the Vigrahas, Mahanadi river serving as the border between North and South Toshali). They have a history of 50 years from year 250 of Gupta Era to year 300.
Bhanudatta's successor Somadatta has copper plate grant from his 19th regnal year claimed subbordination of Shasanka with the title of "Samanta Maharaja") as the ruler of Dandabhukti (south western Midnapore) and Utkala(or North/Uttar Toshali aka Mayurbhanj, Keonjhar, Dhenkanal, Balasore and Cuttack).
By year 300 of Gupta era, all these regions came under Madhavraja of Shailodbhava Dynasty who served as the feudatory of Shasanka over the entire region as the ruler of "Kongoda mandala". They had the title "Maharaja Mahasamanta". From the epigraphic records of Vigrahas and Mudgalas, it is understood that Shasanka invaded Kongoda mandala in year 283 of Gupta era (603-4 CE)
From Page 64
In 620 CE, Madhavraja II assumed the title of "Sakala-Kalingadhipati" or "ruler of the whole of Kalinga"(though parts of the historical Kalinga region was then also under early Eastern Ganga rulers with their capital at "Kalinganagara"). It is usually believed based on Xuanzang's account that Harsha also invaded Kongoda. But none of the their records found in Khordha after claiming independence from Shasanka refer to any overlordship. It can be presumed that Harsha's conquest of Kongoda if any was short lived and the Shailodbhava rulers do not seem to have become his feudatories unlike Shasanka.
The Shailodbhava dynasty rulers became independent from Shasanka in 620 CE. Sadly most Indian historians do not try to analyze local odia history and instead assume Kalinga was part of Harsha's empire based on Xuangzang's account. Many maps of Harsha's empire online often show Kongoda/Kalinga/Toshali/Odra-desha (thats's all the names that Mudgalas , Bhanudatta and Shailodbhava rulers used) as part of Harsha's empire
Tuje khud kuch ni pta bas kitabi gyan deta h 😂😂😂
Aaya low IQ Neo Buddhist
Tum jaise gan* se to Gyan nahi deta kam se kam
Tu bta dedey bhai tuney kitni pustak padi hai