Dear all,

Forgive in advance me for using the rather gauche method of
line-by-line commentary, and for the length of this.

> it is true that Buddhism was already in steady decline at the time of
> muslim invasion to North India.

Glad that we can agree here, but then why recommend a site which 'blurbs':
"1197 ... Buddhism starts to decline in India following Moslem
invasions" ? It is interesting how the titles of such lists begin with
"Some significant dates in Buddhist History" --but then go on not to list
merely dates but to codify a kind of malicious set of stereotypes. A quick
look at the following list of sites convinces me that they are, at best,
trivial and at worst erroneous. Those interested in this aspect of India's
history might best consult the sources I posted previously.

Saying that "the ruthless Muslims only made the end quicker" has some
truth to it. But better to use the phrase "ruthless Turks" (more accurate)
and also to better distinguish these empire-builders from the easy-going,
adaptable Sufi Muslims of the Chishtiyyah order. Their presence in N.
India (esp. Lahore) from the 11th century produced much valuable synthesis
in the religious life of the region. The Chishtiyyahs' willingness to
adopt various 'Hindu' practices (breath control, sitting postures or
'aasanas', etc.) helped foster tolerance and interreligious respect. This
bore fruit at the highest political level during Akbar's reign.

It should also be pointed out that Buddhism *did* survive, marginally,
in Orissa -particularly the great monastery of Ratnagiri (16th c.). If
"ruthless Muslims" were so brutal, why spare *any* monasteries. First,
because monasteries weren't targeted bec. they were Buddhist. Second,
their motives for contral weren't 'Islamic'. (Just as the current U.S.
ventures into Afghanistan & Iraq aren't particularly 'Christian' despite
some of President G. Bush's rhetoric.) Moreover, early in the 16th c. King
Prataparudra persecuted Buddhists as a part of his royal ascendency.

A quick note: the idea the Hindus & Buddhists peacefully coexisted in
India most of the time is pretty much a myth. For the most convincing
evidence of the 'contested' nature of their interaction most recently, see
two works by D.N. Gellner:

(1) "The Newar Buddhist Monastery An Anthropological and Historical
Typology" in _HERITAGE OF THE KATHMANDU VALLEY. PROCEEDINGS OF AN
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN LuBECK, JUNE 1985, pp. 356-414. (1987)

(2) _MONK, HOUSEHOLDER, AND TANTRIC PRIEST. NEWAR BUDDHISM AND ITS
HIERARCHY OF RITUAL_, Cambridge, 1987.

and also

Verardi, G. "Excavations at Harigaon, Kathmandu, Final Report. (IsMEO
Reports and Memoirs 25), 2 vols., Rome, 1992.

Literary evidence was preserved in Madhava's Shankara-degvijaya, which
rejoices in the drowning of "thousands of Buddhists." (Curious how often
these passages are overlooked by those eager to point out certain Qur'anic
passages.)

Finally, for serious studies of Buddhism in South India interested
readers might consult the following

Story of Buddhism with special reference to South India by A. Aiyappan
and P.R. Srinivasan. Chennai: 2000.

Imagining a place for Buddhism: literary culture and religious community
in Tamil-speaking South India, by Anne E. Monius. Oxford University Press,
2001.

Vajrayana Buddhist centres in South India / B. Subrahmanyam.
Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, 2001
-------------------------------------

IMHO, the history sources which treat religion on the web are generally
*very* unreliable. We're still *far* better off using traditional studies,
text books and monographs. Happily the web sources for learning Pali are
much better!

best wishes,
Tim Cahill