Thread by @Aabhas24

1/n #SadarPranam to Ishvara within you @TenzingLamsang

Now that you use DN Jha's source to prove Buddhist Persecution by Hindus, let me unpin each one one by one.

You may respond should you have substance.

https://twitter.com/TenzingLamsang/status/1529459168041930752

2/n Let's first pick #Divyadanda

What an irony, Tenzing that even this Buddhist text is written in Sanskrit, the language blamed to be of Brahmin Persecutors.

Anyways, let's focus on main thing.

3/n To begin with, let me talk of Etienne Lamotte, the eminent Historian who observed as below:

"To judge from the documents, Pushyamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof."

...and lets move further.

4/n First of all @TenzingLamsang , as a student of History you need to begin with looking at how close to date of incidence something is written.

Pushyamitra Shunga reigned 2.207 k years ago, while Divyadanda was written almost after four centuries.

FOUR CENTURIES.

5/n Hence it can not be considered as Contemporary Source.

Anyways lets look further into Divyadanda in terms of content analysis. Here is the instance from Ashokvadana part in the translation:

6/n What do you observe @TenzingLamsang ? Btw do you have any idea what contents are there in Divyadanda in all?

Anyways lets move on for analysis.

It shows that Pushyamitra offered "hundred dinar" for the each head of Buddhist monks.

7/n But any idea when these "Dinars" came into circulation? Almost a century after Pushyamitra reigned. You may validate it @TenzingLamsang . so?

If one talks of History, one need to analyse the folklore type (Ashokavadana) record quite carefully wrt any instance. Let's do that.

8/n Had this instance as mentioned in Ashokvadana been real, then another Buddhist Text Mahavamsa won't have shows the existence of Buddhist Monasteries in Bihar, Awadh & Malwa suggesting that these monasteries survived Pushyamitra Shunga's reign.

9/n Source for 8/n: "Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating History's Intriguing Questions"

So what was so special in those monasteries that they didn't fell in the eyes of Pushyamitra?

@TenzingLamsang , structures stand for proof.

10/n One must read work of Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri to understand the situation better.

Marxist historians make a claim often wrt Ashokvadana, that because Ashoka had supressed Brahmins too hence an uprising happened and Pushyamitra almost avenged the thing.

11/n But that thing is way away from the truth. HC Raychaudhari is very clear that, " (...)as Brahmins did not suffer during the Mauryan rule (...) appointment of a Brahmin general (Pushyamitra) shows that the Brahmins were honoured at the Mauryan court."

12/n And the Sunga patronage for places like Bharhut and restoration of many Stupas does not build a case that enormous enmity of blood bath existed.

Source: Indigenous States of Northern India, Circa 200 B.C. to 320 A.D by Bella Lahiri

13/n And you must also be made to know @TenzingLamsang that your source, rather Jha's source, (Ashokavadana in) Divyavadana makes Pushyamitra a Mauya which itself is a point enough to not use it as source for Pushyamitra.

14/n Raychaudhury also talks about Malavikagnimitra( Kalidasa), which shows a Buddhist nun named Bhagavati Kaushiki attending Pushyamitra's court.

You ( a commoner) don't visit persecutor's court, isn't it?

Source: Aspects of ancient Indian history and historiography

15/n Dear Tenzim ji, you copy the things from DN Jha's writing and repeat offence of misquoting Prof Thapar.

In fact on the same page, same book , she explains why Ashokvadana is unreliable on Pushyamitra's part (yellow highlight in snippet)

https://twitter.com/TenzingLamsang/status/1529412847478132736?s=20&t=HXJBrnnwIzGfKrlSZlMqdQ

16/n And read the underlined part @TenzingLamsang , where Prof Thapar clearly states,

"The idea of Pusyamitra being violently anti Buddhist has often been stated, but archaeological evidence suggests contrary."

Shocked?

17/n You need to think, @TenzingLamsang why Prof Thapar never took up SR Goel's challenge which I have to you too.

She certainly hasn't been as gullible as you to come to so quick response, even though three decades have passed.

18/n Prof Thapar builds a case that, most likely the Buddhist influence declined at the court during Pushyamitra's reign & hence lesser royal patronage. This might have led to discontent among the Buddhists, & hence the exaggerated accounts of persecution.
Got it @TenzingLamsang?

19/n The similar sentiment as being the reason for the exaggerated accounts has been echoed in "Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating History's Intriguing Questions" by Steven L. Danver too.

Let me further show the hypocrisy of cabal.

20/n Let us look into critical edition of Ashokvadana by S. Mukhopadhyaya.

Read here how Mr Mukhopadhyaya, relates this assertion about Ashoka's act against a rival sect ( Pushyamitra is accused of same later on).

21/n But it goes interesting on the very next page. Mr Mukhopadhyaya asserts to disagree with the tarring of Ashoka, his secular hero.

Interesting, isn't it @TenzingLamsang ? Let me elaborate.

The quest to idealize of Buddhist Ashoka as secular you become hypocrite.

22/n So what exactly happens?

The moment the same source which is used to show Buddhism as victim, shows Ashoka as a giant persecutor of rival school you develop cold-feet & being a religiously Indian Marxist school of thought you call this as a “great defect”.

How convinient?

23/n Now, let's come to the point of Pushyamitra again @TenzingLamsang through Ashokavadana in Divyavadana.

Let's revisit, the incidence of "Dinara for Buddhist Monk head," again.

Do read the book.

24/n It further talks that Pushyamitra got many monks killed, but one "powerful Arhat" created monks’ heads by magic and offered these to the people, so that they could get the "dinara" without chopping any monk’s head in reality (read spinet).

25/n This is exact xerox of incidence of what Ashok has done as per the same text, but here the over multiplied layer of magic of "Powerful Arhat" is added.

But where lies the biggest difference? Let's look into it.

26/n The aspect of miracle forms a very crucial part in the narration of the tale of Pushyamitra & hence the credibility of source goes questionable big time.

27/n There is not a single independent claim to show Pushyamitra in as bad light as the Buddhist side has done.

Like when they assert thing about there own hero, Ashoka the matter becomes believable because even archaeology supports such claims.

28/n But do you know further Mukhopadhyaya goes on to allege the writer of Ashokvadana of lying?

He says: “In order to show the greatness of Buddhism, the orthodox author degraded it by painting the greatest Buddhist of the world as a dreadful religious fanatic.”

29/n How silly, isn’t it @TenzingLamsang ? One who had read Ashokvadava can’t at all say that here that has been done what Sujit Kumar Mokhopadyaya claims of.

It only shows shallowness of argument.

The text is true as long as Ashok is great & Pushyamitra bad. How convenient?

30/n So @TenzingLamsang if you believe in Ashokvadna for Pushyamitra & not see Ashok as crime doer then is this case as below:

31/n The author of Ashokvadana first makes Ashoka commit a big crime to illustrate the greatness of Buddha Dharma?

How? By showing Buddhism as the pivot that would make Ashoka give up gave criminality?

32/n As it is also said:

“During the conquest of Kalinga, Ashoka showed massive cruelty which actually was over hyped by the story writers merely to emphasise his barbarism renouncing effect leading to conversion in Buddha’s fold.”

33/n It all began with Nehru’s History writing wherein Ashoka was bad till being Sanatani but got to be a great soul once he became a Buddha follower.

But truth seems otherwise.

34/n So, for interest of any academic one must not parrot this narrative of Divyavadana to show Pushyamitra as persecutor of Buddhists.

@TenzingLamsang your first source is completely discredited, & now I’ll move to your next source soon.

https://twitter.com/TenzingLamsang/status/1529459168041930752

35/n And here is already a thread which had shown the Tibetan Sources which DN Jha has used in the article (shared by @TenzingLamsang ) as misleading.

Because you talk of Tibet, I must quote @DalaiLama in next tweet before moving to next source of your.

https://twitter.com/aabhas24/status/1262468448833032192

36/n “When I say that Buddhism is a part of Hinduism, certain people criticize me. But if I were to say that Hinduism and Buddhism are totally different, it would not be in conformity with truth.” — @DalaiLama

Now discredit him @TenzingLamsang !

37/n Here @TenzingLamsang tries to cover up outrightly but yet doesn’t accepts mistake.

In fact he blindly copied from Jha’s article without reading book.
Then again misquotes Prof Sarao (caught by @feludamitter).His source Ashokvadana already debunked.

https://twitter.com/feludamitter/status/1529784781206331392?s=21