Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Kumarila Bhatta, the great Vedic schloar who studied Buddhism while living amongst Buddhists and then defeated them in debates. Leading to end of Buddhism in India. Video from Sanskrit Movie Adi Shankaracharya -

101,643 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

“Good Buddhism vs. Bad Hinduism" I serendipitously came across a video short featuring Koenraad Elst, who offers a profound observation. Please watch it👇before proceeding to read further. The "good Buddhism, bad Hinduism" narrative lacks roots in ancient Indian history. Buddhism emerged as a Darshana, an agnostic philosophical school rejecting the Vedas as pramaña, within the broader ecosystem of Hindutva. Please note that Hindutva, originally coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892, is the modern indigenous name for our ancient religion Sanatana Dharma, and we use it in that sense, not in any political or nationalistic sense. Buddhism drew almost all core concepts like karma, dharma, and samsara from Vedic traditions with Buddhist texts heavily borrowing from them. In ancient India, lay practitioners often blended Buddhism and Hindutva seamlessly, without a sharp divide. Buddhism was, in essence, deeply rooted in Hindutva until external forces reframed it. This false binary took shape in the 19th century through colonial Orientalist scholarship, filtered through a Judeo-Christian lens. Western scholars, including missionaries and Indologists like Max Müller, portrayed Hindutva’s polytheism and “idol worship” as superstitious and its caste system as “socially oppressive”, likening it to pre-Reformation Catholicism. Meanwhile, Buddhism’s focus on “compassion” and monastic simplicity was romanticised as a "Protestant-like" reform — enlightened, universal, and akin to Christian ethics. Financial disparities reinforced this: Buddhist studies received patronage from Japan, China, and Western donors, while Hindutva, tied to an impoverished India, lacked similar support. Post-1947, political and ideological forces entrenched this narrative. Nehruvian socialism and Marxist historiography cast Buddhism as a “rational”, “progressive force”, crediting it for Hindutva’s “positive” elements while blaming Hindutva for its inadequacies. Ambedkar’s 1956 mass conversion to Buddhism — his invented Navayana Buddhism, which retains little of traditional Buddhism beyond its name — presented it as an escape from “Hindu oppression,” focusing on caste critique, despite Buddhism’s own historical monastic hierarchies and caste-like structures. Left-leaning academics, media, and textbooks perpetuated this to push anti-Hindu, “egalitarian” agendas, ignoring Buddhism’s elite urban origins. In the West, Buddhism’s “philosophical” image (meditation, mindfulness, and lack of a creator god) aligns with secular and New Age preferences, making it a marketable, “cool” non-theistic tradition. Hindutva, with its diverse rituals and deities, is stereotyped as exotic yet backward, scrutinised over caste without nuance as caste is only social organisation. This fuels more funding, academic positions, and media portrayals (e.g., films like Little Buddha) glorifying Buddhism, while Hindutva faces disproportionate criticism, nay vilification. This narrative is driven by diverse actors with aligned goals of vilifying Hindutva: colonial Christian Indologists and missionaries demonised it to aid conversions; Indian intellectuals like Nehru, Ambedkar, and Marxist historians like Romila Thapar advanced pseudo-secular, anti-Hindutva agendas; modern English media and deep-state-inspired Dalit groups promote Ambedkarite views, framing Buddhism as empowerment; Western academics like Sheldon Pollock and outlets like The New York Times benefit from well-funded Buddhist studies chairs that outnumber those for Hindutva; Buddhist institutions, from ancient monasteries to modern Tibetan exile networks and Western converts, emphasise differences to secure patronage; and global cultural dynamics promote Buddhism as a “universal” export, erasing its Hindu roots to enable Hinduphobia and support missionary conversion tactics. Buddhists following traditional schools such as Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna must understand and recognize that Hindutva (Sanātana Dharma) is the foundation of Buddhism, without which it cannot exist. They should not fall for the deep-state-inspired Ambedkarite Navayāna narratives, which have nothing to do with traditional Buddhism, or Abrahamic strategies that divide and destroy non-Abrahamic traditions. In Southeast Asia and elsewhere, including India, Christian missionaries, not Hindus, have been converting Buddhists, thereby altering the religious character of those societies and destroying Buddhism. Likewise, Islam has destroyed Buddhism in Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics. As recently as 2001, the Islamic Taliban bombed and destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas. The Islamic term but parasti, meaning "idol worship," is derived from the word Buddha, in reference to the idols associated with Buddhism. Therefore, in their own self-interest , traditional Buddhists must reject false victimhood and the anti-Hindu weaponisation of their tradition, for Hindus are not their enemy. On the contrary, the enemies of Buddhism and Hindutva are the same; they merely try to create a wedge between Buddhists and Hindus to destroy both.

M. Nageswara Rao IPS (Retired)

52,463 views • 10 months ago