What do you guys think? Should we put all the blame on the Muslim invasion? Or should Hindusim be equally blamed for the decline and fall of Buddhism in India?

Was Buddhism driven out of India?
By M.S.N. Menon, Organiser.org, Jan 22, 2006

New Delhi, India -- Was Buddhism driven out of India? No. It is a canard, a lie propagated by vested interests. What are the facts? Buddhism was a reaction to the growing permissiveness and distortions of Aryan society. It was, therefore, puritanical. But by banning drinking, dancing, singing and theatre, Buddhism sowed the seeds of opposition.

<< The Mahabodhi temple in Bodhgaya, India

But Buddhism was also revolutionary. It was “the logical development of the religion of the Hindus,” says Dr. Radhakrishnan. It played a significant role in human history.

On this, Northcote Parkinson says: “In the rallying of Asia against western pressure, Buddhism played a central role like no other religion before or since; its influence extended to the whole of Asia. It lent vigour to all that was attractive in Hinduism.”

Naturally, for about a thousand years (from 3rd century BC to 6th century AD), Buddhism was the dominant religion of India, although it broke up into two—Mahayana and Hinayana. It had little opposition. When Fa Hien, the Chinese student, visited India in the 5th century AD, Buddhism was flourishing along with Hinduism. But by the 6th century AD, Buddhism had broken up into 18 sects. So, when Hieun Tsang, the Chinese pilgrim visited India in the 7th century AD, Buddhism was in decline. What is more, by distorting the Master’s message and reverting in some ways to Hindu beliefs and practices, Mahayana had lost its attraction. Buddha himself had anticipated the decline in one of his talks with Ananda, his chief disciple.

The conquest of Central Asia and Afghanistan by the Muslims was a major blow to Buddhism. Historian, Pramanath Bose writes that “Buddhism...got so engulfed in the superstitions of Turanians that it transformed itself into some of the grossest forms of Scythian idolatry.” Buddhism as an ethical system had little impact on Central Asia, which explains how Islam was able to overwhelm this huge region in so short a time.

It was this decline of Buddhism which brought up the resurgence of Saivism and Vaishnavism. And Shankara, by incorporating many of the Buddhist doctrines into Hinduism, made Buddhism redundant. But the final blow to Buddhism came with the advent of Islam in India.

Muslim invaders made it a point to extirpate Buddhism from India. They destroyed every vihara, where the monks lived and taught. Thus, the 500 viharas built by Ashoka in Kashmir and the 600 feet high stupa built by Kanishka were the first to be destroyed. Historian Vincent Smith says that the monks, who survived the holocaust, fled to south and to the Himalayas (Nepal, Tibet). In short, few dared to stay in India. The invaders also destroyed Taxila and Nalanda, the two great Buddhist universities. The cream of Buddhist scholarship lived here. Thus, every symbol of Buddhism was destroyed as part of a deliberate policy.

It is not true that Brahmanism opposed Buddhism. The first disciples of the enlightened one were all Brahmins. For example, Maha Muggalanna, Sariputta, Maha Kashyapa, Asita, Kaundinya. Buddha rejected only the Brahminical rituals, the authority of the Vedas and the oppressive caste system.

According to Smt Rhys Davids, among the 246 poet-authors mentioned in the Thera Gatha, 113 were Brahmins, 70 Kshatriyas. Thus, it is clear that Buddhism had no real opposition in India. In Fact, the kings gave equal protection to both Hinduism and Buddhism. For example, the Gupta empire, although Hindu, gave full protection to Buddhism. So did Harsha’s empire. Lalitaditya, the greatest king of Kashmir, although not a Buddhist, built the largest Vihara for the Buddhists.

If Buddhism was brought down by anyone (which is not the case) it was done by the Buddhist monks. The hasya literature in Sanskrit is full of humour and satire against the Buddhist monks—of how they took to meat, drinks and women. Naturally, Buddhism lost the respect in which it was held earlier.

It may be a digression, but let us see how the Buddhists fared in China. In China, it was the growing monkish population that forced the emperor to ban Buddhist activities. In 477 AD there were as many as 6,478 monasteries in northern China. It grew to 30,000 by 534 AD. And there were as many as 77,258 monks. To the industrious Chinese, this growing parasitic population was a drag on their economy and a danger to their way of life. Buddhism never recovered from that blow. But it is also true that, as in India, Taoism absorbed what was noble in Buddhism.

Although the Buddha did not advocate a monastic life, the monks propagated that only a monastic life could attain nirvana with any measure of certainty. Thus millions of Hindus took to monastic life. It became a way of life among Buddhists.

With focus on nirvana, life itself came to be secondary, not to speak of defence and security matters. India was thus least prepared to meet the onslaught of the Muslims. In the event, the Hindus closed their ranks against the Muslims. And they were not prepared to be tolerant to any divisive criticism from the Buddhists and Jains. Which explains why Buddhism almost disappeared from India.

But where did the Buddhists disappear? They went back to their ancient faith—Hinduism—to resist the Muslims.

Buddhism is still around in India.

Eventually it lost its initial popularity amongst the masses and became just another dharmic sect just like Arya Samaj many years after.

Yeah I know. Buddhism is considered just another sect of Hinduism and the Buddha just another one of many Hindu avatars.

That was only one of the reasons

Buddhists had lost their royal patronage and Brahmins were destroying their temples and monasteries. They had no financial backup. When the Muslims invaded and destroyed Hindu and Buddhist temples, the hindus had patronage from rich people who would help them rebuild but the buddhists didn't

In the later Middle Ages, Hindu and Muslim kingdoms were more powerful than the Buddhist kingdoms. Most of the Indian Buddhists eventually adopted the religions of their powerful Hindu and Muslim rulers.

Nah, bro there these cats called neo-buddhist who have supported by east asian buddhists.

I'm looking more into it myself.

I believe Buddhism continued to receive royal patronage in eastern India till those kingdoms were destroyed by the Islamic invaders.

BUDDHISM in Eastern India

According to your source, the Buddhist Pala Empire was invaded by the Hindu Chola and Sena dynasties before Bengal was ruled by Muslims.

It is more probably the followers of Tantra- and Mahāyāna Buddhism were absorbed into Hinduism unscathed but the Theravāda Buddhists and the Jains had nowhere to go.

And yes the Senas did replace the Pālas. After the fall of the Pālas, the Senas took control of Bengal and when they fell to the Muslims, the Bengali Buddhists, knowing what happened to their brethren in the west fled to Darjeeling and Chittagong (Bangladesh), where they remain to this day

invaded...NOT destroyed.

The destruction was the work of the Muslim Turk invaders.

damn muslim invaders!

Brahmins did a lot more than the Muslims. Muslims just casted the final blow

I wonder if history would've been much more different had Hinduism not become the largest and prevalent religion and Buddhism was never pushed out of India.

You can blame Muslims all you want but the fact remains that Indian Buddhism was already being weakened by Hindu invaders before Muslims arrived. Like Hominid said, Muslim invaders just casted the final blow.

No one is "blaming" Muslims...the invaders have actually recorded their nefarious deeds.

Buddhism and Jainism continued to survive till a late period because they were protected by the independent Rajput rulers who successfully resisted the Islamic invasions.

And whatever decline there was in Buddhism was due to internal causes....the effect of Tantric practices, corruption, and sexual immorality.

No one knows this but other religions like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, also disappeared and merged back into the Hindu civilization...this was for protection from the islamic invaders...and for this very reason Buddhism and Jainism also took shelter within Hinduism in that period.

at least tibet has preserved some remnants of indian bhuddism. most of surviving sanskrit manuscripts are also preserved in tibetan monestaries

And the Tibet example shows that had there been no Islamic invasion of India, Buddhism would have thrived separately along with the other Hindu religions.

Buddhism was also flourishing in Central Asia and Afghanistan (remember the Bamiyan Buddhas?). Who destroyed it in those lands?

The same Muslim invaders...it's actually surprising that people blame "Hinduism" or "Brahmans" for the fall of Buddhism.

This is largely a product of leftist writing of history in India, which sought to whitewash the Muslim role in history while criticizing the ancient Hindu period.

And Buddhism continues to survive in those parts of India TO THIS DAY where the Muslim invaders could not reach...Ladakh, upper parts of Himachal, Sikkim, Arunachal, etc.

This ought to shut up the "blame Hinduism brigade"

Early medieval records show that Buddhism was already declining in most of India even before Muslims arrived, except for the eastern regions.

Throughout history, the populations that were conquered by other religions would often convert to the religion of their rulers. This is what happened with Indian Buddhism, when most of its adherents converted to the religions of the dominant rulers at the time (Hindus and Muslims).

Many Muslims have already accepted their role in Indian Buddhism's decline but when will many Hindus learn to accept their fair share of the blame?

Ha! Hindu invaders weakened Buddhism in India? What are you, British? Portuguese? Saudi?

Buddhists weren't big in most of India. Southern India had very little Buddhist influence, and states such as UP, Gujarat, Bihar, Haryana, etc. were over-whelmingly Hindu. The very Northern states (Kashmir and below, but not past UP) had large Buddhist populations.

Who dominates Kashmir now? Jihadi's.

i think you're simplifying things too much. there is multitude of other reasons too. i think you should leave the explanations to the "leftist" writers.

Buddhism was just as popular as Hinduism throughout ancient India ever since Ashoka the Great converted to Buddhism in the 3rd century BC. He ruled over most of Southern Asia at the time.

According to the article Zorawar posted, Hindu invaders from Southern India weakened Buddhism in Eastern India before the Muslim invaders arrived, who gave it the final blow.

By the way, you're half-right, I'm British Asian.

Hey,

That's not what the article said...wars between Palas-Pratihars-Rashtrakutas had nothing to do with religion. There was no weakening of Buddhism, no sacking of monasteries, no slaughter of monks.

All that happened with the Muslims.

By the way Buddhism still survives in Nepal, which is a HINDU country. Now if Hindus had really been weakening Buddhism, it would not have survived in Nepal to this day.

And when you consider Central Asia (where there were no Hindus/Brahmans) then Buddhism gave way to intolerant Islam...it only survived in those parts of India, Nepal, Tibet, Sri lanka, where the islamic invaders could not reach.

Historical records show that Buddhism was declining in India even before Muslims arrived. It was only in eastern and northeastern India that Buddhism was still dominant. This shows that the rise of Hinduism during the Gupta and Chola empires did have a negative effect on Buddhism.

Muslim rulers, missionaries and traders did convert locals in eastern and northwestern India but it was only a few of them who actually slaughtered monks/monasteries, namely Qutb-ud-din Aibak and Aurangzeb. In comparison, the early Mughals were tolerant rulers.

If Buddhism was declining in the Indian sub-continent before the islamic invasions...then why does it still survive (to this day ) in Nepal the only Hindu country in the world??


Buddhism continues to thrive in India (Ladakh, Himachal, Sikkim, Arunachal, etc.), Nepal, Sri Lanka, Tibet for one (and only one) reason...all of these areas were never invaded by Islamic armies.

Buddhism is just another dharmic path like Vaishnavism, Saivite, Arya Samaj. Its decline in popularity was not due to invasion or persecution, but rather due to eventual lack of interest.

The same thing happened to Arya Samaj. It started out strong and gained many followers, but over the years it has faded to the point where it is now (with hardly all that many followers).....

Umm a Muslim-ruled Kashmir conquered Ladakh. Ladakh is something like 52% Muslim
The Tibetans were going to annex them, so the Ladakhi king asked Kashmir for help. The deal was that a mosque would be built in Ladakh and the Ladakhi king would become Muslim. Kashmir later conquered Ladakh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladakh
Ladakh, Arunachal, and Sikkim are examples of places where Tibetan influence protected Buddhism.
They follow Tibetan Buddhism, not Indian Buddhism.
Nepal was historically Buddhist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Nepal
their kings were pretty much Buddhist until the Shah Dynasty in 1769

Persecution was not the main reason Buddhism disappeared in India. The Buddhists did not have the money they needed for temples and monasteries. The core of Indian Buddhism was based in the temples and monasteries and monks. When these were destroyed Buddhism lost its foundation and the children of the Indian Buddhists could not keep Buddhism alive. Yes Muslims destroyed Buddhism in Central
Asia, maybe if Buddhism wasn't already on its deathbed in India they could of destroyed it there

Ok
Tenji, you do not know Buddhism. It is not Hinduism
Please refer to http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...89626&st=13
Since the thread is locked i cannot copy and paste it here without wasting an hour

Buddhism evolved from Hinduism. MANY of it's principles are the same. I've seen numerous times where Buddhists/Hindu's worship at eachother's temples in India.

The thread was locked for a reason.

Buddhism has a closer relation to Hinduism than Christianity does to Judaism.

Neo Buddhists just refuse to believe that because they are jaded by Ambedkar's hateful legacy.......

That thread was closed because Gomeny and Radra Chopra went off topic and because you never responded to my rebuttal. And no it is not closer.

Buddhism denies ALL gods. Almost all Hinduism acknowledges gods.
Christianity and Judaism acknowledge the same god.

Buddhism believes nothing has a soul. Hinduism believes everything has a soul
Christianity and Judaism both believe that only humans have souls

Buddhism believes that karma is uncontrolled. Hinduism believe the god(s) are the 'bankclerks' of karma
Christianity and Judaism both deny karma's existence

Buddhism denies caste with great fervor. The caste sytem is one of the reason Buddhism initially grew so fast. Any Buddhist who follows caste is a false Buddhist. All Hinduism acknowledges caste
Christianity and Judaism both deny caste

Professors, monks, and professors across the world do not agree with you.
What makes you think your assertion is so correct. What is you knowledge on Buddhism. Thes are just assertions you are making. You thought that only neo-Buddhists deny caste,

You believe that Buddhism is Hinduism because its a 'Dharmic path,' but the very same claim can be made for Christianity too. Hindus can believe that Jesus was an avatāra the same way they believe Krishna as one.
Under your logic anything that pleads that it brings salvation is Hinduism

. buddhists for vishnu?

so do indians feel closer to tibet, s korea, or japan because they are bhuddist?

honestly in my experience Indians have strange notions of people like that.

Umm...no.

Ladakh was never conquered by "Kashmir". The mosque building incident dates to the Mughal times but the Mughals never captured Ladakh...if they had every monastery there would have been plundered.

Ladakh was actually conquered by the Rajputs of Jammu, who were the first to unify the four regions of Jammu, kashmir, Ladakh, and Baltistan.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Zorawar_Singh (my namesake )

BR Ambedkar, who later embraced Buddhism along with his followers, writes in the essay, ‘The Decline and Fall of Buddhism’, “There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the ‘but’. The word ‘but’, as everybody knows, is an Arabic word and means an idol. Not many people, however, know what the derivation of the world ‘but’ is. ‘But’ is the Arabic corruption of Buddha. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in Moslem mind idol worship had come to be identified with the Religion of Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Before Islam came into being, Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia. In all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism… (Writings and Speeches, Vol 3, p 230)

He continues: “The Musalman invaders sacked the Buddhist Universities of Nalanda, Vikramsila, Jagaddala, Odantipur to name a few. They razed to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. Muslim commanders killed a very large number outright. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves…”.

well...i was under the understanding that ladakh was about to be conquered by tibet, but the king appealed to the muslim sultan of kashmir for protection. the sulta agreed to sent reinforcements if the ruler of ladakh built a mosque in his capital and converted to islam, which the ruler did.

Hindus set to convert to Buddhism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6050408.stm

I'm happy for those converting, I wish for them to be treated better, whatever religion they choose, and even though I'm hindu, I place no blame on them. If anyone is at fault, it's those hindus and hindu nationalists that act on their high horse but incorrectly treat these people (yes, they are human beings even if "dalits" or "untouchables") with remorse, so how can we blame people when they convert.

If anyone is killing hinduism, it's those fools who claim to be protecting it, as they are going against some of the basic teachings of it! They are killing people and discriminating against non-hindus and hindus too. As a hindu, I'm ashamed of these people, they are not hindus if they can't even follow the most basic teachings. They are no better than fundamentalists of any other religions, and fundamentalists imo should not be considered a part of that religion seeing as they're using the religion to act for their own benefits alone.

Good to those who converted, I respect them far more than the idiots who think they don't deserve respect, even if they believe in a faith different to my own.

Go to any Hindu Nationalist website, all are for the COMPLETE BANNING of the Caste System. Hindu Nationalists hate those who are for the Caste System.

Get your facts straight before bashing people with true ideals. You're an NRI apostate.

^LOL Welcome back.

I have met Hindu Nationalists that feel that the caste system should be done away with. I forgot the name of that one Hindu nationalist site that promotes inter-caste marriages.


I think the more proper term for higher-caste Hindus that discriminate towards lower-castes would be extremists, fundamentalists, fanatics, etc.

I think it's a misconception that Brahmins are the ones abusing lower-caste Hindus, as Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and even other Sudra sects are the ones that seem to do it more. I've met Rajputs that thought they were better than Brahmins, and that Brahmins are jealous of Rajputs.

Remember that the Sudra caste is also broken down into sub-sects. Some Sudras are higher than others, and those Sudras will discriminate against the other Sudra sects that are "lower" than them.

While I'm not ignoring the atrocities committed towards lower-caste Hindus, it's interesting how some argue that the affirmative action programs is reverse discrimination towards high-caste Hindus. Some Brahmins are adopting lower-caste last names, in order to attain the positions in college and in the workforce that are reserved for lower-caste Hindus.

^^ That's a fair point, but that's exactly the problem. The caste system is hierarchical structure that people use to gain benefits for themselves. It's annoying how it is considered a hindu concept, because it's not, it goes against some of the basic teachings.



Actually, I was mostly referring to the nationalist BJP party in my post, who the majority are high caste officials. They say they take stands against the caste system by employing lower caste officials, but I've seen nothing of note from them to do away with the caste system completely.

Also, no, not all hindu nationalist groups are against the caste system, I can say this from experience.

I have yet to find one Hindu Nationalist group which supports the Caste System.

I agree though, Hindu Organizations (Nationalist Ones) need to bring in more "low caste" people.

I as a Brahmin, would cut the head of anybody who insults or puts down a Hindu Dalit. I don't believe in the system, and those who do should be beheaded.

Welcome to the worlds of extremism, fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Seriously you're either delusional or lying to get rid of an untenable point.

As Jagger has pointed out, you're not helping by saying you would take such actions. We need to teach each other to respect all, and we need to show dalits the respect they deserve, so that they know not everyone thinks they are lower.

I'm a brahmin too, but I take no pride in it, it's meaningless. What have I done to be regarded highly that someone of a lower caste hasn't done? the answer is nothing, I'm just a normal person and simply want to be treated like everyone else, I don't deserve any better treatment.

LOL @ saying I'm an extremist.

You passive d!ck-sucking Hindu's are going to be wiped out by the nationalists and patriots. If not by your fellow Hindu's, then the Muslims will do it.

Yes, Muslims, who represent less than 20% of the population, are going to wipe out the Hindu majority......

Hinduism has lasted for 5000 years without raising a fist or inciting a fight. I doubt they have anything to worry about.

As for the caste system, I'm sure most people don't take it very seriously at all anymore. I, too, am a Brahmin, but I have more sense than to take the words of some idiot who claims to be superior to someone of a lower caste seriously.

Its clear that Tenji is going to completely ignore any of my arguments...

Tenji is the only one here with some balls.

And to the dumbass who talked about Muslims not making up 20%, it doesn\'t matter. This is a violent World. They have that on their side.

Either you learn to be their way, or bow your fathead to them and get it cut off.

Hindu\'s who only preach peace and submissiveness should be excommunicated as the infidels of Hinduism. These apostates should be sent to Pakistan for the Muslim to feast on.

Hmm, is that why Chinese people pray to Buddha and those Chinese Gods?



Please elaborate and qoute please. Does that mean you have no soul and you are basically are an empty shell? Does that mean it's perfectly ok to destroy souless creatures?

You're confusing yourself.




Is that why China had a rigid class society till Communism?

Yawn, practice what you preach.

-----

Buddhism in China- hmm maybe 10% are Buddhists? Why have Chinese driven away Buddhism?

Chinese Buddhists are generally followers of Mahayana Buddhism
Mahayana Buddhism has bodhisattvas, which are god-LIKE figures.
They are pre-Buddhas who are delaying their enlightenment to help others.

Karma:
In Buddhism there is not karma controller. In Hinduism (the) god(s) control karma's fruition


Class society is different from caste. Class can change, you are not bound to it
Caste come from birth. You are born into a caste and you cannot escape it. The Caste system from Hinduism makes claims that enlightenment comes from the Brahmins and stuff like that and gives the idea that Brahmins, Ksatriyas, and Vaisyas are closer to Enlightenment

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm