WHY DID BUDDHISM VANISH : other side of the coin

[Guest guest]

Moderator's note: I have not read the article and can not say whether I would

agree or not with the ideas of the article.

 

Why Did Buddhism Vanish from India?

http://indiaview.wordpress.com

 

Have listed six reasons plus

7. words of Swami Vivekanand and

8. words of Dr B. R. Ambedkar.

 

1) The main cause was the neglect by the monks of this

life and its values. While the Buddhist monks realized

that everyone was not fit or could not become a monk

or nun, they paid attention only to the life of a monk

and not to the life of a householder. Which meant that

they focused on the life of a monk, which is a life of

inwardness as compared to that of a householder, which

is one of outwardness. Now, both these aspects need

examination, study, guidance and control. It is not

enough to tell a householder that this existing life

is only a stepping-stone to the life of a monk. Why

and how is it so and what relation it bears to

realities has to be explained. Instead Buddhist

philosophers began to teach that this life was nothing

but a value of tears and misery. While some forms of

Vedanta taught the same philosophy, the attitude of

Mimamsa (philosophy of action) and the Epics saved

Hinduism from the fate that overtook Buddhism in

India. Many great Indians were impacted by spiritual

teachings but �unless there were some codes extolling

the values of the world, they tended to become

one-sidedly inwardly �.

 

2) Another reason was the admission of women into

monasteries and the more or less indiscriminate

conversion of men, women into monks and nuns. While

true renunciation and celibacy were appreciated,

people wanted to see them well practiced. When people

supported these monasteries with their hard-earned

money, they did not want its residents to live in

luxury and enjoyment, virtues, which were condemned.

If monks and nuns had lived by the rules that they

were taught, people would have supported them inspite

of any hardship that they had to face.

 

3) The next reason was the deterioration in the

political and economic life of the country.

Monasteries were supported by the people and the Kings

e.g. Ashoka. Now, when a dynasty fell or a king died,

the next in line might not give the same degree of

support. The king�s thinkers realized that their

defeat was due to the loss of their best fighters,

leaders, who had become monks. This made the country

an easy prey to the foreign invader. Coincidence or

otherwise, India�s first foreign invasion by the

Greeks took place in 327 B.C. a couple of centuries

after Emperor Asoka�s peace movement.

 

4) Buddhism existed in the monasteries and unlike the

dharmaasutras (ethical codes) lacked a moral code. So

when monasteries disappeared, Buddhism disappeared.

The invasion of the Muslims and the ruthless

destruction of Buddhist monasteries extinguished the

lamp of Buddhism in North India. The wanton

destruction of the great monastery of Uddandapura

(Bihar) and the wholesale massacre of its monks might

make us visualize how the great monasteries of

Nalanda, Vikramasila and others met with a tragic end.

 

5) The extreme asceticism practiced and popularized by

both Buddhism and Jainism disturbed the social life of

India. Magadha, the seat of many imperial dynasties,

became Bihar, the land of monasteries (viharas). There

was nothing in these religions to emphasize the

importance of life in this world and its values. These

causes led to a bloodless revolt by the orthodox in

the eight-century a.d. The revolt was staged from two

sides, the Brahmanic and the Upanisadic. Kumarila was

the leader of the former and Sankara of the latter.

Kumarila succeeded in reviving a strong positive

attitude towards the world and its values and all that

could be called human and activistic. On the other

hand, Sankara said that everything that was good in

Buddhism already existed in the Upanishads. In fact,

Gaudapada, the grand teacher of Sankara, unified the

current spanda (vibration) doctrine of Saivism, the

vijnana (mind) doctrine of the Buddhists and the Atman

doctrine of the Upanishads in his Mandukyakarikas and

made the way easy for Sankara to assimilate and absorb

Buddhism. Thus, there remained no justification for

its separate existence in India; it had no social

ethics and consequently, no hold over society. It

could not stand alone as a spiritual discipline as it

was shown to be part of the Upanishads.

 

6) Quoting Swami Vivekananda � Thus, inspite of

preaching mercy to animals, inspite of the sublime

ethical religion, inspite of the discussions about the

existence or non-existence of a permanent soul, the

whole building of Buddhism tumbled down piece-meal and

the ruin was simply hideous. The most hideous

ceremonies, the most obscene books that human hands

ever wrote or the human brain ever conceived, have all

been the creation of the degraded Buddhism. The

Tartars and the Baluchis and all the hideous races of

mankind that came to India, became Buddhists and

assimilated with us, brought their national customs

and the whole of our national life became a huge page

of the most horrible, bestial customs. Sankara came

and showed that the real essence of Buddhism and that

of Vedanta are not very different but that the

disciples did not understand the master and have

degraded themselves, denied the existence of soul and

one God and have become atheists. That was what

Sankara showed and all the Buddhists began to come

back to their old religion�.

 

 

7) Buddhism adopted various thoughts and beliefs

between the first century B.C. and the sixth century

a.d. Some Buddhists adopted the tantric sadhanas and

distorted them for the sake of enjoyment and comfort.

The highly advanced philosophy of tantric sadhana is

difficult to understand without the guidance of a

proper teacher. This undigested knowledge of tantra,

including the use of wine, meat, fish, gestures and

physical union led these Buddhist followers to their

downfall. Also, the distortions of Buddhism produced a

variety of schools, which were not pure Buddhist

schools but contained a variety of practices. To give

you an idea of the syntheses between Vedanta and

Buddhism, the concept of Maya in Vedanta in borrowed

from Buddhism. Sankara accepted the logical

connotation of Maya just as it was given by the

Buddhists. Jainism was saved by tacitly allowing its

members to become part of the Hindu fold by adopting

rules of conduct of the third caste, namely Vaisyas or

traders.

 

8) Quoted from �Dr Ambedkar Life & Mission by

Dhananjay Keer�. Dr B R Ambedkar addressed delegates

of Young Men�s Buddhist Association in May 1950 at

Colombo on �Rise & fall of Buddhism in India� -

�Buddhism in its material force had disappeared. But

as a spiritual force it still exists�. As regards

Hinduism he said it went through three phases, Vedic

religion, Brahmanism and Hinduism. It was during the

Brahmanism period that Buddhism was born. It was not

true that after the days of Shankaracharya Buddhism

was dead in India. It was going on for years together.

In fact Shankaracharya and his teacher were both

Buddhists he added. While he was digging material on

the subject for the decline/vanish of Buddhism from

India the reasons were - adoption of some rituals &

practices from Buddhism by the Vaishnava & Shaiva

cults, which were vociferous in their propaganda

against Buddhism. During the invasion by Allauddin

Khilji thousands of priests in Bihar were massacred

and consequently some of them fled for their lives to

Tibet, China & Nepal. In the meanwhile, the majority

of Buddhists went over to Hinduism. The third cause

was that Buddhism was difficult to practice while

Hinduism was not. Reason four was that the political

atmosphere in India had been unfavorable to the

advancement of Buddhism he concluded.

 

But according to Hindu scholars the fall of Buddhism

was due to many reasons. Owing to universalistic

ambition its spread was everywhere but it had

geographical center nowhere. It discarded all national

gods & godmen & proclaimed Buddha the greatest of all

gods. As long as it reacted as a reformative flank in

India, Buddhism gained ground but when it began to act

against the Vedic religion, which was the national

religion of the majority, Buddhism lost sympathy in

India. The Vedic Hindus fought the Muslims bravely and

did not flee to any other country. But the Buddhists

when attacked, having a center nowhere, fled to

different countries and even it is said acclaimed the

invasion of India by non-Hindus with the ringing of

bells. Besides its godlessness, its over-emphasis on

redemption, its sad tone, its unconcern with the world

& neglect of family checked rather than fostered

enterprise. Quote ends.

 

Books referred to :

 

1. Introduction to Comparative Philosophy by P T Raju.

 

2. History & Culture of Indian People by Bhartiya

Vidya Bhavan. Related story below:

-------------------

Buddhism: The FULFILLMENT OF HINDUISM

- Swami Vivekananda,Chicago

26 th September, 1893

 

I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am.

If China, or

Japan, or Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great

Master, India

worships him as God incarnate on earth. You have just

now heard

that I am going to criticize Buddhism, but by that I

wish you to

understand only this. Far be it from me to criticize

him whom I

worship as God incarnate on earth.

 

But our views about Buddha are

that he was not understood properly by his disciples.

 

The relation

between Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion of

the Vedas)

and what is called Buddhism at the present day, is

nearly the same

as between Judaism and Christianity.

 

Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shakya Muni was a Hindu.

The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay,

crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shakya

Muni as God and

worship him. But the real difference that we Hindus

want to show

between modern Buddhism and what we should understand

as the

teachings of Lord Buddha, lies principally in this:

Shakya Muni

came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came

to fulfill

and not to destroy.

 

Only, in the case of Jesus, it was the old

people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in

the case of

Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realize

the importance

of his teachings, As the Jew did not understand the

fulfillment of

the Old Testament, so the Buddhist did not understand

the

fulfillment of the truths of the Hindu religion.

Again, I repeat,

Shakya Muni came not to destroy, but he was the

fulfillment, the

logical conclusion, the logical development of the

religion of

the Hindus.

 

The religion of the Hindus is divided into two parts,

the

ceremonial and the spiritual; the spiritual portion is

specially

studied by the monks.

 

In that there is no caste. A man from the highest

caste and a man

from the lowest may become a monk in India and the two

castes

become equal. In the religion there is no caste; caste

is simply a

social institution, Shakya Muni himself was a monk,

and it was his

glory that he had the large-heartedness to bring out

the truths how

the hid- den Vedas and throw them broadcast all over

the world. He

was the first being in the world who brought

missionarizing into

practice - nay, he was the first to conceive the idea

of

proselytizing.

 

The great glory of the Master lay in his wonderful

sympathy for

everybody, especially for the ignorant and the poor.

Saint of his

disciples were Brahmins. When Buddha was teaching,

Sanskrit was no

more the spoken language in India. It was then only

in the books

of the learned. Some of the Buddha�s Brahmin

disciples wanted to

translate his teachings into Sanskrit, but he

distinctly told them,

�I am for the poor, for the people: let me speak in

the tongue of

the people.� And so to this day the great bulk of his

teachings

are in the vernacular of that day in India.

 

Whatever may be the position of philosophy, whatever

may the

position of metaphysics, so long as there is such a

thing as death

in the world, so long as there is such a thing as

weakness in the

human heart, so long as there is a cry going out of

the heart of

man in his very weakness, there shall be a faith in

God.

 

On the philosophic side, the disciples of the Great

Master dashed

themselves against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and

could not

crush them, and on the other side they took away from

the nation

that eternal God to which everyone, man or woman,

clings so fondly.

And the result was that Buddhism had to die a natural

death in

India. At the present day there is not one who calls

himself a

Buddhist in India, the land of its birth.

 

But at the same time, Brahminism lost something - that

reforming

zeal, that wonderful sympathy and charity for

everybody, that

wonderful leaven which Buddhism had brought to the

masses and which

had rendered Indian society so great that a Greek

historian who

wrote about India of that time was led to say that no

Hindu was

known to tell untruth and no Hindu woman was known to

be unchaste.

 

Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism, nor Buddhism

without

Hinduism. Then realize what the separation has shown

to us, that

the Buddhists cannot stand without the brain and

philosophy of the

Brahmins, nor the Brahmin without the heart of the

Buddhist. This

separation between the Buddhists and the Brahmins is

the cause of

the downfall of India.

 

That is why India is populated by three

hundred millions of beggars, and that is why India has

been the

slave of conquerors for the last thousand years. Let

us then join

the wonderful intellect of the Brahmin with the

heart, the noble

soul, the wonderful humanizing power of the Great

Master.

source:

http://hindunet.org/vivekananda/chicago/buddhism_hinduism

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ