** Why Did Buddhism Vanish?

Why Did Buddhism Vanish from India?

Esamskriti.com has  listed 6 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. http://www.esamskriti.com/html/essay_index.asp?cat_name=prabuddha&cid=&sid=201

**************************************************************************

Buddhism: The FULFILLMENT OF HINDUISM
Vivekananda,Chicago Addresses
26th 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 hidden 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. ( Lecture was given in 1893).

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.

RELATED STORIES:

Towards Buddhism @ http://members.porchlight.ca/blackdog/newbu.htm

Buddhism: by Steve Knapp @ http://www.stephen-knapp.com/buddhism_and_its_vedic_connections.htm

1 Comment

Filed under Informative Articles

One response to “** Why Did Buddhism Vanish?

  1. Pingback: ** Hindu-Buddhist unity reaffirmed « INDIA SECULAR

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s