Why did buddhism not flourish in India?

[Rigel]

I have been interested in buddhism, especially zen for about 11 years now. One thing I don't understand is why buddhism did not flourish in India, its country of origin. When it spread into China, Japan, Sri Lanka, or just about everywhere else in Asia, it took root and still exists today. From what I understand, buddhism was absorbed into hinduism in India, and that the buddha is considered another incarnation of Brahman. I find this odd since the buddha studied with hindus for several years and eventually rejected their teachings before he became enlightened and came up with the four noble truths. Have I missed something?

[perfectbite]

Yes. #1. Everything that exists is an incarnation of brahman. There is no individual 'avatar' of brahman. Perhaps you meant an incarnation (avatar) of Vishnu that for some Hindus only happened long after the fact. Their thinking is that Vishnu sent the Buddha to lure those who would be unfaithful to Vishnu away from their relationship with Vishnu but those that held fast to Vishnu and didn't follow Vishnu in his incarnation as the Buddha proved themselves to be the true Visnavite (Hindu) faithful.

Perhaps someone else can explain the rest.

[premjan]

Buddhism proved unable to protect India from invaders because of its rather radical nonviolent beliefs. So people switched to a form of Hinduism that proved capable of assimilating Buddhist beliefs without succumbing to its bleeding heart tendencies. In other countries, Buddhism was probably coupled either with ethnic nationalism or a strong central state (e.g. China).

But eventually Hinduism also succumbed to Islam.

[perfectbite]

Don't you mean that India also succumbed to the Islamic invaders that eventually led to the partition between Islamic Pakistan and Hindu India and Bangaladesh (and, I am not sure if Bangaladesh is more Islamic or more Hindu now. It certainly doesn't pop up as being a solely muslim country in my world view yet it was part of the Islamic division of Indian partition. I still remember East Pakistan and West Pakistan but that didn't last long.)

[premjan]

Hinduism was not lost it is true, but India was colonized by Muslims. That was a failure of Hinduism, considering the rants of e.g. Chanakya against Buddhism in the time of Chandragupta Maurya that the Sangha caused young men to cease being patriots.

[perfectbite]

We are back to considering how to handle the enraged charging Elephant.

Bid it to stop, get flattened or run or stand and protect one's right to be?

[premjan]

It is better to feint and avoid the elephant. Today, the new composite Indian identity is capable of handling obstinate fundamentalist minorities.

[perfectbite]

I suppose, eventually the Elephant will run out of steam. Ah, who knew impermanence could be so looked forward to?

[premjan]

It is true that some forms of samsara are more persistent than others.

[adren@line]

short answer:
Imperialistic, iconoclastic Muslims with a penchant for massacring infidels.

[perfectbite]

It is true that some forms of samsara are more persistent than others.

Unfortunately these Elephants we will always have with us but we are tough, we can take it.

[perfectbite]

short answer:
Imperialistic, iconoclastic Muslims with a penchant for massacring infidels.

I thought you were talking about the U.S. White House for a second there but that would be Christians massacring Muslims for oil and that wouldn't be right.

[premjan]

In addition to the influence of Muslims who hated Buddhism, especially its idols, my personal opinion is that Buddhism went through its natural life cycle in Inda and transformed into modern philosophical Hinduism - which is mostly another coat on the same animal. Many modern Hindu practices like vegetarianism originate with Buddhism and Jainism. Also, Sankara was accused of being a crypto-Buddhist by his contemporaries.

[Yeshi]

this must be about 4th reiteration of this same thread in last 3 years? :wave:

[aupmanyav]

Perhaps you have missed quite a lot of things, especially the mileu. Buddha was not the only one who spoke against scriptures. Even Krishna says in Geeta that reciting Vedas and performing yagnas is not sufficient for attaining enlightenment. The Upanishads and the Darshanas had little use for Vedas, thought they all nominally proclaim it as supreme. Some Darshanas were outright atheistic (Samkhya and Vaisheshika). Vedas after all were foreign to India. The mass of people went by the indigenous beliefs about Shiva and Vishnu. The indegenous culture itself had limited enthusiasm for Vedas as indicated by stories when indegenous Gods defeated Aryan Gods roundly (Shiva destroying Daksha's yagna and punishing Aryan Gods, and Krishna not letting Indra trouble the people of Vraja by sheilding them with the mountain, Govardhan, which he lifted with the tip of the small finger, showing the terrific might of the indigenous Gods).

Then what Buddha taught was nothing new to India. Impermanence, hinduism had Maya. Anatta, hinduism had Brahman. Reincarnation, Karma, Dharma, hinduism had it in equal measure (with differences of opinion which only scholars could debate). Meditation, hinduism had it in various varieties. Dukkha, hinduism considers both dukkha and sukkha as transitory and not something which we should let it dictate our lives. Bhikkhus, hinduism had a long tradition. I have also not found anything radically different between the two religions, just as it is difficult to find differences between hinduism and sikhism (wearing of turban came much later).

After Buddha had been accepted as an avatara of Vishnu, the differences narrowed down even more. People would perhaps change loyalties from one school of thought to another, just as hindus today move freely between dvaita and advaita. Many of the kings and emperors were hindus, their sons changed to Buddhism, while their grandsons changed back to hinduism. Nobody cared. Hindus were administering many of the Buddhist places of pilgrimages (Bodh Gaya was administered by hindus for 2500 years, just as the sikh shrine in Amritsar was administered by hindus till British succeeded in dividing the two religions). All hindus visiting Birla temple in New Delhi would necessarily go to the Buddhist temple nearby and bow to the Buddha idol there (this also has been constructed by the industrial Birla family, who are hindus). Even today many hindus rever Guru Nanak of the sikhs and would go to Gurudwaras rather than to temples. Many of the buddhist nuances were incorporated in hinduism. The derogatory references to Buddha came much later. By the time the muslim invaders came Buddhism was more popular in the North-Western region (that is why Bamiyan and Taxila, that is why idol is 'but' for them). The dubious credit of removing buddhism from India should really go to them.

Bangladesh is a muslim majority country, hindus make some 16% of the population today. Though at the time of partition there were 10 million more hindus. They are being slowly cleaned out of Bangladesh into migrating to India. On top of it more than 20 million Bangladeshi muslims have entered India clandestinely upsetting the demography of our eastern states. As for the marauding elephant, Perfectbite, you are right. In India, eventually the elephant runs out of steam. That is what more or less happened to Islam and Christianity also. Had it not been for British (who tried their utmost to divide hindus and muslims), the elephant would have been dead by now.

[premjan]

I didn't know that Bangladeshi Hindus are being forced out of Bangladesh as all the Bangladeshis I have met were Muslims.

The main difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is that the former implicitly accepts the caste system whereas the latter explicitly discards it.

[Azygos]

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

[Azygos]

I have been interested in buddhism, especially zen for about 11 years now. One thing I don't understand is why buddhism did not flourish in India, its country of origin. When it spread into China, Japan, Sri Lanka, or just about everywhere else in Asia, it took root and still exists today. From what I understand, buddhism was absorbed into hinduism in India, and that the buddha is considered another incarnation of Brahman. I find this odd since the buddha studied with hindus for several years and eventually rejected their teachings before he became enlightened and came up with the four noble truths. Have I missed something?

Quoting from selected works of Sri Aurobindo

Volume: 20 [CWSA] (The Renaissance in India), Page: 208

"The most characteristic tenets of the new discipline, Nirvana and Karma, could have been supported from the utterances of the Brahmanas and Upanishads. Buddhism could easily have claimed for itself a Vedic origin and the claim would have been no less valid than the Vedic ascription of the Sankhya philosophy and discipline with which it had some points of
intimate alliance. But what hurt Buddhism and determined in the end its rejection, was not its denial of a Vedic origin or authority, but the exclusive trenchancy of its intellectual, ethical and spiritual positions. A result of an intense stress of the union of logical reason with the spiritualised mind—for it was by an intense spiritual search supported on a clear and hard rational thinking that it was born as a separate religion,—its trenchant affirmations and still more exclusive negations could not be made sufficiently compatible with the native flexibility, many-sided susceptibility and rich synthetic turn of the Indian religious consciousness; it was a high creed but not plastic enough to hold the heart of the people. Indian religion absorbed all that it could of Buddhism, but rejected its exclusive positions and preserved the full line of its own continuity, casting back to the ancient Vedanta."

The ultimate demise of the buddhist religion came in the aftermath of the islamic invasions when buddhist monastries were burnt down. Buddhism being more of a centralized religion; in the lack of patronage of local native rulers and monks who were either killed or escaped to Tibet died; slowly disappeared from the indian religious scene.

Thirdly, that the religion had got entrenched in a web of superstition and deceit while simultaneously being divorced from its original highly rationalistic traditions can be gauged from the fact; that during the chinese traveler and monk Hieun Tsiang's visit [around 650 A.D]; india was teeming with thousands of buddhist pilgrimage sites housing obviously fake buddha relics including his hair and teeth. The commercialization of the religion was also evident as token sums of a gold coin were charged from visitors to such sites.

[Azygos]

[QUOTE=aupmanyav;4416766]Even Krishna says in Geeta that reciting Vedas and performing yagnas is not sufficient for attaining enlightenment. The Upanishads and the Darshanas had little use for Vedas, thought they all nominally proclaim it as supreme. Some Darshanas were outright atheistic (Samkhya and Vaisheshika). Vedas after all were foreign to India. The mass of people went by the indigenous beliefs about Shiva and Vishnu. The indegenous culture itself had limited enthusiasm for Vedas as indicated by stories when indegenous Gods defeated Aryan Gods roundly (Shiva destroying Daksha's yagna and punishing Aryan Gods, and Krishna not letting Indra trouble the people of Vraja by sheilding them with the mountain, Govardhan, which he lifted with the tip of the small finger, showing the terrific might of the indigenous Gods).

In the Geeta krishna does not absolutely reject the efficacy of vedic rites; he concludes that they are insufficient in themselves for liberation, but can usher materialistic gains and prosperity.

As for these indigenous myths; they are a synthesis of a much later age. For instance; the krishna govardhan myth is only found in the Srimad Bhagavatam, a 12th century text when brewing a revolt against aryan gods was an exercise in futility for krishna had already superceded the so called vedic deities. To sum it up, there is a dramatic anachronism in your proposed theory, one which i find historically untenable.

[perfectbite]

Sri Aurobindo's encapsulation left out a very important aspect of Buddhism in practice and theory.

One of the main bones of contention with the existent Brahmin caste was the idea of animal sacrifice.

The Budha said it accomplished nothing and was was cruelty masquerading as sancticification for a fee.

Sri Aurobindo pointed to but missed the point of Buddhism's demise.

Those Buddhists had taken the intellectual side of Buddhism to be the acme of Buddhist thought and that is the rock they perished on.

Buddhist practice is fruitful when compassion and wisdom are applied to the sensible living of life in balanced (equal) amounts

When one entirely displaces the other then that becomes a minor form of misapplied Buddhism.

Hindu spirituality was (and has always been) intelligent enough to make its own case but the wisdom only form of Buddhism perhaps felt that it was the bee's knees and their wisdom only kind of Buddhism disappearing from the scene was perhaps a boon to Buddhism instead of being a great loss.

(Also, Buddhism actually disappeared from India twice, first with the Theravadans who (in becoming members of the Buddha's Sangha) had forsaken spiritual effort but made sure everyone else knew how spiritual and deserving of praise and respect and donations they were (they were the holy of the emperor Asoka's imposed religion after all) and there was a short time space between the change over in India from Theravada Buddhism to Mahayana Buddhism and that change over era was probably the halcyon days of Buddhism in India because in dismantling Theravadan Buddhism the freedom to follow what one believed in must have been like a breath of fresh air but eventually the intellectuals stepped in and said something like 'No, no, no, you have it all wrong. We have studied what the Buddha said and this is what we say he said and this is what you have to think and do and set the bar, not at attaining a balance between compassion and wisdom in one's daily life but by intellectual achievement and the reverence for (wisdom and learning) alone.)

[Styrofoamdeity]

Historically the question should not only apply to India, but to Afghanistan. Tokyo's National Museum, for example, has a splendid exhibit of Buddhist statues from Afghanistan, most dating from about 100 CE to 600 CE. These are exquisitely beautiful. The Moslems swept all this away. The last spasm was the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t248/styrofoamdeity/2001-03-22-buddha21.jpg

With that relatively small example in mind, it is easier to understand the demise of Buddhism in India and how it was consumed by Hinduism. The picture below shows the remaining walls of Nalanda University, obliterated in 1193 by Muslim invaders.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t248/styrofoamdeity/27876168011.jpg

I think the proper question is not why it did not flourish, as clearly it did for many centuries. The question is why it was successfully obliterated and its remnants absorbed...

[perfectbite]

Because a bunch of mystical eggheads spouted what they thought would lead them and others to the cognition of their true natures and when that didn't happen they just kept on doing more of same.

Imagine the resources in food and water and sanitation and textbooks and lamp oil etc. etc. that Nalanda soaked up. Even for a live in University of 10,000 today it would be a huge task that required an existent infrastructure.

Pacificism doesn't equal placidity and perhaps the demise of Buddhism was due to the equating of placidity with pacificism.

[premjan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajja
In the wake of the Babri Masjid it is understandable that Muslims would target Hindus as a reaction - I would never expect Muslims to be as tolerant as Hindus anyway - that's not the way their religion is structured.

[aupmanyav]

Ethnic cleansing of Pakistan began soon after Pakistan's independence. While Punjabi bagh and many other localities in Delhi were established by hindu refugees from West Pakistan, Chittaranjan Park was established by hindu refugees from East Pakistan. The second wave of refugees came when the Pakistani army terrorised both, bengali hindus (particularly) and bengali muslims. Babri Masjid had nothing to do with it and came much later. That is the muslim psyche in spite of what you may have read in Qur'an. The pre-independence East Pakistan leader Suhrawardy was very clear about it. He asked muslims to breed copiously so that they could infilterate into India. It should also be remembered that the district of Mymensing was a hindu majority area, the dalits there voted to remain in Pakistan to slight caste hindus. That made no difference. They were also pushed out.

[premjan]

I agree Islamic tribalism can only be fought by other forms of tribalism because humans are tribal at heart. We should all belong to small rather than large tribes like Islam because the latter causes many other harmful distortions.

[aupmanyav]

My wife observed 'Buddha Poornima' with a fast and special prayer a day before yesterday. She does not know much about Buddha, but a Poornima (Full moon day) is a Poornima. Today's 'Hindustan Times' discusses the same topic without putting forth any particular theory. Buddhists are outnumbered in Lumbini as well as in Gaya (actually they are miniscule in numbers and neo-buddhists).

"We are not Buddhists because our ancestors did not convert themselves from Hinduism," Dhiren Sapkota, a resident of Lumbini, said, adding that they are proud that Buddhism is the most revered religion in the world now.

That may not be totally correct. Perhaps his ancestors oscillated many times between hinduism and buddhism. BTW, Buddhism was equally strong at one time in history in Kashmir valley.

The differences between castes has made a difference after independence. Also in the news is the murder of Madhukar Ghatge in Satara's Man taluka in Maharashtra who was killed by caste hindus for digging a well on his land on the ruse that this would reduce supply of water in their well (some five kilometers away). Madhukar's younger brother is a Deputy Chief (Sarpanch) of the village. Of course, law took its own course and ten people have been arrested in the case. Most dalits of the village have converted to Buddhism.

[aupmanyav]

Perfectbite, I do not think animal sacrifice was a big factor. In urban areas it was done (and perhaps done even now in some pockets) on one day of the year in propitiation of Shakti (Kali). Only the Rajputs (warrior clan) and dalits were associated with it. It was also done in the eastern states (Bengal and Assam). The other people doing it were the aboriginals in jungles whom Buddha's message hardly reached. Brahmins and Vaishyas (trader class) were generally inclined towards vegetarianism.

[Azygos]

In the wake of the Babri Masjid it is understandable that Muslims would target Hindus as a reaction - I would never expect Muslims to be as tolerant as Hindus anyway - that's not the way their religion is structured.

Why cant you appreciate the fact; that riots in bangladesh against Hindus who had nothing to do with events in India is illogical unless you take into account; the Pan Islam sympathies.........It happened during Khilafat, it has happened ever since......except in Turkey; where muslims have themselves liquidated extremism in all forms ever since the rise of the great mustafa kemal

[perfectbite]

I thought bigger was better, Economies of scale and all that.

[aupmanyav]

The bigger could be even better if the Abrahamic religions knew 'Brahman'.

'Ayam, nijah, paro veti, gaNanA laghuchetasAm; udAracharitAnAm tu, vasudhaiva kutumbakam.'
(Mine, yours, someoneelse's etc, such are limited understanding of people, for the largehearted, world itself is a family.)

http://www.speaksanskrit.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=11, where you can find gems of Indian thought and Sanskrit. Nice site (if you can overcome your distaste for Sanskrit, Perfectbite. The realised also have their ideosyncracies just like others. :))

[premjan]

Why cant you appreciate the fact; that riots in bangladesh against Hindus who had nothing to do with events in India is illogical unless you take into account; the Pan Islam sympathies.........It happened during Khilafat, it has happened ever since......except in Turkey; where muslims have themselves liquidated extremism in all forms ever since the rise of the great mustafa kemalIt is illogical but one expects nothing else from Muslims as their religion is tribally structured - anything that affects the tribe is seen to affect all Muslims. Hinduism is socially structured in comparison - a somewhat looser organization.

[perfectbite]

The bigger could be even better if the Abrahamic religions knew 'Brahman'.

'Ayam, nijah, paro veti, gaNanA laghuchetasAm; udAracharitAnAm tu, vasudhaiva kutumbakam.'
(Mine, yours, someoneelse's etc, such are limited understanding of people, for the largehearted, world itself is a family.)

http://www.speaksanskrit.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=11, where you can find gems of Indian thought and Sanskrit. Nice site (if you can overcome your distaste for Sanskrit, Perfectbite. The realised also have their ideosyncracies just like others. :))

I have no distaste for Sanskrit.

[Yeshi]

My wife observed 'Buddha Poornima' with a fast and special prayer a day before yesterday. She does not know much about Buddha, but a Poornima (Full moon day) is a Poornima.

Ah, the first full moon in Taurus is associated with Vesakh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesakh), the day when Buddha was born, reached Enlightment and Parinirvana (died). We had nice all-buddhist festivities in Munich on saturday the 5th in public West Park. There is a Thai gazebo on the lake with oldest buddha statue in Bavaria, Nepalese wooden pagoda and japanese and chinese small gardens there.

This year, vietnamese buddhists were accepted in DBU (German Buddhist Union) and they made a nice ritual with singing. Was quite moving.

[aupmanyav]

My wife worships 'Satyanarayana' on a full-moon day. 'True God', Vishnu, and reads a book with an absurd story where the Lord provides wealth to his worshipers. My take on the story is different. I prefer to think that it is the worship of truth, truth being higher than anything else.

[premjan]

Narayana = eternal man or purusha of the purushasukta.

[Goathead]

YTeah i have to answer the topic "mostly because of teh islamic invasion which destroyed the buddhist practices and intitutions in india".

Pretty simple.