rishis taught a variety of philosophies, spiritual sadhanas and paths because people have different tastes and aptitudes and the same thing does not work for everyone.
we have confluences of Śaiva and Vaishṇava Sampradāyas in India. There should be similarly no surprises at all when there are confluences with the Bauddha Sampradāya.The whole theory about a separate religion of Buddhism was just a European invention.
The very term "religion" is a Western concept. Règles, rules bound abrahamic religions. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism all flow from the same source.
recent this separate categorization of Buddhism as a "religion" is. The same is true for other "religions" invented in India. They are all just various Sampradāyas of Dharma धर्म.
The study of Indian traditions after West's colonization is stuck with Abrahamic categories. "Hinduism"/"Buddhism" are imagined as "religions" with conflict and conversion like Abrahamics have. Why can't couldn't Indians be Hindu *and* Buddhist?I can do Vipassana, revere Buddha and Krishna, read Gita, do yoga, learn a sufi dance, go to a temple and a church, what's the conflict? Religious conflict comes from Abrahamic monotheism. "No gods besides me", "Only Jesus saves rest go to hell," these are the roots of conflict. Scholarship in the Western framework imposes the category of religion on India and then tries to map the various disputes as "religious conflict." There was no religious conflict in India because there was no religion.
All narratives of religious conflict are thus nonsense. Buddhism as a reform of Hinduism is a bogus idea, a product of Western Indologists. They were influenced by the Protestant reform of Catholicism and chose Buddha as an Indian Martin Luther who had reformed the regressive Hindu religion. This story has been peddled for the past many decades and Eurocentric centuries without any evidence. In actual fact Gautama Buddha, like Vardhamana Mahavir and Makkali Ghosala and others were all part of the Indic tradition along with all other Aastik and Nastik traditions
A hard division between Indic religions is a modern phenomenon manufactured by those who misunderstand the comprehensiveness and unity of Indic traditions. The gaze/framework of the Christian theology has misrepresented Indic tradition;this narrative has been bought by Indians.
You have to Think Out of Box here.
Impalement of the Jains in Madurai
It was a pious Shaivite triumphal fiction with zero confirmation from Jain sources. In other words the Jains have never claimed that they were persecuted or impaled. If u can show in any Jain source where it is written that Jains were killed in Tamil Nadu ,than ur claim can be debated I also noted the images displayed on the temple wall where this persecution is claimed were wearing the sacred thread which is common to Brahmins. So ,they were most probably brahmins of rival philosphy
In Buddhism case ,The Buddhist texts do mention their persecution at hands of Hindus . But than i pondered If People left Hinduism when they adopted Buddhism but if that was so ,than it should have happened to every other place where Buddhism spread
but clearly it doesnot, Bonpo Religion in tibet, Confuciaism,taoism in China , shintoism in japan, Native Pagan traditions and tengrism,Shamanism,Animism in South East Buddhist Nations remained intact until recent takeover in last centuries. So on what assumption can u assume Buddhism conquered India.
During Muslim Invasion of SINDH , Buddhists actively collaborated with invaders
Why did the importance of Buddhism reduce 500 years after Buddha passed away in India?
Buddhism was primarily a religion of world-renunciation, and monks were the premier Buddhists and the centres were the monasteries.
Buddhism has very little to offer the common people apart from some basic teachings and vows and the opportunity to gain merit through giving alms to the monks.
There is nothing in Buddhism that helps to run a civil society, no laws or courts or criminal justice system, no judiciary or system of administration, no military apparatus, no economical management, no agricultural guidance, structures of management and hierarchies. The only festivals are those associated with the lives of the monks and the monasteries.
So when Buddhism spread throughout South East Asia it went hand in hand with Hinduism which has all the apparatus and structures in place for managing a society, and celebration of festivals connected with the season and agriculture. There were priests to cater to the material needs of the people and to help them in their desire fulfilment, and there were courts and councils to which they could go to resolve their grievances and disputes over land-management and irrigation.
Even in China and Japan the local religions; Shinto, Confucianism and Daoism functioned in harmony with Buddhism providing the social structure and values for the lay-folk.
How did priests give desire fulfillment
Perform rituals, get them married, bless and name their babies, perform house blessing ceremonies, etc. etc.
Buddhist pacifist and world-denying ideas likely weakened India and made it an easier target for invaders. But there is no "ism", it was simply another set of idea within the Indian thought universe. Buddhism is a monastic religion & has no martial element. In China & Japan, Buddhism survived as it integrated with native cultures & practices like Taoist & Samurai who have a strong allegiance to the science of conflict & strategy. In Afghanistan it couldn't. Buddhism's dogma of denying materialism made India ignorant about the risks of materialism. We always believed in controlling materialism, not let it control us, and not completely separating from it, to live in this world.
The mention of Nath gurus as siddhas in Buddhist texts found in Tibet and the Himalayan regions led early scholars to propose that Naths may have Buddhist origins, but the Nath doctrines and theology is unlike mainstream Buddhism . this Shows that Buddhism has copied from Hinduism . Western Scholarship has been shielding Buddhism
All the stories of Hindu Buddhists Conflict are HyperBole and mostly exaggerated stories maDE up and concocted by Buddhists
One Eg - 84000 Buddhist stupas , there are no evidences for this .It is a made up claim by buddhists
There are also some very generalized statements by Buddhists over Hinduism and Hindus like -
- Arthasashtra says that if anyone opposed to the varna-ashrama-dharma becomes a king’s advisor, then kaala-koota poison be administered to kill him.
- Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin general, assassinated the last Mauryan king and usurped power. He killed many Buddhists and destroyed Buddhist stupas.
- Brahmins hijacked Buddhist temples. Hindu king Shasanka cut of the historical Bodhi tree from bodhgaya. During Buddha's time brahmanism was the most rival of Buddhists. They killed Moggalana.
- It's brahminic conspiracy that made Buddha a ridiculous avatar of your God. Brahmanism almost neutralized Buddhism by plagiarising Buddhist doctrines.
- It's Brahmanism that did the biggest harm of Buddhism in history than anyone and any religion did. But still now Buddhism remains the most compatible religion in modern world
Response -
The Shastras are heavily interpolated as you know - they are idealistic texts written by brahmins for brahmins.
Administration was in the hands of individual kings who did exactly as they pleased. My objection is to generalised condemnation of an entire amorphous and heterogenous group - its a form of racism. The advisor of the king was chosen by the king - you cannot taint the entire amorphous “Brahminical orthodoxy” for the defects.
Eg - Pushyamitra persecuted Buddhists Pushyamitra was a general who assassinated and did atrocities - so you blame the entire “orthodoxy” for this? Regicide is one of the greatest of all sins and so he cannot claim any “orthodoxy” he would have been pronounced an outcaste by the real “orthodoxy”.
There has been enmity between Vaishnavas and Shaivite and persecution by the Chola Kings - including the attempted murder of Ramanuja who fled to Mysore, and the blinding of his chief disciple Kuresha. Hindu sects themselves have fought each other. The high priest of Srirangam temple tried to poison Ramanuja - does anyone blame “Brahminical orthodoxy” for this. Swami Sivananda also escaped a murder attempt - does anyone taint an entire community with the attempt?
Concocted stories by Buddhists
BUDDHISM -
You still have all the Hindu gods in the Burmese pantheon and South-east Asians still visit Hindu temples to pray. Thailand is a Buddhist country but the Kings still retain court brahmins to perform all the rituals of the palace. The Royal Temple in the palace is dedicated to the trinity of Hinduism.
There is never been systemic persecution of Buddhist or Jains - it is all propaganda. Sure there were wars between countries and kings but for most of history Jains, Hindus and Buddhists lived side by side in harmony.
There are also many accounts from those same travellers that there were abandoned monasteries and the fact is Buddhism gradually declined in India this is an historical FACT Bipul.
The Sacking of Nalanda university was in 1197, and Vikramasila University in 1203 - what happened to Buddhism after that? All the Vedic sciences were also taught at those universities - why did the Vedic religion remain and Buddhism not?
Please dispute the points raised instead of booking tickets on every flight available. Tell us how Buddhism caters to the day to day needs of the lay-folk. Tell us why Hinduism has survived among the common folk in all the South East Asian Buddhist countries - including Thailand and Srilanka - I’m sure you have visited these countries and seen for yourself. You may start with Thailand and tell us about the proliferation of Brahmā statues all over the place. And why the Thai court retains Thai Brahmins as the Raj-guru and why Hindu festivals are celebrated.
The Original Buddhist practice of Vipasaana for 50 days was not suitable for most people . Buddha was rediscovered in 19th century by British and made it the “good” religion of India. Nehruvian academicians followed suit. Otherwise barely a handful in India remembered him or his religion.
Claim - Buddhism was already known. I think you are confusing Ashoka with Buddha. Buddhism as a religion was preached and always practised but Ashoka was this mythical king whose mentions were mostly restricted to some Buddhist books. Later evidence of his existence was found.
Response - King Ashoka was completely forgotten true. But in mainland India even Buddhism was extinct by the 15th century apart from sporadic remote places. Infact except for the few remaining monasteries in peripheral regions like Nepal, Afghanistan and a few in East India, Buddhism as a distinct sect was almost unknown in most of India at least since the 10th century, before until the British started Academic and Archaeological campaigns throughout the length and breadth of India. At best some cults of Hindus remembered him as Buddhadev, an avatar of Vishnu, but without any idea about his life or philosophies.
The early British adventurers and other western Europe historians and archaeologists who discovered the monasteries and literature in libraries of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Tibet and China, were surprised that their venerated Christian Saints Barlaam and Josaphat were infact Oriental Holy men Buddha and his disciple. That made them believe that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism and after a lot of searching they established the birthplace of Buddha, and other places linked to life of Buddha. Thus Buddha became the Oriental “Jesus” and was thus presented in the British schools of India and elsewhere.
Most of Buddhist practise is in sync with Hinduism. Even to the places where Buddhism spread, Hindu gods were also worshipped. Until before the time of Ashoka, Buddhism was one of many branches of Hinduism only.
the main reason for decline of Buddhism in India is attributed to the lack of support from the local rulers who were facing the onslaught of blood invasions from Persia and Central Asia.. the patronage given to idealistic Buddhism declined.. and realistic Brahmanism took over which promoted multi pronged approach from rituals to astra-shastra..
There is never been systemic persecution of Buddhist or Jains - it is all propaganda. Sure there were wars between countries and kings but for most of history Jains, Hindus and Buddhists lived side by side in harmony.
Buddhism gradually declined with push back by Hindu saints and their revivalist movements which was mostly peaceful. Also a religion which is followed by the king is adopted by the subjects for the most part. After the fall of Maurya empire most of the kings were Hindus only. They did give patronage to the Buddhist monastries but by and large Hinduism once again came back as the main religion.
Claim - You can read the historical evidence for the flourishing Buddhism circa 6–7 CE from the travelogues of Chinese travellers Xuanzang and Faxian!
Moreover, Universities like Nalanda, Jagadalla, Somapuri, Vikramashila were thriving from present day Pakistan to Bangladesh well into 11–12th Century and there has been recorded history from Tibetans.
So, where there are evidences and history, no need to guess
Response - here are also many accounts from those same travellers that there were abandoned monasteries and the fact is Buddhism gradually declined in India this is an historical FACT Bipul.
The Sacking of Nalanda university was in 1197, and Vikramasila University in 1203 - what happened to Buddhism after that? All the Vedic sciences were also taught at those universities - why did the Vedic religion remain and Buddhism not?Tell us how Buddhism caters to the day to day needs of the lay-folk. Tell us why Hinduism has survived among the common folk in all the South East Asian Buddhist countries - including Thailand and Srilanka - I’m sure you have visited these countries and seen for yourself. You may start with Thailand and tell us about the proliferation of Brahmā statues all over the place. And why the Thai court retains Thai Brahmins as the Raj-guru and why Hindu festivals are celebrated.
Claim - I am not disputing the fact that Buddhism declined and eventually vanished. It is quite evident that due to that a lot of Hindu Swamis have misinterpreted it due to ignorance of its actual tenets.
I meant it did not decline after 500 years after Buddha but long long time after that. And, muslim invasion and prosecution by Hindu rulers was the cause, along with introduction of Puranas (Padma puran, Linga puran, Bhatwat puran, Haribamsha puran to name of few) where Buddha was disparaged as teacher of asuras etc.
And, about the culture, yes Buddha was not concerned with culture at all but with liberation. And everywhere Buddhism went it adapted to its culture, and still produced siddhis/realization. In India the culture was rich so it was not an issue at all. A remnant of ancient Indian Buddhist culture can be seen intact in the Newar Buddhism of Nepal. I don't really see not having a particular culture as a downside of Buddhism, rather it is the upside. In Thailand, I have heard the 4 sides of Brahma representa Caturbrahmavihara. Every Buddhist culture does pay homage to worldy dieties, reginal dieties, so I don't see that as a problem at all!
Response - There was never any systematic persecution of Buddhists by Hindu rulers. When you are in India you should visit Ajanta and Elora and see for yourself the cave temples of Jains, Hindus and Buddhists side by side. Buddhist and Hindu rulers patronised both Brahmins and Bhikkus and support both ashrams and sangaramas. Persecution was rare and wars were fought among all Jains, Buddhists and Hindus.
How have Hindus and Buddhist got along in Nepal? Was there persecution of Buddhists there?
Timilsina is a very common surname in Nepal. It has its roots in the Achham district of Western Nepal. All Timilsinas identify themselves as belonging to the Moudgalya gotra. So did your Hindu ancestors persecute Buddhists?
The Buddha of the Purāṇas is not the same as Siddhartha Gautama - the biographical details provided are completely wrong.
Of course there is nothing wrong with Buddhism adopted local and social conventions. Common people are not interested in Nirvana - they want to get married have children, build houses, run businesses make money and live happily here itself. Buddhism as a philosophy doesn’t support these goals - hence in South-East Asia Hinduism and Buddhism were combined.
Brahmā is worshiped in Thailand more than Buddha and is the Hindu creator god - whatever other symbolism they wish to overlay. This is the Erawan shrine to Brahmā one of the most popular shrines in the whole of Bangkok.
there was rivalry between Bhikkus and Brahmins - but was it systemic and wide-spread? - I doubt that. Was persecution purely on religious grounds and not on political ones? - again a dubious claim. There were Buddhist kingdoms in India right up until the Islamic invasion, so who do you think is the culprit in the decline of Buddhism? Hindus or Muslims?
The Puranas turned Buddha into an avatara of Vishnu - they said he taught a demonic doctrine but then started to worship him. The temple at Budh-gaya was under the control of Hindus for centuries. So in the minds of the common people he was Vishnu and Buddhists were Vaishnavas. In Thailand the image of Vishnu riding on Garuda is a Royal Insignia. Almost every Hindu home I have been into has an image of Buddha.
Vishnu and Garuda above Thai temple doorways.
So why do you think they are including Vishnu and Garuda in their temple art if there was historically such enmity between Buddhists and Hindus? Are they also making a connection between Vishnu and Buddha?
But let us not play the victimhood game here - Buddhists also persecuted Hindus. If you read the Mahāvaṁśa chronicles of Srilanka there are some horrific accounts of massacres and destruction of temples and shrines. Not only of Hindus but also of rival Buddhist sects.
Just north of you is Tibet - have you heard about their persecution of the Bonpos? Do you know about their cruel and oppressive caste system?
We can also chat about the horrific wars between the Buddhists themselves - the Burmese and the Cambodians -and the destruction of each others monasteries and temples.
Buddhism restricted sex. But everyone couldn't resist their desires as we know lust is property of humans. Eventually Buddhism started fall in expansion.
Take on the claim that Jagganath Puri temple used to be a Buddhist temple and the Bramhanism and Buddhist conflict thing?
Response - It is built exactly according to the Hindu temple plans and has nothing Buddhist about it.
The separate Mandap in front of the temple is the dance pavilion (nāṭ maṇḍap). No Buddhist temple has an arrangement for a dancing stage. The temple is surrounded by a compound wall which is not a feature of Buddhist temples.
One would also need to compare and contrast the ground plan and structure with the canons of Buddhist temple building - and since Buddhism is a non-theistic monastic religion in which temples are discredited - I doubt there are any such Buddhist texts which deal with the details of temple building.
Hindu” is just a geographical term which includes all the indigenous belief systems and philosophies of India.
Buddha was born into a family which followed Vedic Brahmanism according to Buddhist accounts themselves.
Just because he differed in his opinions doesn't make him unique - many of the sages and acharyas have differed among themselves in in the Upanishads are are a variety of opinions on any subject. Even under the umbrella of Hinduism we have rival schools just like you do in Buddhism.
The British used it as an administrative category and so it has become standard usage. But is is still an UMBRELLA term and is applied as such in the Marriage Laws of India. Muslims and Christians are NOT indigenous to India - please try not to be disingenuous - you are much more intelligent than that. I expect a higher degree of sophistication in conversation with you.
Again there are many variations within Indian philosophy some schools of Vedanta deny the ultimate existence of ātman and some do not, 4 of the 6 classical schools were non-theistic - having variety of opinions and views is the nature of Indian philosophy hence philosophy is called DARSHANA - which means “A View” - do all schools of Buddhism agree on all doctrines? I don’t think your knowledge of Vedanta or Hindu Tantra is very refined Millin.
The fact is Siddhartha Gautama (clan name) was born into a family and society which followed Brahmanism, and was raised as such. He studied under classical teachers and finally systematised his own DARSHANA or view. So from the same source many springs have sprung. We should struggle not to involve politics in philosophy and spirituality and should try to acknowledge our commonalities and not emphasise differences for egoistic goals or triumphalism. Chogyam Trungpa appropriately named this as “Spiritual Materialism” - it is an hindrance to enlightenment.
Lets’ just accept that Buddhism and Hinduism and all their variations and DARSHANAS arose from the same cultural and intellectual milieu in India - there is more in common among us, and Hinduism and Buddhism are so intermeshed that it is futile to try to separate them - and doing so serves no good or beneficial purpose other than self-indulgent exercises in useless polemics.
never accepted the Buddha or Jina-as-avatar theory which was a brahminical literary device aimed at inclusivity.
Buddhism = Hinduism for all the same reasons you yourself have mentioned. I as a spiritual seeker prefer to focus on all the doctrines we share in common and all the ways in which we have similar world views, philosophical methodologies and share myths and rituals.
As I see it there are two religious-spiritual poles that have shaped the world - Jerusalem and Benares. Around Jerusalem we have the Abrahamic coalition - Judaism, Islam and Christianity and around the Benares pole we have Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism and their offshoots. And just as the Jerusalem based religions are different but have an enormous amount of commonality so too are Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism different but in my estimate we have more in common because we are philosophy-based systems and not dogma-based like the opposition.
In Australia - not sure how it is in the UK - the three Abrahamic religions have a lot more inter-faith dialogue and workshops where the Dharmic religions are excluded. Probably because they have more interfaith problems which they need to sort out. But conversely - the Dharma-based folk have virtually no inter-faith dialogue at all. We, the Hindu clergy are occasionally invited to join the Mahayana Buddhist celebrations - like when the Dalai Lama visited Australia, but we have minimum contact with the Theravadins. Off course all all the government sponsor interfaith gigs we all meet and greet and we all kind of hang out on one side of the room while the Abrahamic are on the other side!
My principle beef is with those Buddhists - predominantly western - who stress the absolute difference and separation of Hinduism from Buddhism without understanding the intimate history we have of peaceful coexistence and codependence in the whole of South East Asia for centuries.
Hinduism is a confederation of numerous religions and sects with no central teaching authority and contains a spectrum of beliefs and philosophies/theologies.
The search for knowledge has always been an individual responsibility within the Indian tradition and so it is accepted that people will do their own research. Indian parents also do not encourage their children to attend religious ceremonies or to participate. Attendance at temples is an individual affair and not congregational. So there are no priests giving weekly sermons to educate the congregation that sits in pin drop silence. There are periodic “discourses” given by well-known teachers but attendance is sporadic and again voluntary. Hindu priests for the most part are “Ritual Technicians” and not scholars. They come to the home to perform a ritual which is perfunctory, and in which most of the guests are disinterested. They pass the time before the obligatory lunch drinking tea and chatting while the ceremony is going on. The priests are not interested in commanding discipline or in explaining the ceremony in detail.
The problem with all religious organisations is their inevitable slide into Spiritual Materialism and tyranny of the cult. History provides us with ample evidence of the corruption and exploitation of religious power. Any centralised religion loses the “message” and becomes a self-focussed echo-chamber with all the characteristics of any other business organisation - from management structure to self-promotion, marketing of merchandise, membership, conflicts of interest, coercion etc. Hinduism is fine as it is, there are already hundreds of different Sampradāyas (lineages) which are organised more or less like the Abrahamic mobs, ranging from a rigid and formal structure like the BAPS to loose and informal ones like various Bhajan societies. The good thing about Hindu sampradāyas is the inbuilt checks and balances - which any prospective members should learn about. Membership is also voluntary and as long as “cults” are avoided one can leave at any time and go about “sampradāya shopping”.
Manusmriti was activated by the British who were seeking a Hindu equivalent of Sharia’ and were guided by their “Pandits”. Indian kingdoms were independent and each and every kingdom had its own laws by fiat of absolute monarchs. Hindus is general take the guidance of their gurus and elders not the Shastra. Manu condemns dowry - which is a serious widespread crime in India why are people not obeying Manu’s laws regarding this prevalent atrocity?
The two great centres and fountain heads of philosophy and metaphysics in the ancient world were Greece and India - Greek thought had a profound effect on Western culture and civilisation and India had the same effect on the East The source of imperlliast religion was the Middle East. There is a big difference between religion and philosophy, and religion tends to constrain philosophy which is free thinking. India never had any constraints on thinking which fostered spiritual experimentation and exploration of the mind and consciousness. Thus India became the natural home of spirituality.
Shrautism vs Smartism
If all the hindus of India followed only either shrautism or smartism, what would be the outcome? Shrautism is the practice of Vedic yajañas, sacraments and ceremonies which cost enormous amounts of cash and resources and which consume much time. This is why it has become almost extinct. Adoption of this mode for all Hindus would decrease productivity, deplete savings and cause an economic decline.
Smartism is the following of the rules and regulations prescribed in the Smritis. They were written by Brahmins for Brahmins and do not apply to the rest of the Hindus. If these were followed rigorously the whole of the modern life would have to be disassembled and everyone would return to living in villages and practicing agriculture, India would revert to pre-modernity. Hinduism is an open source religion and is constantly evolving and adapting, the trajectory is forwards - progress, not backwards - regress.
Hinduism is more successful than Buddhism becoz Buddhism, unlike Hinduism is centralized in monasteries, and the monks are the custodians of the scriptures and philosophy. Hinduism on the other hand is decentralized and based on the home and family. The priests and monks (who are the custodians of the philosophy and culture are scattered about in villages and hermitages (mathas/ashrams) situated in the jungle.
The decline of Buddhism in India was accelerated by the invasion of India by the fervent devotees of the “Religion of Peace”.
The greatest center of Buddhist learning and even Vedic studies since the 5th century was Nalanda. The greatest Asian University of its time. Nalanda was ransacked and destroyed by an army of the Mamluk Dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate under the command of Bhakhtiyar Khilji in circa 1200. The other great Mahaviharas of the age such as Vikramshila and later, Jagaddala, also met their ends at the hands of the Turks at around the same time.
The library which contained hundred of thousands of volumes was burnt to the ground. And thousands of professors and students were massacred. Thereafter Buddhism went into decline.
Similar depredations against the Hindus with the destruction of countless temples and slaughter of thousands of priests and monks did not have any effect on their culture and social structures.
The other major factor is that Buddhism is primarily a monastic system, the duty of the lay-people is to financially support the monks who in turn give them teachings and administer the vows. There is nothing for the laity in terms of marriages, births, funerals etc. Throughout the Buddhist world the laity continued to rely on the Brahmins for these services or to appoint their own lay-priests. Thus throughout South East Asia Hinduism and Buddhism flourished side by side. So since there was never a clear demarcation between Hinduism and Buddhism like there is with Islam or Christianity - it was natural for the communities to lapse back into the majority culture.
Jains, Buddhists and Hindus all refer to their religions as DHARMA or SANATANA Dharma — the eternal path. The first group of the Dharma coalition to incorporate were the Jains – hence they are considered “older.”
All the great medieval acharyas like Sankara and Rāmānuja never mention the term “Hindu” and when speaking of the Jains or Buddhists use the terms “Jaina Dharma” or “Bauddha Dharma” and treat them as different schools of thought within the general category of Dharma traditions.
The various Dharma schools of thought are divided into āstikas and nāstikas. Āstikas (the 6 schools of Hindu philosophy) are those who claim the Vedas as their supreme authority and the nāstikas (Buddhists and Jains) reject the authority of the Vedas.
The Buddhists were a philosophical school which had little interest in rituals. The Jains developed a whole tradition of rituals based on the Vedic rituals like homa (fire worship) and went in for elaborate temple construction and icon worship. So in fact the Jain rituals are very similar to the Hindu ones. Jains have their own specific devas and devis but also incorporate and worship many of the same ones that the Hindus do i.e, Ganesha, Lakshmi etc.
These three branches of the Dharma coalition lived in close cooperation and harmony - see the Elora cave temples for example. They debated and discussed and shared and borrowed concepts from each other.
The Jains were the first to emphasize total non-violence (ahimsa) which later the Hindus and Buddhists borrowed. The Jains were also the first to establish monastic orders which were later copied by the Buddhists and then the Hindus.
HOW TO HANDLE MARXIST Interpretation of HINDU-BUDDHIST Conflict
Hinduism” and “Buddhism” are terms which were coined and officially applied by the British. The Hindus, Buddhists and the Jains all referred to their religion as DHARMA.
Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism are homogeneous and both consist of dozens of different sects and possess both intrinsic and extrinsic philosophical variations.
At the time of the Buddha what is today known as “Hinduism” was called Vaidika Dharma or Varnāśrama Dharma or by modern scholars “Brahmanism”.
Siddhārtha Gautama was born into Varṇāśrama system and most ofhis principle disciples were highly learned and educated Brahmins, as were mostof the early theoreticians and philosophers of the various Buddhist schools.
So while there are many commonalities there are also many differences but these depend upon which Hindu school is being compared to which Buddhist school. This is a huge field of study and cannot be reduced to a few paragraphs.
The most outstanding difference is their attitudes towards the world and worldly life.
Buddhismis life-negating and promotes renunciation of the householder life and adoption of monasticism as its highest ideal as articulated in the Khaggavisana Sutta:
Hinduism is life-affirming, and while advocating renunciation in the latterhalf of life elevates and eulogises the Householder state (gṛhasthāśrama) asthe highest ideal.
This is the reason why Hinduism and Buddhism have retained a symbiotic relationship throughout South East Asia for over 1000 years.
The major flaw in Buddhist philosophy is its emphasis on renunciation, monasticism and transcendence of worldly life.
Buddhism was the philosophy of the elite of ancient India (theBrahmins and Kshatriyas) and was supported by the generous donations of the wealthy householders (gahapatis).
The majority of common folk neither have an interest in, or an ability to comprehend the complexities and subtleties of Buddhist philosophy and some theoreticians like Nāgārjuna are incomprehensible even to the learned and highly intelligent readers.
The philosophical corner stone of Buddhist philosophy anātta - non-self theory - is confusing and contradicts our default and common sense perception, and is inapplicable and unusable forthe average person.
Buddhism also has an extremely elaborate and complex Cosmologyand Buddhology with celestial Buddhas, their consorts, their heavens and talesof their incarnations and pastimes while at the same time denying Theology whichBuddhology mimics in every aspect.
So Buddhism has nothing much to offer the common folk except thefive precepts (pañca-śīla) and the eight precepts (aṣṭha-śīla) and theopportunity to accumulate merit by offering alms to monks (dāna) contributingto the upkeep of vihāras and stūpas and a basic teaching onKarma, rebirth and duḥkha (suffering) to guide them.
The vast majority of the common folk want to live long and healthy lives, to prosper, to marry and to create families, have children andgenerally to aspire to all the three goals of material life — Dharma-professional and social duties, Artha - prosperity and Kama - pleasure) - Nirvaṇa or mokṣa is an hypothetical goal which most people do not aspire to.
So with its emphasis on renunciation and negation of prosperity and enjoyment, Buddhist philosophy has very little to offer the householders. And this is the reason why Buddhist philosophy has always coexisted in a symbiotic relationship with the more worldly religions of the countries to which it has expanded - Shinto in Japan,Daoism and Confucianism in China and of course Hinduism in India and throughout South East Asia - in corporating elements of animism and tradition customs and usages to satisfy the material needs of the common folk
Buddhism was set in a situation where a wealthy(Vaishya), Powerful(Kshatria) and a Knowledgable(Brahmin) qualities containing person found the reality. It cannot please the common folk. It suits perfectly for Brahmins, Kshatrias and Vaisyaswho learnt the realities of life and goes for a monastic life. The Buddhism followed in China and SEA is far different from what Buddha preached and it was modified so that all can participate.Buddhism doesn't have a concept of nation.
Monkhood and renunciation doesn't create a strong and prosperous nation. One needs consumers for trade. Only householders consume.
The Buddhism now as followed in countries like Japan.. has no monkhood.. all priests marry. No renunciation… they are not even vegetarian.
ALLEGATION of BUDDHIST INDIA is FALSE -
This is coming from Marxist interpretation of Historty ,How can a Monastic Religion be popular among masses. Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics(the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders.
We have evidence to prove that every corner of the world from deep forest with limited outside contact of world to the mega city every wherepeople worshiped God. Greek,Romans,Mayans,Aztecs ,Incas,Egyptians,Korean,Chinese,Australian Aborigines almost all ancient Civilizations worshipped GOD. there is no evidence of Buddhism or any such related Religions anywhere in World History.
To mask the Hindu-Muslim Conflicts ,The Indian Marxists have raised this bogey ofHindu-Buddhist conflict which has now been exposed by Rami Sivan.
This can be inferred even today,Hinduism is more famous and appealing than Buddhism. The Indian Communists have lied repeatedly that People left Hinduism when they adopted Buddhism but if that was so ,than it should have happened to every other place where Buddhism spread but clearly it doesnot,Bonpo Religionin tibet, Confuciaism,taoism in China ,shintoism in japan, Native Pagan traditions and tengrism,Shamanism,Animism in South East Buddhist Nations remained intact until recent takeover in last centuries
CONVERSION OF BUDDHIST INTO HINDUISM IS FALSE -
Buddhism success is because it is non-theistic and more philosophy and psychology than religion and an enigma created by Christian WEST . Modern scientific minded generation can relate more to the universalism and applied ethics of Buddhism than thedogmatic and increasingly unbelievable theism of other religions.
There are so many hundreds of sects and versions of Hinduism how could you possibly force someone to convert and to which sect?
Would you force them to convert to Shaivism? Vaishnavism?Shaktaism? Ganapatya? Saurya? Tantra? - the membership of all these groups isvoluntary and one can leave at any time. (You can’t force anyone to convert toVedism because that was an elect and selected membership only). The primary incentive to convert others is the doctrine of the monopoly on salvation which only Islam and Christianity have. Since salvation of liberation in Hinduism is open to every living being - there is no requirement, need or demand for conversion.
The other problem with “forced conversion” is that there has to be an administrative structure in place to ensure the compliance of theconverted with the imposed belief system. The Catholics had a very effective bureaucracy in place called the Holy Office of the Inquisition - so in the Catholic domains like Goa for example - the new converts were closely monitored and severely punished - ultimately with burning at the stake for any lapses or backsliding. So the documented forced conversions of thousands in India (Goa)were by Catholics
Hindus were notorious for their lack of religious bureaucrac yand indifference to the religious practices of others and since there are no compulsory catechisms to study, daily masses and confessions to attend and no way to test or to monitor the knowledge of dogma and practices of the converted it would be impossible to forcibly convert anyone.
There has never been a clerical hierarchy like in Christianity and the Brahmin priests have had zero power over the masses and even less interest to forcing them to become generic Hindu
According to the influential Mahāyāna Text - LALITA VISTARA - on the advent and life of the Buddha, we have the following statements which testify to the elitism and indeed casteism of early Buddhism.
in Chapter Three, the Boddhisattva or future Buddha discourses in the Tuṣita heaven on the families into which he will be reborn.
Why did the Bodhisattva reflect on families?
Because Bodhisattvas are not born in a low family, such as that of a Chaṇḍāla or of a basket-maker, or of a chariot-maker, or of a Pukkasa (one born of a Niṣādha by a Sudra female). It follows that they are born in one of two families, either in that of a Brāhmaṇa, or that of a Kṣatriya. When the Brāhmaṇs are the most respected on the earth Bodhisattvas are born in Brāhman families, but when Kṣatriyas are the most respected, they take their birth in Kṣatriya families. Since now, O Bhikṣukas, the Kṣatriyas are in the ascendant, the Bodhisattva will be born in a Kṣatriya family.
Then he elaborates on the 64 qualities of the family into which the Buddha will be born:- (I will not give them all but just a selection to prove my point.)
(1) Such a family is highly intelligent, (3) of a high caste, (36) It is devoted to worship sages (Rishis), (37) gods (Devatās,)(52) It has the quality of Brāhmaṇhood in it. (56) it is the master of numerous slaves, male and female, and domestics of various kinds. (59) It is an imperial (cakravarti) family, (62) It is irreproachable of all caste defects.
Thus, sirs, among Devas, among regions, among Māras, among Brahmās and among Śramana and Brāhmaṇa populations, is the family of the Boddhisattva endowed with the 64 qualities.
There were indeed sporadic incidents of persecution of Buddhist over the 2500 year history - but they were the exceptional crimes of some wicked Kings and not the norm. All the accounts of how many people or monks were killed and how many Buddhist stupas or shrines were destroyed are highly exaggerated.
Again quoting from our source text - Lalita Vistara for illustration of exaggeration.
Māyādevi had bathed, anointed her person, made her arms heavy with various ornaments, and arrayed herself in a dress of thin texture and blue colour. She was full of affection, delight and gratification. She was attended and served by ten thousand maids.
Now, Bhikṣus, Māyādevi proceeded forth attended by her suite. She was guarded by eighty-four thousand well-appointed horse-cars, eighty-four thousand well-appointed elephant-cars, eighty-four thousand brigades of heroic, veteran, sturdy soldiers clad in impenetrable mail and armour. She was preceded by sixty thousand Śākya maidens. She was guarded by forty thousand Śākyas, old, young and middle-aged, all born agnates to the king Śuddhodana. She was surrounded by sixty thousand musicians of king Śuddhodana's inner apartments, all engaged in singing and music, playing on clarions and other instruments.
On the birth of the Buddha the celebrations were unimaginable - our text says:-
All the Śākyas, collecting together, shouted the acclaim of joy, and, distributing benefactions and performing virtuous actions, daily (for seven days) gratified thirty-two hundred thousand Brāhmans.
The daily feeding and distributing of gifts to 3200,000 Brahmins for 7 days in the tiny city of Kapilavastu???
So any claims of mass and wholesale destruction of Buddhist monuments and sites must be readjusted to reflect reality.
CLAIM -
You are quoting from a 3rd party text . It is neither 1st account It is not written by Buddha himself, nor 2nd account it is not written by someone who listened to Buddha directly. If you can use just 1–2 hours of your busy life, read Buddha teaching yourself online directly. The best website is Access to Insight Having done that, you won’t need to rely on opinions of others. You would know what Buddha himself said.
Regarding this particular topic, Buddha didnot believe in caste system. He himself criticized it.
RESPONSE -
How do you know that all the Tripitaka is not 3rd party text? Do you think that Ananda really memorised all the Suttas in their prolix and verbose form? The Buddha says in the Tripitaka that he went to the heavens and spoke to all the devas including Indra, Brahma et all and preached the Dharma to them - did Ananda accompany him and record those conversations?
The Vedas can easily be memorised because they are in metric form, the Tripitaka are in prose which is extremely hard if not impossible to memorise. So it is highly improbable that the discourses were actually spoken by Buddha himself.
The point being made is that all the previous Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and early theoreticians of Buddhism were either Brahmins or Kshatriyas. The vast majority of the dialogues found on access to insight involve Brahmins, Kshatriyas or Vaishyas (gahapatis) - Suddas and panchamas do not feature at all.
And indeed being born a Hindu Kshatriya Buddha did denounce the discrimination and privilege of the caste system which is an economic model, but the model itself was workable and unavailable for deconstruction into socialism.
Claim - That is the earliest collection of Buddha teachings, done after Buddha’s death. You will find, in Buddha teachings, countless times buddha rejecting caste. Buddha accepted all comers into sangha.
Response -
This is true no doubt. The general gist of the Tripitaka is indeed the teaching of the Buddha but a large portion of it is mythology.
What exactly was the Buddha rejecting? The caste-system is an socio-economic model the most universal model at that time the world over. What the Buddha was denouncing was elitism and privilege based on birth and caste-discrimination - not the system per se. He was advocating meritocracy - he was not a SJW. He never said “down with the patriarchy and Brahminocracy” what he did was redefine what he saw as a true brahminical qualities.
The Brahmaṇa from Dhammapada
383. Exert yourself, O Brahmana! Cut off the stream (of craving), and discard sense desires. Knowing the destruction of all the conditioned things, become, O Brahmana, the knower of the Uncreate (Nibbana)!
384. When a Brahmana has reached the summit of two paths (meditative concentration and insight), he knows the truth and all his fetters fall away.
385. He for whom there is neither this shore nor the other shore, nor yet both, he who is free of cares and is unfettered -- him do I call a Brahmana.
386. He who is meditative, stainless and settled, whose work is done and who is free from cankers, having reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.
387. The sun shines by day, the moon shines by night. The warrior shines in armor, the Brahmana shines in meditation. But the Buddha shines resplendent all day and all night.
388. Because he has discarded evil, he is called a Brahmana. Because he is serene in conduct, he is called a recluse. And because he has renounced his impurities, he is called a renunciate.
389. One should not strike a Brahmana, nor should a Brahmana, when struck, give way to anger. Shame on him who strikes a Brahmana, and more shame on him who gives way to anger.
390. Nothing is better for a Brahmana than when he holds his mind back from what is endearing. To the extent the intent to harm wears away, to that extent does suffering subside.
391. He who does no evil in deed, word and thought, who is restrained in these three ways -- him do I call a Brahmana.
392. Just as a brahman priest reveres his sacrificial fire, even so should one devoutly revere the person from whom one has learned the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.
393. Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a Brahmana. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist -- he is pure, he is a Brahmana.
394. What is the use of your matted hair, O witless man? What of your garment of antelope's hide? Within you is the tangle (of passion); only outwardly do you cleanse yourself. [28]
395. The person who wears a robe made of rags, who is lean, with veins showing all over the body, and who meditates alone in the forest -- him do I call a Brahmana.
396. I do not call him a Brahmana because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging -- him do I call a Brahmana.
397. He who, having cut off all fetters, trembles no more, who has overcome all attachments and is emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
398. He who has cut off the thong (of hatred), the band (of craving), and the rope (of false views), together with the appurtenances (latent evil tendencies), he who has removed the crossbar (of ignorance) and is enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.
399. He who without resentment endures abuse, beating and punishment; whose power, real might, is patience -- him do I call a Brahmana.
400. He who is free from anger, is devout, virtuous, without craving, self-subdued and bears his final body -- him do I call a Brahmana.
401. Like water on a lotus leaf, or a mustard seed on the point of a needle, he who does not cling to sensual pleasures -- him do I call a Brahmana.
402. He who in this very life realizes for himself the end of suffering, who has laid aside the burden and become emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
403. He who has profound knowledge, who is wise, skilled in discerning the right or wrong path, and has reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.
404. He who holds aloof from householders and ascetics alike, and wanders about with no fixed abode and but few wants -- him do I call a Brahmana.
405. He who has renounced violence towards all living beings, weak or strong, who neither kills nor causes others to kill -- him do I call a Brahmana.
406. He who is friendly amidst the hostile, peaceful amidst the violent, and unattached amidst the attached -- him do I call a Brahmana.
407. He whose lust and hatred, pride and hypocrisy have fallen off like a mustard seed from the point of a needle -- him do I call a Brahmana.
408. He who utters gentle, instructive and truthful words, who imprecates none -- him do I call a Brahmana.
409. He who in this world takes nothing that is not given to him, be it long or short, small or big, good or bad -- him do I call a Brahmana.
410. He who wants nothing of either this world or the next, who is desire-free and emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
411. He who has no attachment, who through perfect knowledge is free from doubts and has plunged into the Deathless -- him do I call a Brahmana.
412. He who in this world has transcended the ties of both merit and demerit, who is sorrowless, stainless and pure -- him do I call a Brahmana.
413. He, who, like the moon, is spotless and pure, serene and clear, who has destroyed the delight in existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
414. He who, having traversed this miry, perilous and delusive round of existence, has crossed over and reached the other shore; who is meditative, calm, free from doubt, and, clinging to nothing, has attained to Nibbana -- him do I call a Brahmana.
415. He who, having abandoned sensual pleasures, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one; has destroyed both sensual desire and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
416. He who, having abandoned craving, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one, has destroyed both craving and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
417. He who, casting off human bonds and transcending heavenly ties, is wholly delivered of all bondages -- him do I call a Brahmana.
418. He who, having cast off likes and dislikes, has become tranquil, is rid of the substrata of existence and like a hero has conquered all the worlds -- him do I call a Brahmana.
419. He who in every way knows the death and rebirth of all beings, and is totally detached, blessed and enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.
420. He whose track no gods, no angels, no humans trace, the Arahat who has destroyed all cankers -- him do I call a Brahmana.
421. He who clings to nothing of the past, present and future, who has no attachment and holds on to nothing -- him do I call a Brahmana.
422. He, the Noble, the Excellent, the Heroic, the Great Sage, the Conqueror, the Passionless, the Pure, the Enlightened one -- him do I call a Brahmana.
423. He who knows his former births, who sees heaven and hell, who has reached the end of births and attained to the perfection of insight, the sage who has reached the summit of spiritual excellence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
CLAIM -
Why do you say Tripitaka has mythology. I read most of these early Buddha teachings. I dont know what you mean by mythology?
Response -
Buddha went to swarga to teach the Hindu Gods, he also had regular visions and chats with them - Mahasamaya Sutta for example.
Thus have I heard:
On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Maha-vana (great wood) near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans together with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas (gods) from ten thousand world-systems frequently assembled for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha (ordained monks).
Then to four devas of the Suddhavasa (pure Abodes) brahma world, this thought occurred: "The Blessed One is living in the Mahavana near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas are frequently assembling there for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha. It is well if we were also to repair to the place where the Blessed One is, and each of us recite a stanza in his presence."
Who actually saw these millions of Devas and who recorded their conversations?
One way we can verify other planes of existence are not mythology is by following rules for reaching jhana . Once you are in 4th jhana, you will be able to remember past rebirths in this and other planes of existence, so you will know that devas, other planes of existence, are true. I am trying to reach jhana by meditating on brahmviharas but no luck so far. if you have any tips on how to reach jhana in Hinduism please share
Response - How can one remember past births is there is no ātma? in what does memory inhere? How did Buddha go to other planes of existence i.e. lokas? In his physical body or some sort of astral body? We would say the way to meditate is one ātman - but you don’t believe there is an ātman. So who is trying to reach jhana stages?
Claim - Who is trying to reach jhana— It is not “who” as it is not a noun. It is a verb. mind, body, etc are verbs - names given to unfolding action - and the unfolding action is trying to find a way to jhana. Everything in samsara is a verb as everything is unfolding action. How does Buddha remember past births if there is no atman — I don’t know. buddha did not explain. How did buddha go to other Lokas — I don’t know. buddha didn’t explain. I am trying to reach jhanas by trying to stabilize brahmaviharas (Metta Mudita karuna upekha) which is actually a Hindu practice but Buddha agreed that it is a valid way to reach jhana - is there a scripture in Hinduism which talks more about brahmaviharas?
Response - Who is a noun, working is a verb. Mind is a noun, thinking is a verb. Body is a noun, action is a verb. Thinking, striving, seeing, clasping, walking, action etc. cannot occur without a subject. Every verb applies to a subject - no verb operates independently. “Unfolding action” is a nonsense with a subject Sanjeevam. Everything indeed is in flux - that too is obvious, a river flows and is constantly changing but the river exists as a river - with all its contours, shallows, rapids, waterfalls etc. until it eventually reaches the sea and then loses its identity. Patanjali Yoga Sutras talks about Brahmāvihāras.
CLAIM - , I think it would be best to look at the discourses of the Tripitaka in Pali itself. When you take a look at almost every discourse given in the Sutta Pitaka, it starts in the following manner (let’s take a look at the Maha Samaya Sutta for example) - “Evaṃ me sutaṃ— Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sakkesu viharati kapilavatthusmiṃ mahāvane mahatā bhikkhusaṃghena saddhiṃ pañcamattehi bhikkhusatehi sabbeheva arahantehi; dasahi ca lokadhātūhi devatā yebhuyyena sannipatitā honti bhagavantaṃ dassanāya bhikkhusaṃghañca.” As you can clearly see, it starts with “Evaṃ me sutaṃ”, which, when translated to English means “Thus have I heard”. Have you ever considered thinking about why such a phrase was included in the Tripitaka? This phrase has been added in order to confirm and ensure that the discourse originated from the Buddha’s own words. Tradition holds it that it was the Buddha’s personal attendant and foremost disciple in recollecting the Dhamma Ananda Thera who used this formula the very first time, in order to bear witness that the discourse has been preached by the Buddha’s own purified words. After the Buddha’s attainment of Parinibbana, there arose many rumours and seperations within the Sangha, that many of the Buddha’s original discourses were denied and condemned by his monks. In fact, many monks had protested against the Buddha’s code of conduct and they decided to live as seperate communities. Hence, the branches of Mahayana and Vajrayana took their place in this world. So, in order to keep the original teachings of the Buddha intact and free from the influences of rivalries, the Buddhist Councils wer e held. It is mentioned that in the First Buddhist Council that the Venerable Ananda Thero announced this formula. With all these facts kept in mind, how can you say that the Tripitaka is based on mythology, when the Venerable Ananda Thero, who was foremost in memorizing the Buddha’s doctrine, boldly bore witness that he himself had heard this discourse from the Buddha himself??
RESPONSE - Did I say Tripitaka was BASED on mythology? Dear Bhante - when engaging in discourse it is important to READ and respond and not to erect straw men. You need to reclaim the technique of honest debate that was famous among the Buddhist philosophers. My remark was about the Buddha claiming to have visited the various heavens and spoken to the gods and taught them the Dharma, having Brahma and the gods come to visit the Buddha and request him to teach, the temptations of Mara and his daughters - etc. this is all the language of MYTHOLOGY. Did Ananda Thero accompany the Buddha to meet the gods? Or did Buddha just claim to have met them? How did he travel? was it in his physical body or astral body (sūkṣa-śarīra? How can Buddhists claim to be atheist when there is so much interaction with the gods - even more so than in Hinduism. The Mahayanis and Vajrayanis are the majority of Buddhists and they claim to hold the true teachings - so who is correct? You or them?
CLAIM - I stand firm by the point that I was trying to make even in my previous answer. The Buddha’s visit to the divine realms, his conversation with the deities of those worlds, all of these concepts are mentioned in the Tripitaka and also its commentaries. What I meant by “Tripitaka is based on mythology” is a statement said by me to point out not the entire/ necessarily the factual details given in the Tripitaka, but certain areas of controversy, such as those topics you have mentioned. And I apologize if I did not read your answer properly and respond. But, let me get straight to the point. You say that all these accouts are the “language of MYTHOLOGY”. Now, the Buddha, unlike ordinary people, was a person who was endowed with the highest psychic potency and supernatural ability. As far as I can tell, even in hinduism, there are ascetics, brahmins and recluses who are capable of such abilities of psychic power - like communicating with the devas, travelling to their worlds, performing marvellous feats etc. And how is it possible for even such ascetics to be endowed with such attributes?? It’s because they have developed their minds by engaging in meditation, and having purified their minds from ordinary defilements such as greed, they attain to dhyanas and samadhis. So, I don’t see why the Buddha, who is foremost amongst those who became purified, would not be able to interact with living beings. The divine beings, such as gods/brahmas, are beings who hold the Buddha in the highest esteem, perhaps more so than the humans as well. When the Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be), who was residing in the Tusita heaven, decided to descend to the human world to attain Buddhahood, it was the gods who request him to do so in the following manner ‘Kālo kho te mahāvīra, uppajja mātukucchiyaṃ; Sadevakaṃ tārayanto, bujjhassu amataṃ padaṃ’. Throughout the Buddha’s entire life, there’s a very strong connection with the divine beings. Now, these details might seem logically impossible and invalid to certain people, but a good Buddhist should believe in these accounts while having an unbreakable, firm and steady faith in the Buddha and his teachings. In certain instances, the Venerable Ananda did accompany the Buddha in journeys. But, since he was not capable of psychic potency, it was through the Buddha’s powers that the Venerable Ananda travelled with the Buddha in such instances. When the Buddha did make his way to the divine realms, or atleast made the slighest communication with such a supernatural being, it is highely likely that he informed this incident to the Venerable Ananda. The word “atheist refers to a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods. The concept of god in Abrahamic religions and Buddhism varies to a very great extent. In religions such as Islam and Chrstianity, the word “God” is independently and solely spoken about a “Supreme Deity/Creator” who possessess omnipotence and who is the forerunner of all that is existence. But, in Buddhism, it refers to a being who lives in a divine realm as a result of the meritorious deeds accumulated in the past and who is also a constituent of this world-cycle. His existence as a divine being is only temporary and he will inevitably pass away from that state and change his course of existence. So, as you can see, Buddhism is not atheistic, in the sense that it completely denies the existence of such a being called “god”. Yet, it totally ignores the notion and concept of a “supreme creator”.
Response -
All talk of gods and demons of a new born child taking 7 steps in each direction claiming to be the Buddha, temptation by Mara, previous life stories, discussing his advent in Tushita heaven - is all MYTHOLOGY dear Dulaj. Even the Mimāmsakas at the time of the Buddha discredited the actual existence of these devas as “personalities” but rather as “principles”. so Agni is not a person but the principle of ignition, Brahma is not a person sitting on clouds he is the personification of the principle of creativity. Vayu is not a person he is the principle of the wind and motion. So it seems the Buddha had a retrogressive animistic view of the Devas, whereas the Rishis say them as eternal abiding principles of the Cosmos present within ourselves and not external deities. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says:– (4:10) statement: “योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्ते अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् — yo anyām devatām upāste anyo asau anyo ahamasmi iti, na sa veda, yathā paśurevam sa devānām”, “One who worships a separate deity thinking that the deity is completely different from himself, he is ignorant; he is like a utilitarian animal to the deities.” Taittiriya Samhita 1. 2. 3.2 ye devā manojātā mano-yujas sudakṣā dakṣa-pitāras te naḥ || The gods, mind-born, yoked to the mind, having the blissful power of discrimination (dakṣā), and are the children of discernment.
Claim - You say about these accounts of the Buddha’s life in such a way because you only want to believe in something if it has been proved scientifically that it exists. As I mentioned in my previous answer, most of these details mentioned in the Tripitaka and its commentaries regarding certain instances of the Buddha’s life might seem as sheer mythology to someone who disbelieves in the Dharma of the Buddha. A good Buddhist must believe in these concepts out of faith for the Buddha and not in just some blind manner. Besides, the teachings of the Buddha are not focused on anything except for the truth and original essence of life. So, there is no way that the Tripitaka can contain anything mythical based on some mysterious stories created by someone to arouse the defiled interest of the human mind. The teachings of the Buddha serve the purpose of leading its follower to the cessation of all suffering - Nibbana.
Response - Sorry buddy - this is where we Vedāntins differ from you Buddhists - we accept nothing on faith and apply logic to everything. We can reject all the mythology of the Puranas and Epics and still retain our philosophical integrity. Mythology is the vehicle of philosophy and has no meaning in itself.
My opinion is based on simple logic - and logic is the basis of both Buddhism and Vedanta.
I appreciate the wonders of nature and certainly see the spiritual dimension we call it as the Nishkala.
Buddhism, like Hinduism from which it arose contains mythology - plain and simple. The Buddha was speaking the idiom of his day, the gods are all projections of the human mind and not independent entities living in some heaven.
We need to separate mythology from philosophy and not confuse the two.
One instance and one person like Pushymitra sunga, does not represent the entire Brahmin community. Infact, Pushyamitra was not even a Brahmin.
Please read History once again. Ashoka also takes extreme actions to promote Bhddhism. He bans animal sacrifice and bans yagnas thrtoughout his kingdom. He also excludes scholars of Hinduism and Jainism from his courts and patronage.
Action and Reaction are equal and opposite.
Today, it is fashionable to condemn Brahmins.
Chanakya , who was a Brahmin makes a Shudra as anEmperor. Further he does not stay back to hold on to his power . He leaves administration and goes to Himalayas.
All Brahmarshis married Matanga Kanyas. Today, all Brahmin newly married couples are shown ARundhati Star, to follow as an idol. Shge was a Dalit Kanya. Infact all our Mothers are Matanga Kanyas/Dalit Girls. You ask any Brahman for his gotra and Pravara and they will tell you that,
Arundhati Anasuya, Lopamudra, and sukanya are their maternal ancestors.
Buddhism has an inherent Weakness.
it is a religion made for Monks, by stating DESIRE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF SORROW, SO GIVE UP DESIRES. There is no concept of GOD. it is not a religion made for Householders.
The Buddhist Monks did not live among the Householders. They lived in far away viharas in seclusion, and came for receiving Bhiksha to villages once in a while. So the laity were left totally unguided. Tghere were no scriptures for Householders, unlike Dharmashastras, till the 10th century AD.
In order to become a Monk, another monk has give a DEEKSHA. One cannot become a monk by himself.
In contrast, a Brahmin priest is a householder and livs among other householders to constantly guide them. A Brahmin Priest does not need a Diksha from some one else to become a Priest. He can ordain himself. Coupled with this, all Hindu rituals and worship to a God is done with the purpose of satisfying one’s DESIRES !!! This is a great attraction to all Householders , who have all the desires.
During the times of Kings , who patronised Buddhism, many Chinese Monk Travellers visited India. Please read their writings. ToHyuen Tsang, writes, that before he visited India, he thought the entire land was Buddhist, To his surprise, he noted that the Majority were non-Buddhists. and Buddhists were few,Infact he says, the Brahmins were an intelligent lot. There are writings of several other Chines travellers. Better read them for enlightenment on Historic Perception
Buddhism was not a dominant religion at any time in India. Today, in China and Japan , while the people are nominally Buddhists, as they visit Buddhist temples and burn incense, their religion is either Confusionism or Shinto.
In Usbekistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, the Islamic invaders had an easy task. Because all they had to do was to attack the Viharas, where the monks were present, The monks were either killed or ran away to Tibet and other lands in 8th century. The ordinary Householders , who had no gods, no religion were an easy prey for a conversion. As there were no monks, there was no body to give Deeksha to a fresh monk.
Brahmins borrowed many Buddhist Teachings and assimilated them in their daily l;ife and scriptures. Nishkama Karma is one of them
Buddhist also realised their weakness, and assimilated many Hindu concepts of God, Rebirth, Kartma etc. Mahayaana sect has Bodhisatvas being born again and again. There are other GODS like in Hindusism. Vajrayana has Tantric Gods also. But bu that time, Mahayaan sect became indistinguishable from Hinduism
It is therefore, a lie that Brahmins destroyed Buddhism. Such a claim is only to buttress, the current Political narrative, where Dalits are identified with Buddhism.
Buddhism had vanished from India even before the advent of Adi Shankara in the 8th century,as no one was following it
Buddhism was never egalitarian, we know that as fact. Buddhists (especially early ones) were largely drawn from the Bramhin and Kshatriya varnas. It was elitist if nothing else.
Generally speaking, killing people for their beliefs, has never been a ‘thing’ in India. That would have been seen as the dumbest thing ever.
We have had many wars in Bharat, but they were based on dharma vs. adharma. Never based on your belief vs. my belief.
Modern india of course also has anti-national elements in the form of Christians an Muslims looking to take control of the country and convert everyone to their belief systems. They are failing to an extent as Hindus get wiser and wake up to their machinations. Still, Hindus despite knowing the growing threat, continue to make every attempt to keep the peace — which should tell you something about Hindu nature these days. It is far too pacifist to begin with to go around killing Buddhists for no reason. When the Dalai Llama was persecuted in his homeland, he turned to India for refuge, and that is literally how Buddhists survived their own genocide.
So, all these stupid claims you are making are based on mischievous western atrocity literature designed to create a propaganda/culture of hate for Hindus, in order to satisfy the agenda of the Christians and Muslims who are looking for ways to break up that Hindu-Buddhist peace that exists at the core of all the dharmic traditions.
So, when you stop reading that bullshit, and start learning real history, you’ll find that Buddhism’s biggest enemies are in fact Christianity and Islam. Always have been, always will be.
As far as casteism, this is a portuguese innovation, which was imposed on all the conquered lands of the Spaniards. Caste is based on a portuguese word ‘casta’ and was used as a way to divide and conquer the land. Hinduism never subscribed to caste; we always subscribed to varna, which has a lot to do with one’s innate nature and tendencies, and was often symptomatic of the chosen profession. Further, there was no hierarchical superiority between one varna and another. Each varna had its own share of respect and position within the society — to call one varna superior and another inferior would be like hacking off a man’s arms or feet, because they were seen as lesser than some other part of his body. Such ideas of superiority/inferiority are western impositions. Varna is categorical, not hierarchical. Even among devatas, we recognize over 33 categories. We are a number-happy/counting-happy culture and civilization. Math is in our dna. Samkhya shastra is literally based on enumeration of categories.
Despite buddhism having been around for longer than even Christianity, in India, not that many people converted. It implies they were happy just living their lives doing their thing, being unoppressed. All that changed when the invaders came and destroyed a thriving civilization.
There’s a sort of controversy in the field of South Asian studies regarding the history of religious persecution in the subcontinent. Specifically, the nature of Hindu persecution at the hands of Muslim conquerors.
Position #1, found mostly among scholars in the field, acknowledges that instances of persecution occurred, but they were not the norm, often exaggerated in the early accounts, and typically the result of political difference rather than religious zealotry.
Position #2, often espoused by those sympathetic to the Hindu Nationalist program, holds that international academia is deliberately whitewashing the extent of Hindu persecution at the hands of Muslim conquerors. Supporters of this latter position prefer to discard scholarly writings on this topic altogether, and instead cite directly from selected early accounts, which describe said persecution with invigorating detail.
If its not apparent, I don’t think much of Position #2. I’m also a bit exercised by its supporters, who will often claim that no such persecution was ever committed by Hindus against other religious communities of India.
So with that in mind, I’ve compiled a number of excerpts from the early works of Taranatha (16th century Tibetan monk), Kahlana Pandita (12th century Kashmiri Brahmin), and Chinese Pilgrims (like 7th century Xuanzeng), which largely describe instances of Buddhist persecution at the hands of Hindus (with examples of Hindu-Hindu and Buddhist-Buddhist violence as well). Not to argue this persecution was the norm in pre-Islamic India (it wasn’t), but to show first that it happened, and second, how easy it is to construct warped narratives when selectively mining these texts.
Hindu Persecution of Buddhists: Excerpts
A description of Mauryan Emperor Ashoka’s destruction of the sacred Buddhist Bodhi Tree: “When Ashoka-raja began to reign, he was an unbeliever, and he desired to destroy the bequeathed traces of Buddha; so he raised an army, and himself taking the lead, he came here for the purpose of destroying. He cut through the roots ; the trunk, branches, and leaves were all divided into small bits and heaped up in a pile a few tens of paces to the west of the place. Then he ordered a Brahmin who sacrificed to fire to burn them in the discharge of his religious worship…the queen, who was an adherent of the heretics, sent secretly a messenger, who, after the first division of night, once more put it down.” (1)
A similar episode with Bengali Gauda Emperor Shashanka: “In late times Shashanka-raja, being a believer in heresy, slandered the religion of Buddha, and through envy destroyed the convents and cut down the Bodhi tree, digging it up to the very springs of the earth; yet he did not get to the bottom of the roots. Then he burnt it with fire and sprinkled it with the juice of the sugar-cane, desiring to destroy it entirely, and not leave a trace of it behind.” (2)
Shashanka continues: “‘We must remove that statue of Buddha and place there a figure of Shiva’. The officer having received the order, was moved with fear, and sighing, said, ‘If I destroy the figure of Buddha, then during successive kalpas I shall reap misfortune ; if I disobey the king, he will put me to a cruel death and destroy my family’…” (3)
The Emperor targets another sacred Buddhist figure: “Shashanka-raja, when he was overthrowing and destroying the law of Buddha, forthwith came to the place where that stone is, for the purpose of destroying the sacred marks. Having broken it into pieces, it came whole again, and the ornamental figures as before ; then he flung it into the river Ganges…” (4)
The sobering results in Bengal: “Shashanka-raja having destroyed the religion of Buddha, the members of the priesthood were dispersed, and for many years driven away.” (5)
An episode in North India where Hindus react with extreme prejudice to Buddhist proselytization: “The Brahmins said amongst themselves, ‘The Buddhist priests have raised a quarrel on some question of words.’ Then these wicked men consulting together, waiting for the occasion, destroyed the Sanghardarma, and afterwards strongly barricaded the place in order to keep the priests out. From that time no priests of Buddha have lived there.” (6)
Similar episode with Madhava Hindu voicing discontent at Buddhist Gunamati Bodhisattva and his attempt to debate doctrinal differences: “From this time forth give no hospitality to the Sramana heretics ; let this order be generally known and obeyed.” “The Brahmans, moreover, deriding him (Bodhisattva), said, ‘What mean you by your shaven head and your singular dress ? Begone from this! There is no place here for you to stop’… the Brahmans would have no words with him, and only drove him from the place.” (7)
Mahirakula, a Hindu of Hun ancestry ruling Northwest India: “issued an order to all the five parts of India to destroy whatever was connected with Buddhism and to expel all monks and not allow a single one to remain behind… and one thousand six hundred stupas and monasteries were demolished.” (18)
Assassin confronts Hindu Kashmiri King Jalauka stating: “There was a monastery belonging to us in which the beating of drums once disturbed your sleep, and incited by the advice of wicked men, you have destroyed the monastery. The angry Buddhists sent me to murder you, but our high priest interfered.” The assassin leaves after extracting a promise from Jalauka to rebuild the monastery. (8)
Episode describing the violent reaction of Hindus to growing Buddhist influence in Kashmir: “The Buddhists under their great leader Nagarjjuun continued to gain strength in the country; they not only defeated in argument the Pauditas who upheld the worship of Shiva…but have the influence to discontinue the ceremonies and worship enjoined by it. The Nagas, in consequence, rose in arms, murdered many people, mostly Buddhists…and carried on their devastations year by year.” (9)
How a Hindu Pahari king reacted when: “A Buddhist…eloped with his queen; this so enraged him, that he burnt thousands and thousands of monasteries, and gave to the Brahmanas… the villages that supported those monasteries.” (10)
Hindu Kashmiri King Gopaditiya: “expelled from his country several irreligious Brahmanas who used to eat garlic, brought others of the caste from foreign countries, and induced them to settle…” (11)
Hindu King of Kashmir Lalitaditya murders Bengali King of Gauda, whose followers then arrive to destroy the Kashmiri King’s favorite Vishnu idol, but end up destroying the wrong one: “The people of Gauda, seeing Ramasvami, whose temple stood by the side of the other, built of silver, and mistaking it for Parihasakeshava, tore it from its seat and broke it to atoms, scattering the pieces on every side.” (12)
Hindu Kashmir King Shankaravarmma: “in order to meet the heavy expenses of his luxury…commenced to plunder the temples…he plundered sixty-four of them.” (13)
Brahman adviser Loshtadhara to Kashmiri King: “confiscate the lands and gold of Kalashesha, and with the stones of the temple, I shall build for you a bridge over the Vitasta” (14)
Hindu Kashmir King Harsha: “robbed every idol of the wealth bestowed upon it by former kings…and in order to deprive them of their sanctity, he caused urine and ordure to be poured into them through the orifices…he took away all those images which were built of gold and silver. The images were dragged by ropes around their ankle joints, spat upon and made naked, and mutilated. Neither in the capital, nor in the towns or villages, was there a temple left from which the idol was not taken…” “He caused the monasteries, in the capital, called after his father’s name, to be plundered.” (15)
Hindu Kashmir King Kalasha in a dispute with his parents, “set fire to their place. The fire burnt the house of god Vijayeshvara and the sacred things it contained…Kalasha stood on the terrace of his palace, and saw the flames rising to the sky, and danced with joy”. (16)
Hindu King Kshemagupta destroys Buddhist temples, uses leftover materials to build Hindu Temple, he: “set fire to Jayendravihara in order to kill Sanggrama the Damara who was inside the building. And in order to make his name lasting, he brought the images of Buddha from the burning monasteries and other stones from dilapidated temples; and set up Kshemagaurishvara…” (17)
Episode in North India: “When he (Visnuraja) was residing in Palanagara situated in Hala in the west, five hundred ascetic brahmanas like the great sages of the past lived in a hermitage. The king killed the birds and deer of the hermitage and diverting the course of the river destroyed the abodes of the rishis” (19)
Hindus engaging in violence against Buddhists after winning a debate: “The tirihika became victorious and destroyed many temples of the insiders. They robbed in particular the centres for the Doctrine and took away the deva-dasas… As a result, there were many incidents of the property and followers of the insiders being robbed by the tirthika brahmanas.” (20)
The Buddhist Mauryan Empire of India comes to an end when the last emperor is murdered by his Hindu adviser Pushyamitra Shunga, who ushers in a period of severe persecution against Buddhists: “Then the brahmana king Pushyamitra, along with other tirthikas, started war and thus burnt down numerous monasteries from the madhya-desa to Jalandhara. They also killed a number of vastly learned monks. But most of them fled to other countries. As a result, within five years the Doctrine was extinct in the north.” (21)
Hindus burning the Buddhist Nalanda Library, a Brahmin: “performed a sacrifice and scattered the charmed ashes all around. This immediately resulted in a miraculously produced fire. It consumed all the eighty four temples, the centres of the Buddha’s Doctrine. The fire started burning the scriptural works that were kept in the Dharmaganja of Sri Nalanda, particularly in the big temples called Ratnasagara, Ratnodadhi and Ratnarandaka, in which were preserved all the works of Mahayana pitaka…Many temples in other places were also burnt, and the two tirthikas, apprehending punishment from the king, escaped to Assam.” (22)
Tirthika Brahmin loses debate to Buddhist acarya: “At this, he threw enchanted dust, which burnt the belongings of the acarya, and even the acarya himself narrowly escaped the fire…The tirthika fled.” (23)
Iconoclasm between rival Buddhist groups: “In a temple of Vajrasana there was then a large silver-image of Heruka and many treatises on Tantra. Some of the Sravaka Sendhavas of Singa island and other places said that these were composed by Mara. So they burnt these and smashed the image into pieces and used the pieces as ordinary money.” (24)
Closing:
Many modern scholars believe some of these accounts to be exaggerated and not representative of the normative interaction between Hindus and Buddhists. I agree, just as I agree that despite juicy accounts of violence between Muslims and Hindus, these two communities typically got on relatively well.
For ideological reasons some will continue to reject this evaluation, though hopefully they will consider how poorly everyone’s history looks when taking these early historical excerpts at face value.
Response - from the same “Historical evidence about the persecution of Buddhism in ancient India is missing or unsubstantiated; colonial era writers have used mythical folk stories to construct a part of ancient Buddhist history”.
Most religions survived on grants from kings and nobility.
With more Hindu kings Buddhism didn't get enough grants. As the real Buddhist teachings are based on renunciation, non attachment economically well off Buddhist became few.Off course the Hindu kings wanted to build a strong and prosperous kingdom. Nonviolence and renunciation, non attachment, monkhood doesn't build a strong and economically prosperous kingdom.
Buddhism fell out of favour.Then can the Islamic invasion which wiped out the Buddhist Afghanistan and North Western India.With 1000 years on Islamic subjugation ( worship of man is the worst) Buddhist converted back. Got absorbed into Hinduism.Buddhism in their strong hold got wiped out in Afghanistan, north Pakistan , Bangladesh when they were made into Islamic countries.Many Buddhist temples today were built by Hindus.
The relationships between Taoism and Buddhism are complex, as they influenced each other in many ways while often competing for influence. Taoism in its early form was a mixture of early mythology, folk religion, and Taoist philosophy. The arrival of Buddhism forced Taoism to renew and restructure itself into a more organized religion, while addressing similar existential questions raised by Buddhism. Early Buddhism was sometimes seen as a kind of foreign relative of Taoism and its scriptures were often translated into Chinese with Taoist vocabulary. Chan Buddhism in particular holds many beliefs in common with philosophical Taoism.Daoist (Taoist) simplicity stimulated Chan's abandonment of Buddhist theory and was accompanied by another traditional Daoist feature—the emphasis on total absorption in practice of a highly cultivated skill.The coexistence of Chinese Buddhism and Taoism has also resulted in various Buddhist deities being adopted into the Taoist pantheon, and vice versa. For example, in Taoism, the Chinese Buddhist deva and Bodhisattva Marici is often syncretized with the Taoist goddess Doumu, who is regarded as the personification of the Big Dipper as well as the feminine aspect of the cosmic God of Heaven.In another example, the Taoist god of war and fraternity, Guan Yu, has been adopted by Buddhism and he is widely venerated as Sangharama Bodhisattva (伽蓝菩萨; 伽藍菩薩; Qiélán Púsà), a Bodhisattva or deva who serves as a dharmapala of Buddhist monasteries. According to Buddhist legends, in 592, the spirit of Guan Yu manifested himself one night before the Chan master Zhiyi and requested the master to teach him about the dharma. After receiving Buddhist teachings from the master, Guan Yu took refuge in the triple gems and also requested the Five Precepts, making a vow to become a guardian of temples and the dharma. The syncretism between Chinese Esoteric Buddhism and Taoism was particularly extensive.[4] For instance, the nine-fold configuration of the Mandala of the Two Realms in Zhenyan and Shingon Buddhism was influenced and adopted from the Taoist Lo Shu Square and the I Ching
Confucianism
Confucianism in particular raised fierce opposition to Buddhism in early history, principally because it perceived Buddhism to be a nihilistic worldview, with a negative impact on society at large. "The Neo-Confucianists had therefore to attack Buddhist cosmological views by affirming, in the firstplace, the reality and concreteness of the universe and of man.
Shintoism
Before Prince Shotoku made Buddhism the national religion of Japan, many opposed the integration of Buddhism into Japan. Once this forced integration occurred, Japan synchronized Buddhism with its native religion Shinto, resulting in a unique sect of Buddhism existing only on the East Asian Island.
In the Japanese religion of Shinto, the long coexistence of Buddhism and Shintoism resulted in the merging of Shintoism and Buddhism. Gods in Shintoism were given a position similar to that of Hindu gods in Buddhism. Moreover, because the Buddha Vairochana's symbol was the sun, many equated Amaterasu, the sun goddess, as his previous bodhisattva reincarnation. According to Helen Hardacre, by the Heian period, a theory named wakō dōjin (和光同塵) had emerged. The Buddha and Kami had taken on a new form as saviors of man, who "dim their light and mingle with the dust of the world". This not only relates the two religions, but demonstrates a marked difference in status between the two deities at this period in time.[8] The later Tokugawa Shogunate era saw a revival of Shinto, and some Shinto scholars began to argue that Buddhas were previous incarnations of Shinto gods, reversing the traditional positions of the two religions. Shinto and Buddhism were officially separated during the Meiji Restoration and the brief, but socially transformative rise of State Shinto followed. In post-war modern Japan, most families count themselves as being of both religions, despite the idea of "official separation".As time went on, the Japanese became more and more accustomed to including both the kami and Buddhist ideas in their spiritual lives. Philosophers put forward the idea that the kami were "transformations of the Buddha manifested in Japan to save all sentient beings".In addition, Buddhism played an important part in the religious legitimation of Japanese emperors via Shintoism.It is noteworthy that the Sui were the first Chinese dynasty with which the newly emergent centralising Japanese state came into contact, so the practice of using Buddhism as an officially sanctioned religion would have been demonstrated to the Japanese as a political realityThe interplay between Taoism, Buddhism, and Shinto in China and Japan stimulated the adoption of the Chinese practice of state-sanctioned religion and religious legitimation through association with divinity by the Japanese government. The official implementation of the term tennō (天皇) to refer to the Japanese emperor is also widely agreed to take place during the latter part of the 7th century, as a result of these interactions.
Muism
When Buddhism was introduced in Korea, its temples were built on or near the shaman mountain-spirit shrines. Still today, one can see buildings at these Buddhist temple sites dedicated to the shaman mountain-spirits Sansin (Korean: 산신). Most buddhist temples in Korea have a Sansin-gak (Korean: 산신각), the choice of preference over other shrines, typically a small shrine room set behind and to the side of the other buildings. It is also common for the sansingak to be at a higher elevation than the other shrine rooms, just as the mountain itself towers above the temple complex. The sansin-gak maybe a traditional wooden structure with a tile roof, or in more modern and less wealth temples, a more simple and utilitarian room. Inside will be a waist height shrine with either a statue and mural painting, or just a mural painting. Offerings of candles, incense, water and fruit are commonly supplemented with alcoholic drinks, particularly Korea’s rustic rice wine makkgoli. This further serves to illustrate the non-Buddhist nature of this deity, even when he resides inside a temple. And yet, on the floor of this small shine room one will frequently see a monk’s cushion and moktak: evidence of the regular Buddhist ceremonies held there. Sansin may not be enshrined in a separate shrine, but in a Samseonggak or in the Buddha hall, to one side of the main shrine. Sansin shrines can also be found independent of Buddhist temples
Buddhism, today and historically, has always been practised alongside existing beliefs of locals. The local Greeks worshipped Buddha and Greek Gods, In Zoroastrian areas, there was the Buddha Mazda, In the subcontinent, Buddhism was practised along with Hinduism and Jainism.Mongols, Buryats, Tuvans practise Buddhism with Tengriism/Shamanism, Japanese with Shinto, Tibetans with Bon and everywhere else alongside existing beliefs and deities. The idea of a person following an exclusive named religion was uncommon.
I have heard people seriously claim that the popularity of Tibetan Buddhism in the west is simply because the CIA funds lamas and scholars, so the gullible westerners get a prior that 'tibet is an independent country' and hence hate on the Chinese communist party even in chinese places you occasionally get the idea that vajrayana is a distorted version of what the buddha actually taught
rishis taught a variety of philosophies, spiritual sadhanas and paths because people have different tastes and aptitudes and the same thing does not work for everyone.
we have confluences of Śaiva and Vaishṇava Sampradāyas in India. There should be similarly no surprises at all when there are confluences with the Bauddha Sampradāya.The whole theory about a separate religion of Buddhism was just a European invention.
The very term "religion" is a Western concept. Règles, rules bound abrahamic religions. Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism all flow from the same source.
recent this separate categorization of Buddhism as a "religion" is. The same is true for other "religions" invented in India. They are all just various Sampradāyas of Dharma धर्म.
The study of Indian traditions after West's colonization is stuck with Abrahamic categories. "Hinduism"/"Buddhism" are imagined as "religions" with conflict and conversion like Abrahamics have. Why can't couldn't Indians be Hindu *and* Buddhist?I can do Vipassana, revere Buddha and Krishna, read Gita, do yoga, learn a sufi dance, go to a temple and a church, what's the conflict? Religious conflict comes from Abrahamic monotheism. "No gods besides me", "Only Jesus saves rest go to hell," these are the roots of conflict. Scholarship in the Western framework imposes the category of religion on India and then tries to map the various disputes as "religious conflict." There was no religious conflict in India because there was no religion.
All narratives of religious conflict are thus nonsense. Buddhism as a reform of Hinduism is a bogus idea, a product of Western Indologists. They were influenced by the Protestant reform of Catholicism and chose Buddha as an Indian Martin Luther who had reformed the regressive Hindu religion. This story has been peddled for the past many decades and Eurocentric centuries without any evidence. In actual fact Gautama Buddha, like Vardhamana Mahavir and Makkali Ghosala and others were all part of the Indic tradition along with all other Aastik and Nastik traditions
A hard division between Indic religions is a modern phenomenon manufactured by those who misunderstand the comprehensiveness and unity of Indic traditions. The gaze/framework of the Christian theology has misrepresented Indic tradition;this narrative has been bought by Indians.
You have to Think Out of Box here.
Impalement of the Jains in Madurai
It was a pious Shaivite triumphal fiction with zero confirmation from Jain sources. In other words the Jains have never claimed that they were persecuted or impaled. If u can show in any Jain source where it is written that Jains were killed in Tamil Nadu ,than ur claim can be debated I also noted the images displayed on the temple wall where this persecution is claimed were wearing the sacred thread which is common to Brahmins. So ,they were most probably brahmins of rival philosphy
In Buddhism case ,The Buddhist texts do mention their persecution at hands of Hindus . But than i pondered If People left Hinduism when they adopted Buddhism but if that was so ,than it should have happened to every other place where Buddhism spread
but clearly it doesnot, Bonpo Religion in tibet, Confuciaism,taoism in China , shintoism in japan, Native Pagan traditions and tengrism,Shamanism,Animism in South East Buddhist Nations remained intact until recent takeover in last centuries. So on what assumption can u assume Buddhism conquered India.
During Muslim Invasion of SINDH , Buddhists actively collaborated with invaders
Why did the importance of Buddhism reduce 500 years after Buddha passed away in India?
Buddhism was primarily a religion of world-renunciation, and monks were the premier Buddhists and the centres were the monasteries.
Buddhism has very little to offer the common people apart from some basic teachings and vows and the opportunity to gain merit through giving alms to the monks.
There is nothing in Buddhism that helps to run a civil society, no laws or courts or criminal justice system, no judiciary or system of administration, no military apparatus, no economical management, no agricultural guidance, structures of management and hierarchies. The only festivals are those associated with the lives of the monks and the monasteries.
So when Buddhism spread throughout South East Asia it went hand in hand with Hinduism which has all the apparatus and structures in place for managing a society, and celebration of festivals connected with the season and agriculture. There were priests to cater to the material needs of the people and to help them in their desire fulfilment, and there were courts and councils to which they could go to resolve their grievances and disputes over land-management and irrigation.
Even in China and Japan the local religions; Shinto, Confucianism and Daoism functioned in harmony with Buddhism providing the social structure and values for the lay-folk.
How did priests give desire fulfillment
Perform rituals, get them married, bless and name their babies, perform house blessing ceremonies, etc. etc.
Buddhist pacifist and world-denying ideas likely weakened India and made it an easier target for invaders. But there is no "ism", it was simply another set of idea within the Indian thought universe. Buddhism is a monastic religion & has no martial element. In China & Japan, Buddhism survived as it integrated with native cultures & practices like Taoist & Samurai who have a strong allegiance to the science of conflict & strategy. In Afghanistan it couldn't. Buddhism's dogma of denying materialism made India ignorant about the risks of materialism. We always believed in controlling materialism, not let it control us, and not completely separating from it, to live in this world.
The mention of Nath gurus as siddhas in Buddhist texts found in Tibet and the Himalayan regions led early scholars to propose that Naths may have Buddhist origins, but the Nath doctrines and theology is unlike mainstream Buddhism . this Shows that Buddhism has copied from Hinduism . Western Scholarship has been shielding Buddhism
All the stories of Hindu Buddhists Conflict are HyperBole and mostly exaggerated stories maDE up and concocted by Buddhists
One Eg - 84000 Buddhist stupas , there are no evidences for this .It is a made up claim by buddhists
There are also some very generalized statements by Buddhists over Hinduism and Hindus like -
- Arthasashtra says that if anyone opposed to the varna-ashrama-dharma becomes a king’s advisor, then kaala-koota poison be administered to kill him.
- Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin general, assassinated the last Mauryan king and usurped power. He killed many Buddhists and destroyed Buddhist stupas.
- Brahmins hijacked Buddhist temples. Hindu king Shasanka cut of the historical Bodhi tree from bodhgaya. During Buddha's time brahmanism was the most rival of Buddhists. They killed Moggalana.
- It's brahminic conspiracy that made Buddha a ridiculous avatar of your God. Brahmanism almost neutralized Buddhism by plagiarising Buddhist doctrines.
- It's Brahmanism that did the biggest harm of Buddhism in history than anyone and any religion did. But still now Buddhism remains the most compatible religion in modern world
Response -
The Shastras are heavily interpolated as you know - they are idealistic texts written by brahmins for brahmins.
Administration was in the hands of individual kings who did exactly as they pleased. My objection is to generalised condemnation of an entire amorphous and heterogenous group - its a form of racism. The advisor of the king was chosen by the king - you cannot taint the entire amorphous “Brahminical orthodoxy” for the defects.
Eg - Pushyamitra persecuted Buddhists Pushyamitra was a general who assassinated and did atrocities - so you blame the entire “orthodoxy” for this? Regicide is one of the greatest of all sins and so he cannot claim any “orthodoxy” he would have been pronounced an outcaste by the real “orthodoxy”.
There has been enmity between Vaishnavas and Shaivite and persecution by the Chola Kings - including the attempted murder of Ramanuja who fled to Mysore, and the blinding of his chief disciple Kuresha. Hindu sects themselves have fought each other. The high priest of Srirangam temple tried to poison Ramanuja - does anyone blame “Brahminical orthodoxy” for this. Swami Sivananda also escaped a murder attempt - does anyone taint an entire community with the attempt?
Concocted stories by Buddhists
BUDDHISM -
You still have all the Hindu gods in the Burmese pantheon and South-east Asians still visit Hindu temples to pray. Thailand is a Buddhist country but the Kings still retain court brahmins to perform all the rituals of the palace. The Royal Temple in the palace is dedicated to the trinity of Hinduism.
There is never been systemic persecution of Buddhist or Jains - it is all propaganda. Sure there were wars between countries and kings but for most of history Jains, Hindus and Buddhists lived side by side in harmony.
There are also many accounts from those same travellers that there were abandoned monasteries and the fact is Buddhism gradually declined in India this is an historical FACT Bipul.
The Sacking of Nalanda university was in 1197, and Vikramasila University in 1203 - what happened to Buddhism after that? All the Vedic sciences were also taught at those universities - why did the Vedic religion remain and Buddhism not?
Please dispute the points raised instead of booking tickets on every flight available. Tell us how Buddhism caters to the day to day needs of the lay-folk. Tell us why Hinduism has survived among the common folk in all the South East Asian Buddhist countries - including Thailand and Srilanka - I’m sure you have visited these countries and seen for yourself. You may start with Thailand and tell us about the proliferation of Brahmā statues all over the place. And why the Thai court retains Thai Brahmins as the Raj-guru and why Hindu festivals are celebrated.
The Original Buddhist practice of Vipasaana for 50 days was not suitable for most people . Buddha was rediscovered in 19th century by British and made it the “good” religion of India. Nehruvian academicians followed suit. Otherwise barely a handful in India remembered him or his religion.
Claim - Buddhism was already known. I think you are confusing Ashoka with Buddha. Buddhism as a religion was preached and always practised but Ashoka was this mythical king whose mentions were mostly restricted to some Buddhist books. Later evidence of his existence was found.
Response - King Ashoka was completely forgotten true. But in mainland India even Buddhism was extinct by the 15th century apart from sporadic remote places. Infact except for the few remaining monasteries in peripheral regions like Nepal, Afghanistan and a few in East India, Buddhism as a distinct sect was almost unknown in most of India at least since the 10th century, before until the British started Academic and Archaeological campaigns throughout the length and breadth of India. At best some cults of Hindus remembered him as Buddhadev, an avatar of Vishnu, but without any idea about his life or philosophies.
The early British adventurers and other western Europe historians and archaeologists who discovered the monasteries and literature in libraries of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Tibet and China, were surprised that their venerated Christian Saints Barlaam and Josaphat were infact Oriental Holy men Buddha and his disciple. That made them believe that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism and after a lot of searching they established the birthplace of Buddha, and other places linked to life of Buddha. Thus Buddha became the Oriental “Jesus” and was thus presented in the British schools of India and elsewhere.
Most of Buddhist practise is in sync with Hinduism. Even to the places where Buddhism spread, Hindu gods were also worshipped. Until before the time of Ashoka, Buddhism was one of many branches of Hinduism only.
the main reason for decline of Buddhism in India is attributed to the lack of support from the local rulers who were facing the onslaught of blood invasions from Persia and Central Asia.. the patronage given to idealistic Buddhism declined.. and realistic Brahmanism took over which promoted multi pronged approach from rituals to astra-shastra..
There is never been systemic persecution of Buddhist or Jains - it is all propaganda. Sure there were wars between countries and kings but for most of history Jains, Hindus and Buddhists lived side by side in harmony.
Buddhism gradually declined with push back by Hindu saints and their revivalist movements which was mostly peaceful. Also a religion which is followed by the king is adopted by the subjects for the most part. After the fall of Maurya empire most of the kings were Hindus only. They did give patronage to the Buddhist monastries but by and large Hinduism once again came back as the main religion.
Claim - You can read the historical evidence for the flourishing Buddhism circa 6–7 CE from the travelogues of Chinese travellers Xuanzang and Faxian!
Moreover, Universities like Nalanda, Jagadalla, Somapuri, Vikramashila were thriving from present day Pakistan to Bangladesh well into 11–12th Century and there has been recorded history from Tibetans.
So, where there are evidences and history, no need to guess
Response - here are also many accounts from those same travellers that there were abandoned monasteries and the fact is Buddhism gradually declined in India this is an historical FACT Bipul.
The Sacking of Nalanda university was in 1197, and Vikramasila University in 1203 - what happened to Buddhism after that? All the Vedic sciences were also taught at those universities - why did the Vedic religion remain and Buddhism not?Tell us how Buddhism caters to the day to day needs of the lay-folk. Tell us why Hinduism has survived among the common folk in all the South East Asian Buddhist countries - including Thailand and Srilanka - I’m sure you have visited these countries and seen for yourself. You may start with Thailand and tell us about the proliferation of Brahmā statues all over the place. And why the Thai court retains Thai Brahmins as the Raj-guru and why Hindu festivals are celebrated.
Claim - I am not disputing the fact that Buddhism declined and eventually vanished. It is quite evident that due to that a lot of Hindu Swamis have misinterpreted it due to ignorance of its actual tenets.
I meant it did not decline after 500 years after Buddha but long long time after that. And, muslim invasion and prosecution by Hindu rulers was the cause, along with introduction of Puranas (Padma puran, Linga puran, Bhatwat puran, Haribamsha puran to name of few) where Buddha was disparaged as teacher of asuras etc.
And, about the culture, yes Buddha was not concerned with culture at all but with liberation. And everywhere Buddhism went it adapted to its culture, and still produced siddhis/realization. In India the culture was rich so it was not an issue at all. A remnant of ancient Indian Buddhist culture can be seen intact in the Newar Buddhism of Nepal. I don't really see not having a particular culture as a downside of Buddhism, rather it is the upside. In Thailand, I have heard the 4 sides of Brahma representa Caturbrahmavihara. Every Buddhist culture does pay homage to worldy dieties, reginal dieties, so I don't see that as a problem at all!
Response - There was never any systematic persecution of Buddhists by Hindu rulers. When you are in India you should visit Ajanta and Elora and see for yourself the cave temples of Jains, Hindus and Buddhists side by side. Buddhist and Hindu rulers patronised both Brahmins and Bhikkus and support both ashrams and sangaramas. Persecution was rare and wars were fought among all Jains, Buddhists and Hindus.
How have Hindus and Buddhist got along in Nepal? Was there persecution of Buddhists there?
Timilsina is a very common surname in Nepal. It has its roots in the Achham district of Western Nepal. All Timilsinas identify themselves as belonging to the Moudgalya gotra. So did your Hindu ancestors persecute Buddhists?
The Buddha of the Purāṇas is not the same as Siddhartha Gautama - the biographical details provided are completely wrong.
Of course there is nothing wrong with Buddhism adopted local and social conventions. Common people are not interested in Nirvana - they want to get married have children, build houses, run businesses make money and live happily here itself. Buddhism as a philosophy doesn’t support these goals - hence in South-East Asia Hinduism and Buddhism were combined.
Brahmā is worshiped in Thailand more than Buddha and is the Hindu creator god - whatever other symbolism they wish to overlay. This is the Erawan shrine to Brahmā one of the most popular shrines in the whole of Bangkok.
there was rivalry between Bhikkus and Brahmins - but was it systemic and wide-spread? - I doubt that. Was persecution purely on religious grounds and not on political ones? - again a dubious claim. There were Buddhist kingdoms in India right up until the Islamic invasion, so who do you think is the culprit in the decline of Buddhism? Hindus or Muslims?
The Puranas turned Buddha into an avatara of Vishnu - they said he taught a demonic doctrine but then started to worship him. The temple at Budh-gaya was under the control of Hindus for centuries. So in the minds of the common people he was Vishnu and Buddhists were Vaishnavas. In Thailand the image of Vishnu riding on Garuda is a Royal Insignia. Almost every Hindu home I have been into has an image of Buddha.
Vishnu and Garuda above Thai temple doorways.
So why do you think they are including Vishnu and Garuda in their temple art if there was historically such enmity between Buddhists and Hindus? Are they also making a connection between Vishnu and Buddha?
But let us not play the victimhood game here - Buddhists also persecuted Hindus. If you read the Mahāvaṁśa chronicles of Srilanka there are some horrific accounts of massacres and destruction of temples and shrines. Not only of Hindus but also of rival Buddhist sects.
Just north of you is Tibet - have you heard about their persecution of the Bonpos? Do you know about their cruel and oppressive caste system?
We can also chat about the horrific wars between the Buddhists themselves - the Burmese and the Cambodians -and the destruction of each others monasteries and temples.
Buddhism restricted sex. But everyone couldn't resist their desires as we know lust is property of humans. Eventually Buddhism started fall in expansion.
Take on the claim that Jagganath Puri temple used to be a Buddhist temple and the Bramhanism and Buddhist conflict thing?
Response - It is built exactly according to the Hindu temple plans and has nothing Buddhist about it.
The separate Mandap in front of the temple is the dance pavilion (nāṭ maṇḍap). No Buddhist temple has an arrangement for a dancing stage. The temple is surrounded by a compound wall which is not a feature of Buddhist temples.
One would also need to compare and contrast the ground plan and structure with the canons of Buddhist temple building - and since Buddhism is a non-theistic monastic religion in which temples are discredited - I doubt there are any such Buddhist texts which deal with the details of temple building.
BUDDHISM CONTENT -
Hindu” is just a geographical term which includes all the indigenous belief systems and philosophies of India.
Buddha was born into a family which followed Vedic Brahmanism according to Buddhist accounts themselves.
Just because he differed in his opinions doesn't make him unique - many of the sages and acharyas have differed among themselves in in the Upanishads are are a variety of opinions on any subject. Even under the umbrella of Hinduism we have rival schools just like you do in Buddhism.
The British used it as an administrative category and so it has become standard usage. But is is still an UMBRELLA term and is applied as such in the Marriage Laws of India. Muslims and Christians are NOT indigenous to India - please try not to be disingenuous - you are much more intelligent than that. I expect a higher degree of sophistication in conversation with you.
Again there are many variations within Indian philosophy some schools of Vedanta deny the ultimate existence of ātman and some do not, 4 of the 6 classical schools were non-theistic - having variety of opinions and views is the nature of Indian philosophy hence philosophy is called DARSHANA - which means “A View” - do all schools of Buddhism agree on all doctrines? I don’t think your knowledge of Vedanta or Hindu Tantra is very refined Millin.
The fact is Siddhartha Gautama (clan name) was born into a family and society which followed Brahmanism, and was raised as such. He studied under classical teachers and finally systematised his own DARSHANA or view. So from the same source many springs have sprung. We should struggle not to involve politics in philosophy and spirituality and should try to acknowledge our commonalities and not emphasise differences for egoistic goals or triumphalism. Chogyam Trungpa appropriately named this as “Spiritual Materialism” - it is an hindrance to enlightenment.
Lets’ just accept that Buddhism and Hinduism and all their variations and DARSHANAS arose from the same cultural and intellectual milieu in India - there is more in common among us, and Hinduism and Buddhism are so intermeshed that it is futile to try to separate them - and doing so serves no good or beneficial purpose other than self-indulgent exercises in useless polemics.
never accepted the Buddha or Jina-as-avatar theory which was a brahminical literary device aimed at inclusivity.
Buddhism = Hinduism for all the same reasons you yourself have mentioned. I as a spiritual seeker prefer to focus on all the doctrines we share in common and all the ways in which we have similar world views, philosophical methodologies and share myths and rituals.
As I see it there are two religious-spiritual poles that have shaped the world - Jerusalem and Benares. Around Jerusalem we have the Abrahamic coalition - Judaism, Islam and Christianity and around the Benares pole we have Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism and their offshoots. And just as the Jerusalem based religions are different but have an enormous amount of commonality so too are Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism different but in my estimate we have more in common because we are philosophy-based systems and not dogma-based like the opposition.
In Australia - not sure how it is in the UK - the three Abrahamic religions have a lot more inter-faith dialogue and workshops where the Dharmic religions are excluded. Probably because they have more interfaith problems which they need to sort out. But conversely - the Dharma-based folk have virtually no inter-faith dialogue at all. We, the Hindu clergy are occasionally invited to join the Mahayana Buddhist celebrations - like when the Dalai Lama visited Australia, but we have minimum contact with the Theravadins. Off course all all the government sponsor interfaith gigs we all meet and greet and we all kind of hang out on one side of the room while the Abrahamic are on the other side!
My principle beef is with those Buddhists - predominantly western - who stress the absolute difference and separation of Hinduism from Buddhism without understanding the intimate history we have of peaceful coexistence and codependence in the whole of South East Asia for centuries.
Hinduism is a confederation of numerous religions and sects with no central teaching authority and contains a spectrum of beliefs and philosophies/theologies.
The search for knowledge has always been an individual responsibility within the Indian tradition and so it is accepted that people will do their own research. Indian parents also do not encourage their children to attend religious ceremonies or to participate. Attendance at temples is an individual affair and not congregational. So there are no priests giving weekly sermons to educate the congregation that sits in pin drop silence. There are periodic “discourses” given by well-known teachers but attendance is sporadic and again voluntary. Hindu priests for the most part are “Ritual Technicians” and not scholars. They come to the home to perform a ritual which is perfunctory, and in which most of the guests are disinterested. They pass the time before the obligatory lunch drinking tea and chatting while the ceremony is going on. The priests are not interested in commanding discipline or in explaining the ceremony in detail.
The problem with all religious organisations is their inevitable slide into Spiritual Materialism and tyranny of the cult. History provides us with ample evidence of the corruption and exploitation of religious power. Any centralised religion loses the “message” and becomes a self-focussed echo-chamber with all the characteristics of any other business organisation - from management structure to self-promotion, marketing of merchandise, membership, conflicts of interest, coercion etc. Hinduism is fine as it is, there are already hundreds of different Sampradāyas (lineages) which are organised more or less like the Abrahamic mobs, ranging from a rigid and formal structure like the BAPS to loose and informal ones like various Bhajan societies. The good thing about Hindu sampradāyas is the inbuilt checks and balances - which any prospective members should learn about. Membership is also voluntary and as long as “cults” are avoided one can leave at any time and go about “sampradāya shopping”.
Manusmriti was activated by the British who were seeking a Hindu equivalent of Sharia’ and were guided by their “Pandits”. Indian kingdoms were independent and each and every kingdom had its own laws by fiat of absolute monarchs. Hindus is general take the guidance of their gurus and elders not the Shastra. Manu condemns dowry - which is a serious widespread crime in India why are people not obeying Manu’s laws regarding this prevalent atrocity?
The two great centres and fountain heads of philosophy and metaphysics in the ancient world were Greece and India - Greek thought had a profound effect on Western culture and civilisation and India had the same effect on the East The source of imperlliast religion was the Middle East. There is a big difference between religion and philosophy, and religion tends to constrain philosophy which is free thinking. India never had any constraints on thinking which fostered spiritual experimentation and exploration of the mind and consciousness. Thus India became the natural home of spirituality.
Shrautism vs Smartism
If all the hindus of India followed only either shrautism or smartism, what would be the outcome? Shrautism is the practice of Vedic yajañas, sacraments and ceremonies which cost enormous amounts of cash and resources and which consume much time. This is why it has become almost extinct. Adoption of this mode for all Hindus would decrease productivity, deplete savings and cause an economic decline.
Smartism is the following of the rules and regulations prescribed in the Smritis. They were written by Brahmins for Brahmins and do not apply to the rest of the Hindus. If these were followed rigorously the whole of the modern life would have to be disassembled and everyone would return to living in villages and practicing agriculture, India would revert to pre-modernity. Hinduism is an open source religion and is constantly evolving and adapting, the trajectory is forwards - progress, not backwards - regress.
CONTENT FOR BUDDHISM
Hinduism is more successful than Buddhism becoz Buddhism, unlike Hinduism is centralized in monasteries, and the monks are the custodians of the scriptures and philosophy. Hinduism on the other hand is decentralized and based on the home and family. The priests and monks (who are the custodians of the philosophy and culture are scattered about in villages and hermitages (mathas/ashrams) situated in the jungle.
The decline of Buddhism in India was accelerated by the invasion of India by the fervent devotees of the “Religion of Peace”.
The greatest center of Buddhist learning and even Vedic studies since the 5th century was Nalanda. The greatest Asian University of its time. Nalanda was ransacked and destroyed by an army of the Mamluk Dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate under the command of Bhakhtiyar Khilji in circa 1200. The other great Mahaviharas of the age such as Vikramshila and later, Jagaddala, also met their ends at the hands of the Turks at around the same time.
The library which contained hundred of thousands of volumes was burnt to the ground. And thousands of professors and students were massacred. Thereafter Buddhism went into decline.
Similar depredations against the Hindus with the destruction of countless temples and slaughter of thousands of priests and monks did not have any effect on their culture and social structures.
Nalanda - Wikipedia
The other major factor is that Buddhism is primarily a monastic system, the duty of the lay-people is to financially support the monks who in turn give them teachings and administer the vows. There is nothing for the laity in terms of marriages, births, funerals etc. Throughout the Buddhist world the laity continued to rely on the Brahmins for these services or to appoint their own lay-priests. Thus throughout South East Asia Hinduism and Buddhism flourished side by side. So since there was never a clear demarcation between Hinduism and Buddhism like there is with Islam or Christianity - it was natural for the communities to lapse back into the majority culture.
Jains, Buddhists and Hindus all refer to their religions as DHARMA or SANATANA Dharma — the eternal path. The first group of the Dharma coalition to incorporate were the Jains – hence they are considered “older.”
All the great medieval acharyas like Sankara and Rāmānuja never mention the term “Hindu” and when speaking of the Jains or Buddhists use the terms “Jaina Dharma” or “Bauddha Dharma” and treat them as different schools of thought within the general category of Dharma traditions.
The various Dharma schools of thought are divided into āstikas and nāstikas. Āstikas (the 6 schools of Hindu philosophy) are those who claim the Vedas as their supreme authority and the nāstikas (Buddhists and Jains) reject the authority of the Vedas.
The Buddhists were a philosophical school which had little interest in rituals. The Jains developed a whole tradition of rituals based on the Vedic rituals like homa (fire worship) and went in for elaborate temple construction and icon worship. So in fact the Jain rituals are very similar to the Hindu ones. Jains have their own specific devas and devis but also incorporate and worship many of the same ones that the Hindus do i.e, Ganesha, Lakshmi etc.
These three branches of the Dharma coalition lived in close cooperation and harmony - see the Elora cave temples for example. They debated and discussed and shared and borrowed concepts from each other.
The Jains were the first to emphasize total non-violence (ahimsa) which later the Hindus and Buddhists borrowed. The Jains were also the first to establish monastic orders which were later copied by the Buddhists and then the Hindus.
कहा जाता है की सम्राट अशोक ने बौद्ध धर्म अपनाने के बाद अपने पुत्र और पुत्री को धम्म प्रचार के लिए श्रीलंका भेजा था ? क्या यह सच्चा इतिहास है या मनगढंत फर्जी कहानियां है ? अगर आप श्री लंका के बौद्ध ग्रंथों का अध्ययन करते है जैसे महावंश दीपवंश वगैर तो इन ग्रंथों में बुद्ध के श्री लंका आने का उल्लेख मिलता है मगर किसी भारतीय श्रोत से बुद्ध के श्री लंका जाने का कोई जिक्र नही मिलता ! अब आप समझ सकते है कि बौद्ध ग्रन्थ किस प्रकार रद्दी के भाव झूठ फैलाने में अग्रणीय रहे है। बुद्ध अपने पूरे जीवन काल मे कभी श्री लंका नही गए फिर भी श्रींलंका के बौधों ने यह झूठ गढ़ लिया कि बुद्ध हवा में उड़ते हुवे श्रीलंका आये और यहां के यक्षों को पहले तो विभिन्न प्रकार से डराया फिर जब वह रोने बिलखने लगे तो बुद्ध ने नीचे उतर कर उनपर करुणा की। इसी प्रकार बौद्ध ग्रथ दीपवंश में अशोक पुत्र महेंद्र के श्रीलंका आने की बात लिखी है मगर यह बात भी उतनी ही सही है जितना सही बुद्ध का श्रीलंका जाना है। क्यो की दीपवंश के अनुसार अशोक का पुत्र महेंद्र हंस की तरह अपने अन्य सात भिक्षु सहयोगियों के साथ हवा में उड़ कर श्री लंका पहुँचा था। अब आप ही बताइये जब हनुमान जी हवा में उड़ कर श्री लंका गए तो काल्पनिक करार दिए गए तो यह अशोक का बेटा किधर से वास्तविक पात्र हुवा जो हंस की तरह उड़ कर श्री लंका पहुँचा था। इसके अलावा एक बात और ध्यान देने योग्य है कि किसी अन्य बौद्ध ग्रन्थ में अब तक हमको यह नही मिला कि यह महेंद्र श्री लंका गया कैसे था ? ये बौद्ध बड़े जादूगर रहे है ... हवा में उड़ा कर बुद्ध को भी श्रीलंका बुला लिया और अशोक के बेटे महेंद्र को भी हवा में उड़ा कर श्री लंका में बौद्ध मत का प्रचार भी करवा लिया .... अब आप ही बताइये अब अगर बुद्ध पहले उड़ कर श्री लंका जा चुके थे तो दुबारा महेंद्र को उड़ कर श्रीलंका में बौद्ध मत का प्रचार करने क्यो जाना पड़ा क्या बुद्ध अपना प्रचार नही कर पाए थे ? और अगर बुद्ध श्रीलंका गए थे और महेंद्र श्री लंका गए थे और यह दोनो वास्तविक व्यक्ति थे तो यह उड़ते कैसे थे ? क्यो की बौधों के ग्रन्थो में तो इनके उड़ कर ही श्री लंका जाने का उल्लेख है। आप को नही लगता इन बौधों का इतिहास, इतिहास कम और चंपक की कहानियां ज्यादा लगती है। क्यो की अगर यह ऐतिहासिक रूप से सत्य घटना होती तो यह भी उल्लेख जरूर मिलता की यह बुद्ध और महेंद्र श्री लंका गए तो आख़ीर गए कैसे थे ?
कम से कम उड़ कर जाने वाली थ्योरी कोई नव बौद्ध सुलझा दे तो बात बन सकती है। अन्यथा यह भी एक ऐतिहासिक गपोड़ ही है कि अशोक का कोई बेटा महेद्र था जो श्री लंका धम्म प्रचार के लिए गया था ?
क्या अशोक सचमुच शांति का प्रचारक था? कहा जाता है की अशोक ने कलिंगयुद्ध के परिणामो से आहत हो कर बुद्ध धर्म अपना लिया था, और उसे युद्ध के परिणामो का बहुत दुःख था । क्या ये शत-प्रतिशत सच है? चलिए इस बात को देखते है। अशोक के कुल मिलाकर ३३ शिलालेख मिलते है, इनमे से २ लेख कलिंग(वर्तमान ओडिशा) के तोसलि और जौगड़ा में पाए जाते है। आस्चर्य की बात है की इनमे कही पर इस लेख में कलिंगवालो से क्षमा-याचना नहीं की गयी। यहां तक कि किसी भी प्रकार के पश्चाताप या दुःख का भी उल्लेख नही किया गया है। जबकि यहां से विपरीत क्षमायाचना दुःख संवेदना का उल्लेख पाकिस्तान, गुजरात, महाराष्ट्र एवं आंध्र से मिले कई शिलालेख में आता है। क्या यह बात आप को आश्चर्यचकित नही करती ? मतलब जिस युद्ध से राजा के द्रवित होने की कहानी को गढ़ा गया है वहा के अभिलेख में राजा शोक संवेदना दुःख तो छोड़िए सीधा वहां के लोगो को अपने अभिलेखों के माध्यम से धमकी देते हुवे देखा जाता है। इस बात की पुष्टि के लिए बड़े शिलालेख के लेख क्रमांक १३ पर नजर करे तो वहा पर स्पष्ट रूपसे अशोक वनवासियों को अपने कलिंग के आक्रमण का हवाला दे रहा है। यहां स्पष्टरूप से लिखा गया है "........और वो वनवासी जो देवानाम्पिय के क्षेत्र में निवास करते है, उन्हें योग्य वर्ताव करने की हिदायत दी जाती है। उन्हें कहा जाता है की खेद होने के बावजूद देवानाम्पिय आवश्यकता होने पर दण्डित करने का सामर्थ्य रखते है, ताकि वो मारे ना जाये और अपने कर्मो पे शर्मिंदा हो.........." तो यह है सम्राट अशोक के पश्चाताप का स्टाईल ... अब यहाँ पर ये कहा जा सकता है की गुनाहगारो को दंड देना तो राजा का कर्त्तव्य होता है, और अशोक उनको मार भी तो नहीं रहा, तो उसमे गलत क्या है। तो भईया राजनीतिक रूप से इसमे कुछ भी गलत नही है लेकिन इसी विषय को तूल दे कर जब सम्राट अशोक के चरित्र से इतर उनकी व्याख्या की जाती है तब यह समझना बहुत जरूरी हो जाता है कि क्या सब कुछ ऐसा ही जैसा हमे पढ़ाया या बताया जाता है। कहाँ जाता है कि सम्राट अशोक कलिंग युद्ध के बाद बुद्ध की शरण में जा पहुँचे हिंसक वृत्ति को त्याग कर अहिंसा का मार्ग अपना लिए ... तो प्रश्न यह उठता है यह कैसी अहिंसा है कि जिनके ऊपर हिंसा करो उनके सामने पश्चाताप के जवाब में भारी भरकम धमकी दे डालो .... सम्राट अशोक ने कलिंग वासियों को प्रेम से समझाने या उनके साथ संवेदना व्यक्त करना आवश्यक क्यो नही समझा अगर वह वास्तव में उस युद्ध से व्यथित थे ? क्यो की कहा तो यह जाता है कि उसी युद्ध से राजा व्यथित हुवा और बौद्ध मत अपनाया मगर यहां तो न व्यथा है न व्यथित तो फिर बौद्ध मत अपनाने वाली बात कही उसी प्रकार फर्जी तो नही है, जिस प्रकार हमने अपनी पिछली पोस्ट में अशोक से जुड़े कई ऐतिहासिक साक्ष्यों में परस्पर अन्तर देखा जो पुनः इस ओर हमे प्रेरित करते है कि कही अशोक का इतिहास वह तो नही जो हमे बताया ही नही जाता !
सोच कर देखें क्यो की वैसे भी आप का इतिहास आप के दुश्मनों ने लिखा है
क्या अशोक नाम का कोई ऐसा वास्तविक राजा था जिसे हम स्कूल में पढ़ते आये है ?
इस प्रश्न के कुछ कारण देख लेते है। कथित अशोक महान के बारे में पढ़ने के लिए पुरातात्विक प्रमाणित तीन अलग-अलग ऐतिहासिक स्त्रोत है। १: अशोक के शिलालेख २: उत्तरभारतीय संस्कृत बुद्धग्रंथ एवं तिब्बती और चीनी भाषा की अशोकावदान ३: श्रीलंका की पाली-लिखित थेरवाद बुद्धमार्ग की पुस्तके जैसे की महावंश और दीपवंश इन तीनो स्त्रोतों में अधिकतर महत्वपूर्ण वस्तुएं मेल नहीं खाती। १. अशोक से जुडी बुद्ध धर्म की महत्वपूर्ण घटना तृतीय महाबोधिसभा का उल्लेख किसी भी शिलालेख या अशोकावदान में नहीं मिलता। परन्तु श्रीलंकाई पुस्तकों के अनुसार तीसरी महाबोधिसभा पाटलिपुत्र में हुई थी। इस बातका उल्लेख जॉन स्ट्रोंग और राम मोहन रॉय(२०१६) ने अपनी पुस्तको में किया है। २. अशोकावदान के अनुसार अशोक का राज्याभिषेक का काल बुद्ध के परिनिर्वाण के १०० वर्ष बाद का माना जाता है, परन्तु श्रीलंकाई ग्रंथो की माने तो अशोक का राज्याभिषेक बुद्ध के परिनिर्वाण के २१८ वर्ष के पश्चात हुआ था। अर्थात, यहाँ पर ११८ वर्षो का अंतर है। ३. संस्कृत पुस्तक राजतरंगणी के अनुसार अशोकका जन्म जैन घरमें हुआ था, और उसके घर के लोग जैन अथवा आजीवक मतके अनुयायी थे। तो अशोक शाकाहारी था, परन्तु उसके क्रमांक १ के शिलालेख के अनुसार वो मांस का आहार करता था। ४. अशोक ने अपने पुत्र महेंद्र और पुत्री संघमित्रा को बुद्ध धर्मके प्रचार-हेतु श्रीलंका भेजा था, किन्तु किसी शिलालेख में इन नामो का कोई उल्लेख नहीं मिलता। ५. शिलालेखों के अनुसार अशोक के सारे भाई-बहन पाटलिपुत्र के आसपास रहते है, किन्तु दीपवंश और महावंश के अनुसार अशोक ने तिस्सा को छोड़ कर बाकी सरे भाइयो को मार दिया था। यहाँ तक की तिस्सा का नाम भी किसी शिलालेख में नहीं मिलता। ६. अल्लाहाबाद के स्तम्भ की लिखावट देख कर ये पता चलता है की अशोक की पत्नी का नाम कौर्वकी और पुत्र का नाम तिवार था, जिनका किसी भी बुद्ध-पुस्तकमें उल्लेख नहीं मिलता। ७. श्रीलंकाकी बुद्ध पुस्तकों में अशोक-पुत्र महेंद्र का नाम मिलता है, पर ये उत्तर-भारतीय पुस्तकों में अशोक के पुत्र नाम कुणाल बताया है। ८. कहा जाता है की अशोकने बुद्ध धर्म के प्रचार के लिए धर्मप्रचारकों को ग्रीस तक भेजा था, हास्यास्पद बात ये है की किसी ग्रीक पुस्तक या अभिलेख पर अशोक का नाम नहीं मिलता। इससे विपरीत, चन्द्रगुप्त(सेंड्रोकोट्टस) और बिन्दुसार(अमीरटोचतेस) के नाम ग्रीक इतिहासकारोने लिखे है। महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न। आजसे १८०० वर्ष पूर्व कितने सामान्य लोग उसका नाम जानते थे? - यह कोई सामान्य प्रश्न नहीं, क्यूंकि रोमिला थापर के अनुसार पुराणशास्त्रों में राम, कृष्ण, पांडव, चन्द्रगुप्त, पल, चोला जैसे राजाओ के नाम असामान्य रूपसे आते है, परन्तु अशोकका उल्लेख साधारण रूप से किया गया है। ये कुछ ऐसे तथ्य है जो अशोक जैसे किसी बौद्ध राजा के इतिहास में होने के सवाल पर विराम लगा देते है ... Pustak - "Ashoka the ungreat", Lekhak - Shubhodeep Mukhopadhyay
Theravada texts have an element to them that should make them seem suspect, and should cause one to wonder if in fact Mahayana Buddhism isn’t older.
That being that the Theravada texts put refutations of Mahayana doctrine into the Buddha’s mouth.
The Theravada texts have the Buddha refute the Mahayana understanding of a Buddha’s awakening knowledges almost word for word.
HOW TO HANDLE MARXIST Interpretation of HINDU-BUDDHIST Conflict
Hinduism” and “Buddhism” are terms which were coined and officially applied by the British. The Hindus, Buddhists and the Jains all referred to their religion as DHARMA.
Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism are homogeneous and both consist of dozens of different sects and possess both intrinsic and extrinsic philosophical variations.
At the time of the Buddha what is today known as “Hinduism” was called Vaidika Dharma or Varnāśrama Dharma or by modern scholars “Brahmanism”.
Siddhārtha Gautama was born into Varṇāśrama system and most ofhis principle disciples were highly learned and educated Brahmins, as were mostof the early theoreticians and philosophers of the various Buddhist schools.
So while there are many commonalities there are also many differences but these depend upon which Hindu school is being compared to which Buddhist school. This is a huge field of study and cannot be reduced to a few paragraphs.
A very good study for beginners is Hinduism And Buddhism By Ananda Coomaraswamy.
The most outstanding difference is their attitudes towards the world and worldly life.
Buddhismis life-negating and promotes renunciation of the householder life and adoption of monasticism as its highest ideal as articulated in the Khaggavisana Sutta:
Hinduism is life-affirming, and while advocating renunciation in the latterhalf of life elevates and eulogises the Householder state (gṛhasthāśrama) asthe highest ideal.
This is the reason why Hinduism and Buddhism have retained a symbiotic relationship throughout South East Asia for over 1000 years.
The major flaw in Buddhist philosophy is its emphasis on renunciation, monasticism and transcendence of worldly life.
Buddhism was the philosophy of the elite of ancient India (theBrahmins and Kshatriyas) and was supported by the generous donations of the wealthy householders (gahapatis).
The majority of common folk neither have an interest in, or an ability to comprehend the complexities and subtleties of Buddhist philosophy and some theoreticians like Nāgārjuna are incomprehensible even to the learned and highly intelligent readers.
The philosophical corner stone of Buddhist philosophy anātta - non-self theory - is confusing and contradicts our default and common sense perception, and is inapplicable and unusable forthe average person.
Buddhism also has an extremely elaborate and complex Cosmologyand Buddhology with celestial Buddhas, their consorts, their heavens and talesof their incarnations and pastimes while at the same time denying Theology whichBuddhology mimics in every aspect.
So Buddhism has nothing much to offer the common folk except thefive precepts (pañca-śīla) and the eight precepts (aṣṭha-śīla) and theopportunity to accumulate merit by offering alms to monks (dāna) contributingto the upkeep of vihāras and stūpas and a basic teaching onKarma, rebirth and duḥkha (suffering) to guide them.
The vast majority of the common folk want to live long and healthy lives, to prosper, to marry and to create families, have children andgenerally to aspire to all the three goals of material life — Dharma-professional and social duties, Artha - prosperity and Kama - pleasure) - Nirvaṇa or mokṣa is an hypothetical goal which most people do not aspire to.
So with its emphasis on renunciation and negation of prosperity and enjoyment, Buddhist philosophy has very little to offer the householders. And this is the reason why Buddhist philosophy has always coexisted in a symbiotic relationship with the more worldly religions of the countries to which it has expanded - Shinto in Japan,Daoism and Confucianism in China and of course Hinduism in India and throughout South East Asia - in corporating elements of animism and tradition customs and usages to satisfy the material needs of the common folk
Buddhism was set in a situation where a wealthy(Vaishya), Powerful(Kshatria) and a Knowledgable(Brahmin) qualities containing person found the reality. It cannot please the common folk. It suits perfectly for Brahmins, Kshatrias and Vaisyaswho learnt the realities of life and goes for a monastic life. The Buddhism followed in China and SEA is far different from what Buddha preached and it was modified so that all can participate. Buddhism doesn't have a concept of nation.
Monkhood and renunciation doesn't create a strong and prosperous nation. One needs consumers for trade. Only householders consume.
The Buddhism now as followed in countries like Japan.. has no monkhood.. all priests marry. No renunciation… they are not even vegetarian.
ALLEGATION of BUDDHIST INDIA is FALSE -
This is coming from Marxist interpretation of Historty ,How can a Monastic Religion be popular among masses. Buddha was not interested in Householder stuff - his whole focus was on renouncing the world and achieving Nirvāṇa. The dominant estate in Buddhism is the monastics(the Sangha) whereas in Hinduism the dominant estate is that of the Householders.
We have evidence to prove that every corner of the world from deep forest with limited outside contact of world to the mega city every wherepeople worshiped God. Greek,Romans,Mayans,Aztecs ,Incas,Egyptians,Korean,Chinese,Australian Aborigines almost all ancient Civilizations worshipped GOD. there is no evidence of Buddhism or any such related Religions anywhere in World History.
To mask the Hindu-Muslim Conflicts ,The Indian Marxists have raised this bogey ofHindu-Buddhist conflict which has now been exposed by Rami Sivan.
This can be inferred even today,Hinduism is more famous and appealing than Buddhism. The Indian Communists have lied repeatedly that People left Hinduism when they adopted Buddhism but if that was so ,than it should have happened to every other place where Buddhism spread but clearly it doesnot,Bonpo Religionin tibet, Confuciaism,taoism in China ,shintoism in japan, Native Pagan traditions and tengrism,Shamanism,Animism in South East Buddhist Nations remained intact until recent takeover in last centuries
CONVERSION OF BUDDHIST INTO HINDUISM IS FALSE -
Buddhism success is because it is non-theistic and more philosophy and psychology than religion and an enigma created by Christian WEST . Modern scientific minded generation can relate more to the universalism and applied ethics of Buddhism than thedogmatic and increasingly unbelievable theism of other religions.
There are so many hundreds of sects and versions of Hinduism how could you possibly force someone to convert and to which sect?
Would you force them to convert to Shaivism? Vaishnavism?Shaktaism? Ganapatya? Saurya? Tantra? - the membership of all these groups isvoluntary and one can leave at any time. (You can’t force anyone to convert toVedism because that was an elect and selected membership only). The primary incentive to convert others is the doctrine of the monopoly on salvation which only Islam and Christianity have. Since salvation of liberation in Hinduism is open to every living being - there is no requirement, need or demand for conversion.
The other problem with “forced conversion” is that there has to be an administrative structure in place to ensure the compliance of theconverted with the imposed belief system. The Catholics had a very effective bureaucracy in place called the Holy Office of the Inquisition - so in the Catholic domains like Goa for example - the new converts were closely monitored and severely punished - ultimately with burning at the stake for any lapses or backsliding. So the documented forced conversions of thousands in India (Goa)were by Catholics
Hindus were notorious for their lack of religious bureaucrac yand indifference to the religious practices of others and since there are no compulsory catechisms to study, daily masses and confessions to attend and no way to test or to monitor the knowledge of dogma and practices of the converted it would be impossible to forcibly convert anyone.
There has never been a clerical hierarchy like in Christianity and the Brahmin priests have had zero power over the masses and even less interest to forcing them to become generic Hindu
Some Mental Gymnastics by Neo-Buddhists
According to the influential Mahāyāna Text - LALITA VISTARA - on the advent and life of the Buddha, we have the following statements which testify to the elitism and indeed casteism of early Buddhism.
in Chapter Three, the Boddhisattva or future Buddha discourses in the Tuṣita heaven on the families into which he will be reborn.
Why did the Bodhisattva reflect on families?
Because Bodhisattvas are not born in a low family, such as that of a Chaṇḍāla or of a basket-maker, or of a chariot-maker, or of a Pukkasa (one born of a Niṣādha by a Sudra female). It follows that they are born in one of two families, either in that of a Brāhmaṇa, or that of a Kṣatriya. When the Brāhmaṇs are the most respected on the earth Bodhisattvas are born in Brāhman families, but when Kṣatriyas are the most respected, they take their birth in Kṣatriya families. Since now, O Bhikṣukas, the Kṣatriyas are in the ascendant, the Bodhisattva will be born in a Kṣatriya family.
Then he elaborates on the 64 qualities of the family into which the Buddha will be born:- (I will not give them all but just a selection to prove my point.)
(1) Such a family is highly intelligent, (3) of a high caste, (36) It is devoted to worship sages (Rishis), (37) gods (Devatās,)(52) It has the quality of Brāhmaṇhood in it. (56) it is the master of numerous slaves, male and female, and domestics of various kinds. (59) It is an imperial (cakravarti) family, (62) It is irreproachable of all caste defects.
Thus, sirs, among Devas, among regions, among Māras, among Brahmās and among Śramana and Brāhmaṇa populations, is the family of the Boddhisattva endowed with the 64 qualities.
There were indeed sporadic incidents of persecution of Buddhist over the 2500 year history - but they were the exceptional crimes of some wicked Kings and not the norm. All the accounts of how many people or monks were killed and how many Buddhist stupas or shrines were destroyed are highly exaggerated.
Again quoting from our source text - Lalita Vistara for illustration of exaggeration.
Māyādevi had bathed, anointed her person, made her arms heavy with various ornaments, and arrayed herself in a dress of thin texture and blue colour. She was full of affection, delight and gratification. She was attended and served by ten thousand maids.
Now, Bhikṣus, Māyādevi proceeded forth attended by her suite. She was guarded by eighty-four thousand well-appointed horse-cars, eighty-four thousand well-appointed elephant-cars, eighty-four thousand brigades of heroic, veteran, sturdy soldiers clad in impenetrable mail and armour. She was preceded by sixty thousand Śākya maidens. She was guarded by forty thousand Śākyas, old, young and middle-aged, all born agnates to the king Śuddhodana. She was surrounded by sixty thousand musicians of king Śuddhodana's inner apartments, all engaged in singing and music, playing on clarions and other instruments.
On the birth of the Buddha the celebrations were unimaginable - our text says:-
All the Śākyas, collecting together, shouted the acclaim of joy, and, distributing benefactions and performing virtuous actions, daily (for seven days) gratified thirty-two hundred thousand Brāhmans.
The daily feeding and distributing of gifts to 3200,000 Brahmins for 7 days in the tiny city of Kapilavastu???
So any claims of mass and wholesale destruction of Buddhist monuments and sites must be readjusted to reflect reality.
CLAIM -
You are quoting from a 3rd party text . It is neither 1st account It is not written by Buddha himself, nor 2nd account it is not written by someone who listened to Buddha directly. If you can use just 1–2 hours of your busy life, read Buddha teaching yourself online directly. The best website is Access to Insight Having done that, you won’t need to rely on opinions of others. You would know what Buddha himself said.
Regarding this particular topic, Buddha didnot believe in caste system. He himself criticized it.
RESPONSE -
How do you know that all the Tripitaka is not 3rd party text? Do you think that Ananda really memorised all the Suttas in their prolix and verbose form? The Buddha says in the Tripitaka that he went to the heavens and spoke to all the devas including Indra, Brahma et all and preached the Dharma to them - did Ananda accompany him and record those conversations?
The Vedas can easily be memorised because they are in metric form, the Tripitaka are in prose which is extremely hard if not impossible to memorise. So it is highly improbable that the discourses were actually spoken by Buddha himself.
The point being made is that all the previous Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and early theoreticians of Buddhism were either Brahmins or Kshatriyas. The vast majority of the dialogues found on access to insight involve Brahmins, Kshatriyas or Vaishyas (gahapatis) - Suddas and panchamas do not feature at all.
And indeed being born a Hindu Kshatriya Buddha did denounce the discrimination and privilege of the caste system which is an economic model, but the model itself was workable and unavailable for deconstruction into socialism.
Claim - That is the earliest collection of Buddha teachings, done after Buddha’s death. You will find, in Buddha teachings, countless times buddha rejecting caste. Buddha accepted all comers into sangha.
Response -
This is true no doubt. The general gist of the Tripitaka is indeed the teaching of the Buddha but a large portion of it is mythology.
What exactly was the Buddha rejecting? The caste-system is an socio-economic model the most universal model at that time the world over. What the Buddha was denouncing was elitism and privilege based on birth and caste-discrimination - not the system per se. He was advocating meritocracy - he was not a SJW. He never said “down with the patriarchy and Brahminocracy” what he did was redefine what he saw as a true brahminical qualities.
The Brahmaṇa from Dhammapada
383. Exert yourself, O Brahmana! Cut off the stream (of craving), and discard sense desires. Knowing the destruction of all the conditioned things, become, O Brahmana, the knower of the Uncreate (Nibbana)!
384. When a Brahmana has reached the summit of two paths (meditative concentration and insight), he knows the truth and all his fetters fall away.
385. He for whom there is neither this shore nor the other shore, nor yet both, he who is free of cares and is unfettered -- him do I call a Brahmana.
386. He who is meditative, stainless and settled, whose work is done and who is free from cankers, having reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.
387. The sun shines by day, the moon shines by night. The warrior shines in armor, the Brahmana shines in meditation. But the Buddha shines resplendent all day and all night.
388. Because he has discarded evil, he is called a Brahmana. Because he is serene in conduct, he is called a recluse. And because he has renounced his impurities, he is called a renunciate.
389. One should not strike a Brahmana, nor should a Brahmana, when struck, give way to anger. Shame on him who strikes a Brahmana, and more shame on him who gives way to anger.
390. Nothing is better for a Brahmana than when he holds his mind back from what is endearing. To the extent the intent to harm wears away, to that extent does suffering subside.
391. He who does no evil in deed, word and thought, who is restrained in these three ways -- him do I call a Brahmana.
392. Just as a brahman priest reveres his sacrificial fire, even so should one devoutly revere the person from whom one has learned the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.
393. Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a Brahmana. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist -- he is pure, he is a Brahmana.
394. What is the use of your matted hair, O witless man? What of your garment of antelope's hide? Within you is the tangle (of passion); only outwardly do you cleanse yourself. [28]
395. The person who wears a robe made of rags, who is lean, with veins showing all over the body, and who meditates alone in the forest -- him do I call a Brahmana.
396. I do not call him a Brahmana because of his lineage or high-born mother. If he is full of impeding attachments, he is just a supercilious man. But who is free from impediments and clinging -- him do I call a Brahmana.
397. He who, having cut off all fetters, trembles no more, who has overcome all attachments and is emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
398. He who has cut off the thong (of hatred), the band (of craving), and the rope (of false views), together with the appurtenances (latent evil tendencies), he who has removed the crossbar (of ignorance) and is enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.
399. He who without resentment endures abuse, beating and punishment; whose power, real might, is patience -- him do I call a Brahmana.
400. He who is free from anger, is devout, virtuous, without craving, self-subdued and bears his final body -- him do I call a Brahmana.
401. Like water on a lotus leaf, or a mustard seed on the point of a needle, he who does not cling to sensual pleasures -- him do I call a Brahmana.
402. He who in this very life realizes for himself the end of suffering, who has laid aside the burden and become emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
403. He who has profound knowledge, who is wise, skilled in discerning the right or wrong path, and has reached the highest goal -- him do I call a Brahmana.
404. He who holds aloof from householders and ascetics alike, and wanders about with no fixed abode and but few wants -- him do I call a Brahmana.
405. He who has renounced violence towards all living beings, weak or strong, who neither kills nor causes others to kill -- him do I call a Brahmana.
406. He who is friendly amidst the hostile, peaceful amidst the violent, and unattached amidst the attached -- him do I call a Brahmana.
407. He whose lust and hatred, pride and hypocrisy have fallen off like a mustard seed from the point of a needle -- him do I call a Brahmana.
408. He who utters gentle, instructive and truthful words, who imprecates none -- him do I call a Brahmana.
409. He who in this world takes nothing that is not given to him, be it long or short, small or big, good or bad -- him do I call a Brahmana.
410. He who wants nothing of either this world or the next, who is desire-free and emancipated -- him do I call a Brahmana.
411. He who has no attachment, who through perfect knowledge is free from doubts and has plunged into the Deathless -- him do I call a Brahmana.
412. He who in this world has transcended the ties of both merit and demerit, who is sorrowless, stainless and pure -- him do I call a Brahmana.
413. He, who, like the moon, is spotless and pure, serene and clear, who has destroyed the delight in existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
414. He who, having traversed this miry, perilous and delusive round of existence, has crossed over and reached the other shore; who is meditative, calm, free from doubt, and, clinging to nothing, has attained to Nibbana -- him do I call a Brahmana.
415. He who, having abandoned sensual pleasures, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one; has destroyed both sensual desire and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
416. He who, having abandoned craving, has renounced the household life and become a homeless one, has destroyed both craving and continued existence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
417. He who, casting off human bonds and transcending heavenly ties, is wholly delivered of all bondages -- him do I call a Brahmana.
418. He who, having cast off likes and dislikes, has become tranquil, is rid of the substrata of existence and like a hero has conquered all the worlds -- him do I call a Brahmana.
419. He who in every way knows the death and rebirth of all beings, and is totally detached, blessed and enlightened -- him do I call a Brahmana.
420. He whose track no gods, no angels, no humans trace, the Arahat who has destroyed all cankers -- him do I call a Brahmana.
421. He who clings to nothing of the past, present and future, who has no attachment and holds on to nothing -- him do I call a Brahmana.
422. He, the Noble, the Excellent, the Heroic, the Great Sage, the Conqueror, the Passionless, the Pure, the Enlightened one -- him do I call a Brahmana.
423. He who knows his former births, who sees heaven and hell, who has reached the end of births and attained to the perfection of insight, the sage who has reached the summit of spiritual excellence -- him do I call a Brahmana.
CLAIM -
Why do you say Tripitaka has mythology. I read most of these early Buddha teachings. I dont know what you mean by mythology?
Response -
Buddha went to swarga to teach the Hindu Gods, he also had regular visions and chats with them - Mahasamaya Sutta for example.
Thus have I heard:
On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Maha-vana (great wood) near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans together with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas (gods) from ten thousand world-systems frequently assembled for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha (ordained monks).
Then to four devas of the Suddhavasa (pure Abodes) brahma world, this thought occurred: "The Blessed One is living in the Mahavana near the city of Kapilavatthu in the province of the Sakyans with a great retinue of monks, all of them arahants, and five hundred in number. Devas are frequently assembling there for the purpose of seeing the Blessed One and the bhikkhu-sangha. It is well if we were also to repair to the place where the Blessed One is, and each of us recite a stanza in his presence."
Who actually saw these millions of Devas and who recorded their conversations?
CLAIM -
One way we can verify other planes of existence are not mythology is by following rules for reaching jhana . Once you are in 4th jhana, you will be able to remember past rebirths in this and other planes of existence, so you will know that devas, other planes of existence, are true. I am trying to reach jhana by meditating on brahmviharas but no luck so far. if you have any tips on how to reach jhana in Hinduism please share
Response -
How can one remember past births is there is no ātma? in what does memory inhere?
How did Buddha go to other planes of existence i.e. lokas? In his physical body or some sort of astral body?
We would say the way to meditate is one ātman - but you don’t believe there is an ātman. So who is trying to reach jhana stages?
Claim -
Who is trying to reach jhana— It is not “who” as it is not a noun. It is a verb. mind, body, etc are verbs - names given to unfolding action - and the unfolding action is trying to find a way to jhana. Everything in samsara is a verb as everything is unfolding action.
How does Buddha remember past births if there is no atman — I don’t know. buddha did not explain. How did buddha go to other Lokas — I don’t know. buddha didn’t explain.
I am trying to reach jhanas by trying to stabilize brahmaviharas (Metta Mudita karuna upekha) which is actually a Hindu practice but Buddha agreed that it is a valid way to reach jhana - is there a scripture in Hinduism which talks more about brahmaviharas?
Response -
Who is a noun, working is a verb. Mind is a noun, thinking is a verb. Body is a noun, action is a verb. Thinking, striving, seeing, clasping, walking, action etc. cannot occur without a subject. Every verb applies to a subject - no verb operates independently.
“Unfolding action” is a nonsense with a subject Sanjeevam. Everything indeed is in flux - that too is obvious, a river flows and is constantly changing but the river exists as a river - with all its contours, shallows, rapids, waterfalls etc. until it eventually reaches the sea and then loses its identity.
Patanjali Yoga Sutras talks about Brahmāvihāras.
CLAIM -
, I think it would be best to look at the discourses of the Tripitaka in Pali itself. When you take a look at almost every discourse given in the Sutta Pitaka, it starts in the following manner (let’s take a look at the Maha Samaya Sutta for example) - “Evaṃ me sutaṃ—
Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sakkesu viharati kapilavatthusmiṃ mahāvane mahatā bhikkhusaṃghena saddhiṃ pañcamattehi bhikkhusatehi sabbeheva arahantehi;
dasahi ca lokadhātūhi devatā yebhuyyena sannipatitā honti bhagavantaṃ dassanāya bhikkhusaṃghañca.”
As you can clearly see, it starts with “Evaṃ me sutaṃ”, which, when translated to English means “Thus have I heard”. Have you ever considered thinking about why such a phrase was included in the Tripitaka? This phrase has been added in order to confirm and ensure that the discourse originated from the Buddha’s own words.
Tradition holds it that it was the Buddha’s personal attendant and foremost disciple in recollecting the Dhamma Ananda Thera who used this formula the very first time, in order to bear witness that the discourse has been preached by the Buddha’s own purified words.
After the Buddha’s attainment of Parinibbana, there arose many rumours and seperations within the Sangha, that many of the Buddha’s original discourses were denied and condemned by his monks. In fact, many monks had protested against the Buddha’s code of conduct and they decided to live as seperate communities. Hence, the branches of Mahayana and Vajrayana took their place in this world. So, in order to keep the original teachings of the Buddha intact and free from the influences of rivalries, the Buddhist Councils wer e held. It is mentioned that in the First Buddhist Council that the Venerable Ananda Thero announced this formula.
With all these facts kept in mind, how can you say that the Tripitaka is based on mythology, when the Venerable Ananda Thero, who was foremost in memorizing the Buddha’s doctrine, boldly bore witness that he himself had heard this discourse from the Buddha himself??
RESPONSE -
Did I say Tripitaka was BASED on mythology? Dear Bhante - when engaging in discourse it is important to READ and respond and not to erect straw men. You need to reclaim the technique of honest debate that was famous among the Buddhist philosophers.
My remark was about the Buddha claiming to have visited the various heavens and spoken to the gods and taught them the Dharma, having Brahma and the gods come to visit the Buddha and request him to teach, the temptations of Mara and his daughters - etc. this is all the language of MYTHOLOGY.
Did Ananda Thero accompany the Buddha to meet the gods? Or did Buddha just claim to have met them? How did he travel? was it in his physical body or astral body (sūkṣa-śarīra? How can Buddhists claim to be atheist when there is so much interaction with the gods - even more so than in Hinduism.
The Mahayanis and Vajrayanis are the majority of Buddhists and they claim to hold the true teachings - so who is correct? You or them?
CLAIM -
I stand firm by the point that I was trying to make even in my previous answer. The Buddha’s visit to the divine realms, his conversation with the deities of those worlds, all of these concepts are mentioned in the Tripitaka and also its commentaries. What I meant by “Tripitaka is based on mythology” is a statement said by me to point out not the entire/ necessarily the factual details given in the Tripitaka, but certain areas of controversy, such as those topics you have mentioned. And I apologize if I did not read your answer properly and respond. But, let me get straight to the point.
You say that all these accouts are the “language of MYTHOLOGY”. Now, the Buddha, unlike ordinary people, was a person who was endowed with the highest psychic potency and supernatural ability. As far as I can tell, even in hinduism, there are ascetics, brahmins and recluses who are capable of such abilities of psychic power - like communicating with the devas, travelling to their worlds, performing marvellous feats etc. And how is it possible for even such ascetics to be endowed with such attributes?? It’s because they have developed their minds by engaging in meditation, and having purified their minds from ordinary defilements such as greed, they attain to dhyanas and samadhis. So, I don’t see why the Buddha, who is foremost amongst those who became purified, would not be able to interact with living beings.
The divine beings, such as gods/brahmas, are beings who hold the Buddha in the highest esteem, perhaps more so than the humans as well. When the Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be), who was residing in the Tusita heaven, decided to descend to the human world to attain Buddhahood, it was the gods who request him to do so in the following manner ‘Kālo kho te mahāvīra,
uppajja mātukucchiyaṃ;
Sadevakaṃ tārayanto,
bujjhassu amataṃ padaṃ’. Throughout the Buddha’s entire life, there’s a very strong connection with the divine beings. Now, these details might seem logically impossible and invalid to certain people, but a good Buddhist should believe in these accounts while having an unbreakable, firm and steady faith in the Buddha and his teachings.
In certain instances, the Venerable Ananda did accompany the Buddha in journeys. But, since he was not capable of psychic potency, it was through the Buddha’s powers that the Venerable Ananda travelled with the Buddha in such instances. When the Buddha did make his way to the divine realms, or atleast made the slighest communication with such a supernatural being, it is highely likely that he informed this incident to the Venerable Ananda.
The word “atheist refers to a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods. The concept of god in Abrahamic religions and Buddhism varies to a very great extent. In religions such as Islam and Chrstianity, the word “God” is independently and solely spoken about a “Supreme Deity/Creator” who possessess omnipotence and who is the forerunner of all that is existence. But, in Buddhism, it refers to a being who lives in a divine realm as a result of the meritorious deeds accumulated in the past and who is also a constituent of this world-cycle. His existence as a divine being is only temporary and he will inevitably pass away from that state and change his course of existence. So, as you can see, Buddhism is not atheistic, in the sense that it completely denies the existence of such a being called “god”. Yet, it totally ignores the notion and concept of a “supreme creator”.
Response -
All talk of gods and demons of a new born child taking 7 steps in each direction claiming to be the Buddha, temptation by Mara, previous life stories, discussing his advent in Tushita heaven - is all MYTHOLOGY dear Dulaj.
Even the Mimāmsakas at the time of the Buddha discredited the actual existence of these devas as “personalities” but rather as “principles”. so Agni is not a person but the principle of ignition, Brahma is not a person sitting on clouds he is the personification of the principle of creativity. Vayu is not a person he is the principle of the wind and motion. So it seems the Buddha had a retrogressive animistic view of the Devas, whereas the Rishis say them as eternal abiding principles of the Cosmos present within ourselves and not external deities.
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says:– (4:10) statement:
“योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्ते अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् —
yo anyām devatām upāste anyo asau anyo ahamasmi iti, na sa veda, yathā paśurevam sa devānām”,
“One who worships a separate deity thinking that the deity is completely different from himself, he is ignorant; he is like a utilitarian animal to the deities.”
Taittiriya Samhita 1. 2. 3.2
ye devā manojātā mano-yujas sudakṣā dakṣa-pitāras te naḥ ||
The gods, mind-born, yoked to the mind, having the blissful power of discrimination (dakṣā), and are the children of discernment.
Claim -
You say about these accounts of the Buddha’s life in such a way because you only want to believe in something if it has been proved scientifically that it exists. As I mentioned in my previous answer, most of these details mentioned in the Tripitaka and its commentaries regarding certain instances of the Buddha’s life might seem as sheer mythology to someone who disbelieves in the Dharma of the Buddha. A good Buddhist must believe in these concepts out of faith for the Buddha and not in just some blind manner.
Besides, the teachings of the Buddha are not focused on anything except for the truth and original essence of life. So, there is no way that the Tripitaka can contain anything mythical based on some mysterious stories created by someone to arouse the defiled interest of the human mind. The teachings of the Buddha serve the purpose of leading its follower to the cessation of all suffering - Nibbana.
Response -
Sorry buddy - this is where we Vedāntins differ from you Buddhists - we accept nothing on faith and apply logic to everything. We can reject all the mythology of the Puranas and Epics and still retain our philosophical integrity.
Mythology is the vehicle of philosophy and has no meaning in itself.
My opinion is based on simple logic - and logic is the basis of both Buddhism and Vedanta.
I appreciate the wonders of nature and certainly see the spiritual dimension we call it as the Nishkala.
Buddhism, like Hinduism from which it arose contains mythology - plain and simple. The Buddha was speaking the idiom of his day, the gods are all projections of the human mind and not independent entities living in some heaven.
We need to separate mythology from philosophy and not confuse the two.
General Response -
One instance and one person like Pushymitra sunga, does not represent the entire Brahmin community. Infact, Pushyamitra was not even a Brahmin.
Please read History once again. Ashoka also takes extreme actions to promote Bhddhism. He bans animal sacrifice and bans yagnas thrtoughout his kingdom. He also excludes scholars of Hinduism and Jainism from his courts and patronage.
Action and Reaction are equal and opposite.
Today, it is fashionable to condemn Brahmins.
Chanakya , who was a Brahmin makes a Shudra as anEmperor. Further he does not stay back to hold on to his power . He leaves administration and goes to Himalayas.
All Brahmarshis married Matanga Kanyas. Today, all Brahmin newly married couples are shown ARundhati Star, to follow as an idol. Shge was a Dalit Kanya. Infact all our Mothers are Matanga Kanyas/Dalit Girls. You ask any Brahman for his gotra and Pravara and they will tell you that,
Arundhati Anasuya, Lopamudra, and sukanya are their maternal ancestors.
Buddhism has an inherent Weakness.
it is a religion made for Monks, by stating DESIRE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF SORROW, SO GIVE UP DESIRES. There is no concept of GOD. it is not a religion made for Householders.
The Buddhist Monks did not live among the Householders. They lived in far away viharas in seclusion, and came for receiving Bhiksha to villages once in a while. So the laity were left totally unguided. Tghere were no scriptures for Householders, unlike Dharmashastras, till the 10th century AD.
In order to become a Monk, another monk has give a DEEKSHA. One cannot become a monk by himself.
In contrast, a Brahmin priest is a householder and livs among other householders to constantly guide them. A Brahmin Priest does not need a Diksha from some one else to become a Priest. He can ordain himself. Coupled with this, all Hindu rituals and worship to a God is done with the purpose of satisfying one’s DESIRES !!! This is a great attraction to all Householders , who have all the desires.
During the times of Kings , who patronised Buddhism, many Chinese Monk Travellers visited India. Please read their writings. ToHyuen Tsang, writes, that before he visited India, he thought the entire land was Buddhist, To his surprise, he noted that the Majority were non-Buddhists. and Buddhists were few,Infact he says, the Brahmins were an intelligent lot. There are writings of several other Chines travellers. Better read them for enlightenment on Historic Perception
Buddhism was not a dominant religion at any time in India. Today, in China and Japan , while the people are nominally Buddhists, as they visit Buddhist temples and burn incense, their religion is either Confusionism or Shinto.
In Usbekistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, the Islamic invaders had an easy task. Because all they had to do was to attack the Viharas, where the monks were present, The monks were either killed or ran away to Tibet and other lands in 8th century. The ordinary Householders , who had no gods, no religion were an easy prey for a conversion. As there were no monks, there was no body to give Deeksha to a fresh monk.
Brahmins borrowed many Buddhist Teachings and assimilated them in their daily l;ife and scriptures. Nishkama Karma is one of them
Buddhist also realised their weakness, and assimilated many Hindu concepts of God, Rebirth, Kartma etc. Mahayaana sect has Bodhisatvas being born again and again. There are other GODS like in Hindusism. Vajrayana has Tantric Gods also. But bu that time, Mahayaan sect became indistinguishable from Hinduism
It is therefore, a lie that Brahmins destroyed Buddhism. Such a claim is only to buttress, the current Political narrative, where Dalits are identified with Buddhism.
Buddhism had vanished from India even before the advent of Adi Shankara in the 8th century,as no one was following it
Buddhism was never egalitarian, we know that as fact. Buddhists (especially early ones) were largely drawn from the Bramhin and Kshatriya varnas. It was elitist if nothing else.
Generally speaking, killing people for their beliefs, has never been a ‘thing’ in India. That would have been seen as the dumbest thing ever.
We have had many wars in Bharat, but they were based on dharma vs. adharma. Never based on your belief vs. my belief.
Modern india of course also has anti-national elements in the form of Christians an Muslims looking to take control of the country and convert everyone to their belief systems. They are failing to an extent as Hindus get wiser and wake up to their machinations. Still, Hindus despite knowing the growing threat, continue to make every attempt to keep the peace — which should tell you something about Hindu nature these days. It is far too pacifist to begin with to go around killing Buddhists for no reason. When the Dalai Llama was persecuted in his homeland, he turned to India for refuge, and that is literally how Buddhists survived their own genocide.
So, all these stupid claims you are making are based on mischievous western atrocity literature designed to create a propaganda/culture of hate for Hindus, in order to satisfy the agenda of the Christians and Muslims who are looking for ways to break up that Hindu-Buddhist peace that exists at the core of all the dharmic traditions.
So, when you stop reading that bullshit, and start learning real history, you’ll find that Buddhism’s biggest enemies are in fact Christianity and Islam. Always have been, always will be.
As far as casteism, this is a portuguese innovation, which was imposed on all the conquered lands of the Spaniards. Caste is based on a portuguese word ‘casta’ and was used as a way to divide and conquer the land. Hinduism never subscribed to caste; we always subscribed to varna, which has a lot to do with one’s innate nature and tendencies, and was often symptomatic of the chosen profession. Further, there was no hierarchical superiority between one varna and another. Each varna had its own share of respect and position within the society — to call one varna superior and another inferior would be like hacking off a man’s arms or feet, because they were seen as lesser than some other part of his body. Such ideas of superiority/inferiority are western impositions. Varna is categorical, not hierarchical. Even among devatas, we recognize over 33 categories. We are a number-happy/counting-happy culture and civilization. Math is in our dna. Samkhya shastra is literally based on enumeration of categories.
Despite buddhism having been around for longer than even Christianity, in India, not that many people converted. It implies they were happy just living their lives doing their thing, being unoppressed. All that changed when the invaders came and destroyed a thriving civilization.
Common and clever Allegations -
There’s a sort of controversy in the field of South Asian studies regarding the history of religious persecution in the subcontinent. Specifically, the nature of Hindu persecution at the hands of Muslim conquerors.
Position #1, found mostly among scholars in the field, acknowledges that instances of persecution occurred, but they were not the norm, often exaggerated in the early accounts, and typically the result of political difference rather than religious zealotry.
Position #2, often espoused by those sympathetic to the Hindu Nationalist program, holds that international academia is deliberately whitewashing the extent of Hindu persecution at the hands of Muslim conquerors. Supporters of this latter position prefer to discard scholarly writings on this topic altogether, and instead cite directly from selected early accounts, which describe said persecution with invigorating detail.
If its not apparent, I don’t think much of Position #2. I’m also a bit exercised by its supporters, who will often claim that no such persecution was ever committed by Hindus against other religious communities of India.
So with that in mind, I’ve compiled a number of excerpts from the early works of Taranatha (16th century Tibetan monk), Kahlana Pandita (12th century Kashmiri Brahmin), and Chinese Pilgrims (like 7th century Xuanzeng), which largely describe instances of Buddhist persecution at the hands of Hindus (with examples of Hindu-Hindu and Buddhist-Buddhist violence as well). Not to argue this persecution was the norm in pre-Islamic India (it wasn’t), but to show first that it happened, and second, how easy it is to construct warped narratives when selectively mining these texts.
Hindu Persecution of Buddhists: Excerpts
A description of Mauryan Emperor Ashoka’s destruction of the sacred Buddhist Bodhi Tree: “When Ashoka-raja began to reign, he was an unbeliever, and he desired to destroy the bequeathed traces of Buddha; so he raised an army, and himself taking the lead, he came here for the purpose of destroying. He cut through the roots ; the trunk, branches, and leaves were all divided into small bits and heaped up in a pile a few tens of paces to the west of the place. Then he ordered a Brahmin who sacrificed to fire to burn them in the discharge of his religious worship…the queen, who was an adherent of the heretics, sent secretly a messenger, who, after the first division of night, once more put it down.” (1)
A similar episode with Bengali Gauda Emperor Shashanka: “In late times Shashanka-raja, being a believer in heresy, slandered the religion of Buddha, and through envy destroyed the convents and cut down the Bodhi tree, digging it up to the very springs of the earth; yet he did not get to the bottom of the roots. Then he burnt it with fire and sprinkled it with the juice of the sugar-cane, desiring to destroy it entirely, and not leave a trace of it behind.” (2)
Shashanka continues: “‘We must remove that statue of Buddha and place there a figure of Shiva’. The officer having received the order, was moved with fear, and sighing, said, ‘If I destroy the figure of Buddha, then during successive kalpas I shall reap misfortune ; if I disobey the king, he will put me to a cruel death and destroy my family’…” (3)
The Emperor targets another sacred Buddhist figure: “Shashanka-raja, when he was overthrowing and destroying the law of Buddha, forthwith came to the place where that stone is, for the purpose of destroying the sacred marks. Having broken it into pieces, it came whole again, and the ornamental figures as before ; then he flung it into the river Ganges…” (4)
The sobering results in Bengal: “Shashanka-raja having destroyed the religion of Buddha, the members of the priesthood were dispersed, and for many years driven away.” (5)
An episode in North India where Hindus react with extreme prejudice to Buddhist proselytization: “The Brahmins said amongst themselves, ‘The Buddhist priests have raised a quarrel on some question of words.’ Then these wicked men consulting together, waiting for the occasion, destroyed the Sanghardarma, and afterwards strongly barricaded the place in order to keep the priests out. From that time no priests of Buddha have lived there.” (6)
Similar episode with Madhava Hindu voicing discontent at Buddhist Gunamati Bodhisattva and his attempt to debate doctrinal differences: “From this time forth give no hospitality to the Sramana heretics ; let this order be generally known and obeyed.”
“The Brahmans, moreover, deriding him (Bodhisattva), said, ‘What mean you by your shaven head and your singular dress ? Begone from this! There is no place here for you to stop’… the Brahmans would have no words with him, and only drove him from the place.” (7)
Mahirakula, a Hindu of Hun ancestry ruling Northwest India: “issued an order to all the five parts of India to destroy whatever was connected with Buddhism and to expel all monks and not allow a single one to remain behind… and one thousand six hundred stupas and monasteries were demolished.” (18)
Assassin confronts Hindu Kashmiri King Jalauka stating: “There was a monastery belonging to us in which the beating of drums once disturbed your sleep, and incited by the advice of wicked men, you have destroyed the monastery. The angry Buddhists sent me to murder you, but our high priest interfered.” The assassin leaves after extracting a promise from Jalauka to rebuild the monastery. (8)
Episode describing the violent reaction of Hindus to growing Buddhist influence in Kashmir: “The Buddhists under their great leader Nagarjjuun continued to gain strength in the country; they not only defeated in argument the Pauditas who upheld the worship of Shiva…but have the influence to discontinue the ceremonies and worship enjoined by it. The Nagas, in consequence, rose in arms, murdered many people, mostly Buddhists…and carried on their devastations year by year.” (9)
How a Hindu Pahari king reacted when: “A Buddhist…eloped with his queen; this so enraged him, that he burnt thousands and thousands of monasteries, and gave to the Brahmanas… the villages that supported those monasteries.” (10)
Hindu Kashmiri King Gopaditiya: “expelled from his country several irreligious Brahmanas who used to eat garlic, brought others of the caste from foreign countries, and induced them to settle…” (11)
Hindu King of Kashmir Lalitaditya murders Bengali King of Gauda, whose followers then arrive to destroy the Kashmiri King’s favorite Vishnu idol, but end up destroying the wrong one: “The people of Gauda, seeing Ramasvami, whose temple stood by the side of the other, built of silver, and mistaking it for Parihasakeshava, tore it from its seat and broke it to atoms, scattering the pieces on every side.” (12)
Hindu Kashmir King Shankaravarmma: “in order to meet the heavy expenses of his luxury…commenced to plunder the temples…he plundered sixty-four of them.” (13)
Brahman adviser Loshtadhara to Kashmiri King: “confiscate the lands and gold of Kalashesha, and with the stones of the temple, I shall build for you a bridge over the Vitasta” (14)
Hindu Kashmir King Harsha: “robbed every idol of the wealth bestowed upon it by former kings…and in order to deprive them of their sanctity, he caused urine and ordure to be poured into them through the orifices…he took away all those images which were built of gold and silver. The images were dragged by ropes around their ankle joints, spat upon and made naked, and mutilated. Neither in the capital, nor in the towns or villages, was there a temple left from which the idol was not taken…”
“He caused the monasteries, in the capital, called after his father’s name, to be plundered.” (15)
Hindu Kashmir King Kalasha in a dispute with his parents, “set fire to their place. The fire burnt the house of god Vijayeshvara and the sacred things it contained…Kalasha stood on the terrace of his palace, and saw the flames rising to the sky, and danced with joy”. (16)
Hindu King Kshemagupta destroys Buddhist temples, uses leftover materials to build Hindu Temple, he: “set fire to Jayendravihara in order to kill Sanggrama the Damara who was inside the building. And in order to make his name lasting, he brought the images of Buddha from the burning monasteries and other stones from dilapidated temples; and set up Kshemagaurishvara…” (17)
Episode in North India: “When he (Visnuraja) was residing in Palanagara situated in Hala in the west, five hundred ascetic brahmanas like the great sages of the past lived in a hermitage. The king killed the birds and deer of the hermitage and diverting the course of the river destroyed the abodes of the rishis” (19)
Hindus engaging in violence against Buddhists after winning a debate: “The tirihika became victorious and destroyed many temples of the insiders. They robbed in particular the centres for the Doctrine and took away the deva-dasas… As a result, there were many incidents of the property and followers of the insiders being robbed by the tirthika brahmanas.” (20)
The Buddhist Mauryan Empire of India comes to an end when the last emperor is murdered by his Hindu adviser Pushyamitra Shunga, who ushers in a period of severe persecution against Buddhists: “Then the brahmana king Pushyamitra, along with other tirthikas, started war and thus burnt down numerous monasteries from the madhya-desa to Jalandhara. They also killed a number of vastly learned monks. But most of them fled to other countries. As a result, within five years the Doctrine was extinct in the north.” (21)
Hindus burning the Buddhist Nalanda Library, a Brahmin: “performed a sacrifice and scattered the charmed ashes all around. This immediately resulted in a miraculously produced fire. It consumed all the eighty four temples, the centres of the Buddha’s Doctrine. The fire started burning the scriptural works that were kept in the Dharmaganja of Sri Nalanda, particularly in the big temples called Ratnasagara, Ratnodadhi and Ratnarandaka, in which were preserved all the works of Mahayana pitaka…Many temples in other places were also burnt, and the two tirthikas, apprehending punishment from the king, escaped to Assam.” (22)
Tirthika Brahmin loses debate to Buddhist acarya: “At this, he threw enchanted dust, which burnt the belongings of the acarya, and even the acarya himself narrowly escaped the fire…The tirthika fled.” (23)
Iconoclasm between rival Buddhist groups: “In a temple of Vajrasana there was then a large silver-image of Heruka and many treatises on Tantra. Some of the Sravaka Sendhavas of Singa island and other places said that these were composed by Mara. So they burnt these and smashed the image into pieces and used the pieces as ordinary money.” (24)
Closing:
Many modern scholars believe some of these accounts to be exaggerated and not representative of the normative interaction between Hindus and Buddhists. I agree, just as I agree that despite juicy accounts of violence between Muslims and Hindus, these two communities typically got on relatively well.
For ideological reasons some will continue to reject this evaluation, though hopefully they will consider how poorly everyone’s history looks when taking these early historical excerpts at face value.
Response - from the same “Historical evidence about the persecution of Buddhism in ancient India is missing or unsubstantiated; colonial era writers have used mythical folk stories to construct a part of ancient Buddhist history”.
Most religions survived on grants from kings and nobility.
With more Hindu kings Buddhism didn't get enough grants. As the real Buddhist teachings are based on renunciation, non attachment economically well off Buddhist became few.Off course the Hindu kings wanted to build a strong and prosperous kingdom. Nonviolence and renunciation, non attachment, monkhood doesn't build a strong and economically prosperous kingdom.
Buddhism fell out of favour.Then can the Islamic invasion which wiped out the Buddhist Afghanistan and North Western India.With 1000 years on Islamic subjugation ( worship of man is the worst) Buddhist converted back. Got absorbed into Hinduism.Buddhism in their strong hold got wiped out in Afghanistan, north Pakistan , Bangladesh when they were made into Islamic countries.Many Buddhist temples today were built by Hindus.
BUDDHISM N OTHER RELIGIONS -Taoism
The relationships between Taoism and Buddhism are complex, as they influenced each other in many ways while often competing for influence. Taoism in its early form was a mixture of early mythology, folk religion, and Taoist philosophy. The arrival of Buddhism forced Taoism to renew and restructure itself into a more organized religion, while addressing similar existential questions raised by Buddhism. Early Buddhism was sometimes seen as a kind of foreign relative of Taoism and its scriptures were often translated into Chinese with Taoist vocabulary. Chan Buddhism in particular holds many beliefs in common with philosophical Taoism.Daoist (Taoist) simplicity stimulated Chan's abandonment of Buddhist theory and was accompanied by another traditional Daoist feature—the emphasis on total absorption in practice of a highly cultivated skill.The coexistence of Chinese Buddhism and Taoism has also resulted in various Buddhist deities being adopted into the Taoist pantheon, and vice versa. For example, in Taoism, the Chinese Buddhist deva and Bodhisattva Marici is often syncretized with the Taoist goddess Doumu, who is regarded as the personification of the Big Dipper as well as the feminine aspect of the cosmic God of Heaven.In another example, the Taoist god of war and fraternity, Guan Yu, has been adopted by Buddhism and he is widely venerated as Sangharama Bodhisattva (伽蓝菩萨; 伽藍菩薩; Qiélán Púsà), a Bodhisattva or deva who serves as a dharmapala of Buddhist monasteries. According to Buddhist legends, in 592, the spirit of Guan Yu manifested himself one night before the Chan master Zhiyi and requested the master to teach him about the dharma. After receiving Buddhist teachings from the master, Guan Yu took refuge in the triple gems and also requested the Five Precepts, making a vow to become a guardian of temples and the dharma. The syncretism between Chinese Esoteric Buddhism and Taoism was particularly extensive.[4] For instance, the nine-fold configuration of the Mandala of the Two Realms in Zhenyan and Shingon Buddhism was influenced and adopted from the Taoist Lo Shu Square and the I Ching
Confucianism
Confucianism in particular raised fierce opposition to Buddhism in early history, principally because it perceived Buddhism to be a nihilistic worldview, with a negative impact on society at large. "The Neo-Confucianists had therefore to attack Buddhist cosmological views by affirming, in the firstplace, the reality and concreteness of the universe and of man.
Shintoism
In the Japanese religion of Shinto, the long coexistence of Buddhism and Shintoism resulted in the merging of Shintoism and Buddhism. Gods in Shintoism were given a position similar to that of Hindu gods in Buddhism. Moreover, because the Buddha Vairochana's symbol was the sun, many equated Amaterasu, the sun goddess, as his previous bodhisattva reincarnation. According to Helen Hardacre, by the Heian period, a theory named wakō dōjin (和光同塵) had emerged. The Buddha and Kami had taken on a new form as saviors of man, who "dim their light and mingle with the dust of the world". This not only relates the two religions, but demonstrates a marked difference in status between the two deities at this period in time.[8] The later Tokugawa Shogunate era saw a revival of Shinto, and some Shinto scholars began to argue that Buddhas were previous incarnations of Shinto gods, reversing the traditional positions of the two religions. Shinto and Buddhism were officially separated during the Meiji Restoration and the brief, but socially transformative rise of State Shinto followed. In post-war modern Japan, most families count themselves as being of both religions, despite the idea of "official separation".As time went on, the Japanese became more and more accustomed to including both the kami and Buddhist ideas in their spiritual lives. Philosophers put forward the idea that the kami were "transformations of the Buddha manifested in Japan to save all sentient beings".In addition, Buddhism played an important part in the religious legitimation of Japanese emperors via Shintoism.It is noteworthy that the Sui were the first Chinese dynasty with which the newly emergent centralising Japanese state came into contact, so the practice of using Buddhism as an officially sanctioned religion would have been demonstrated to the Japanese as a political realityThe interplay between Taoism, Buddhism, and Shinto in China and Japan stimulated the adoption of the Chinese practice of state-sanctioned religion and religious legitimation through association with divinity by the Japanese government. The official implementation of the term tennō (天皇) to refer to the Japanese emperor is also widely agreed to take place during the latter part of the 7th century, as a result of these interactions.
Muism
When Buddhism was introduced in Korea, its temples were built on or near the shaman mountain-spirit shrines. Still today, one can see buildings at these Buddhist temple sites dedicated to the shaman mountain-spirits Sansin (Korean: 산신). Most buddhist temples in Korea have a Sansin-gak (Korean: 산신각), the choice of preference over other shrines, typically a small shrine room set behind and to the side of the other buildings. It is also common for the sansingak to be at a higher elevation than the other shrine rooms, just as the mountain itself towers above the temple complex. The sansin-gak maybe a traditional wooden structure with a tile roof, or in more modern and less wealth temples, a more simple and utilitarian room. Inside will be a waist height shrine with either a statue and mural painting, or just a mural painting. Offerings of candles, incense, water and fruit are commonly supplemented with alcoholic drinks, particularly Korea’s rustic rice wine makkgoli. This further serves to illustrate the non-Buddhist nature of this deity, even when he resides inside a temple. And yet, on the floor of this small shine room one will frequently see a monk’s cushion and moktak: evidence of the regular Buddhist ceremonies held there. Sansin may not be enshrined in a separate shrine, but in a Samseonggak or in the Buddha hall, to one side of the main shrine. Sansin shrines can also be found independent of Buddhist temples
Buddhism, today and historically, has always been practised alongside existing beliefs of locals. The local Greeks worshipped Buddha and Greek Gods, In Zoroastrian areas, there was the Buddha Mazda, In the subcontinent, Buddhism was practised along with Hinduism and Jainism.Mongols, Buryats, Tuvans practise Buddhism with Tengriism/Shamanism, Japanese with Shinto, Tibetans with Bon and everywhere else alongside existing beliefs and deities. The idea of a person following an exclusive named religion was uncommon.
I have heard people seriously claim that the popularity of Tibetan Buddhism in the west is simply because the CIA funds lamas and scholars, so the gullible westerners get a prior that 'tibet is an independent country' and hence hate on the Chinese communist party even in chinese places you occasionally get the idea that vajrayana is a distorted version of what the buddha actually taught