Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's already posted in here,
But I found a great articles on decline of Buddhism in India.
It's not too long and is exactly to the point why Buddhism may have been almost disappeared in India. Why Buddhism Almost Failed - Sivana Blog
Indeed, many Hindu sects often become Fundamentalist with their (Veda=Sacred) scriptures and oral traditions and at some points clinged to a prophecy about how they had to fight against the enemy(s) of Hinduism, which they saw as Buddhism since Theravada Buddhism is about life on Earth instead of about dwelling and hoping on the politics of possible Heavens (something Hinduism is often centrally about). But Vishnu is not "a god of preservation" in the common culture now, Vishnu would be the name that "God" takes in his role as Preserver of all that exists (since everything always needs Divinity support in order to exist, in common Hindu thought).
Buddhist Empires had freedom of religion at most allowing a lot of Hindu sects to remain. But in Empires the religion of the Rulers always has a deep influence (just like the various times the Roman Empire had freedom of religion in various extents). When an Empire looses a lot of battles or becomes peaceful for too long, often people loose faith in the Empire Rulers's religions. Furthermore, Buddhism was largely not viewed as a Race, but as a pure religion with no birth-right for babies, so the Children could not be guilted into following it, nor identify with it simply by their birth. Buddhism was not viewed as a Culture either, where a certain land area denotes a cultural heritage. So land-owners could not feel guilted into Patronizing their religious views toward Buddhism.
Ignorance is Powerful, it can be a powerful tool and/or a stubborn reality. The centralization of Buddhism in Tibet thanks to the conversion of their Bon-religious Leadership was a huge help for it's modern resurgence. The Hindus had already absorbed Buddhism as a "part" of their "depend on Heaven" religion, which largely pushed away what Buddhism was originally (although I'm sure a lot of Buddhists early on had also absorbed much of Hinduism and also pushed away what Hinduism was).
1. Kindergarten or preschool
2. Grade schools -primary
3. Secondary
4. College
5. Post graduate - masters, PhD.
Hinduism in India comprised of a range of religious elements that cover the full range of grades 1-5 above.
I believe Hinduism has very strong coverage for grades 1-4 but at 5 I would rate it at 70%.
Buddhism when introduced was a total contrast to the spirituality of Hinduism in terms of core principles, e.g. Buddhism's anatta/anatman versus Hinduism's atta/atman and atheism versus theism.
In contrast to Hinduism, Buddhism at its core has less focus of grades 1-4 and has to compromise for those who are inclined to 1-4. Example Buddhism at its core do not encourage praying to statutes with various offerings but has to accommodate the inclinations of the majority since it started till the present.
Re grading, I would rate Buddhism's focus on level 5 at 90%.
In a way, Buddhism when introduced was too way in advance for its time then and even at the present and this is why it has to bend and compromise its core principles for the lay Buddhists.
Perhaps when Buddhism was introduced many people turned to it due to certain of its elements of compassion for all and various novelty effects. Many disadvantaged by the caste system would have converted to Buddhism and later to Islam.
Because the majority are inclined towards level 1-3, many left Buddhism after the novelty wore off and many Hindu scholars were able to convinced the majority back to Hinduism. Note Shankara with the Brahma Sutras and others.
However in the future when the average of the majority are more rational they will turn more towards the central doctrines of Buddhism in its original form or modified form to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma.
I think it's already posted in here,
But I found a great articles on decline of Buddhism in India.
It's not too long and is exactly to the point why Buddhism may have been almost disappeared in India. Why Buddhism Almost Failed - Sivana Blog
Thanks. I wondered why after Asoka had made Buddhism so important in India, it almost died out. I also think there might have been the preference of some kings for Hinduism as it enabled them to claim divinity as a god -king.
Buddhist Empires had freedom of religion at most allowing a lot of Hindu sects to remain. But in Empires the religion of the Rulers always has a deep influence (just like the various times the Roman Empire had freedom of religion in various extents). When an Empire looses a lot of battles or becomes peaceful for too long, often people loose faith in the Empire Rulers's religions. Furthermore, Buddhism was largely not viewed as a Race, but as a pure religion with no birth-right for babies, so the Children could not be guilted into following it, nor identify with it simply by their birth. Buddhism was not viewed as a Culture either, where a certain land area denotes a cultural heritage. So land-owners could not feel guilted into Patronizing their religious views toward Buddhism.
I totally agree to it.
I think this is what led to rapid development of Buddhism in India during the reign of Emperor Ashoka since no Brahmanist to oppose and people feel free and safe to join Buddhism.
Budhism and Hinduism are both second hand Spiritual movements , so who cares . Go to the basics of where all started Samkhya (and not Samkhya is not derived from Hinduism).
Well, I don't know. Some claim that it reflects the views of the pre Vedic peoples, but others say that it clearly reflects Vedic thought. Rather more on -topic is just what happened in India to replace Buddhism with Hinduism. I am certainly aware of a conflict between Hinduism and Buddhism in southeast asia and, while I don't think wars were fought about it, it was like a power -struggle for political authority with the king generally favouring the Hindu God -king concept.
I also note that Tantric Buddhism was the teaching of Nalanda university - the biggest and Tantric Buddhism was the kind that spread over Asia - not the Theravada -type we in the west are more familiar with. In Java, it is hard to tell the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism, sometimes and that is why Hinduism eventually absorbed Buddhism.
Where it didn't was because of a conflict or royal power struggle between Tantric Buddhism and Theravada, especially clearly seen in the ancient capital of Bagan where we see Tantric Buddhist art on the temple walls of 11th c date replaced by Theravadan rows of seated Buddhas around the 12th c. There was an exchange of Thervada monkly deputations between Lanka and Siam when the wheels looked like coming off the Little Vehicle, and so Theravada was saved. Also in Cambodia where the line of King's failed and Buddhist Siam ruled for quite a while.
Of course the Buddhism missionized to China was Mahayana. Not Tantric though. Mahayana was exported to T'ang China about the 6th c AD. Tantric never made it there, nor Theravada. Though it did to Tibet where, mixed with the native Bon we got the heady religious mix that Tibet offers. Or did until China occupied it.
So that may be a historical fossil footprint of Mahayana (and I'm not saying that had replaced an original Theravada - which claims it was the original form) but by the next millennium had become Theravada and then Tantric a half century later. Since it became virtually indistinguishable from Hinduism where it was Mahayana in form, could that be why it was absorbed in India with Buddha relegated to 'also taking part' as one of the Avatars of Vishnu?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-25-2016 at 08:04 AM..
Yeah I have to agree with you on this.
Yes there was a quite a history in India for the power struggle of Brahmanism and later Buddha was considered as the Avatars of Vishnu.
it's quite a controversy especially in India. I believe.
I think it's only a controversy in India. In Thailand, Hinduism was integrated into Buddhism. Cambodia much the same. In fact Hinduism was integrated into Islam in Java. I suspect the problem in India is the threat of Buddhism to caste. In my early Buddhist days, it seemed that there was a tendency of Indians to become Buddhists to escape from a low case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
