Dr. V.K.Maheshwari, M.A. (Socio, Phil) B.Sc. M. Ed, Ph.D.
Former Principal, K.L.D.A.V.(P.G) College, Roorkee, India
Mrs Sudha Rani Maheshwari, M.Sc (Zoology), B.Ed.
Former Principal. A.K.P.I.College, Roorkee, India
“Somebody once asked how one could fit together various traditions that represented the Buddha’s teaching. One can think of Buddha’s Dharma as a wonderful seed planted in the earth, out of which has blossomed a tree with deep roots, great branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits.
Sometimes a person might point to the roots and say that it is just here that we can find the real Dharma, while someone else might say, “Oh no it is in the flowers,” and still another will say that it is to be found in the fruit. But, of course, these different parts cannot really be separated; the roots sustain the tree in their way, and the fruit depends on the roots and leaves and branches as well.” Lama Govinda
IN no other country is religion so powerful, or so important, as in India. If the Hindus have permitted alien governments to be set over them again and again it is partly because they did not care much who ruled or exploited them natives or foreigners; the crucial matter was religion, not politics; the soul, not the body; endless later lives rather than this passing one. When Ashoka became a saint, and Akbar almost adopted Hinduism, the power of religion was revealed over even the strongest men. In our century it is a saint, rather than a statesman, who for the first time in history has unified all India.
Two hundred years after Ashoka’s death Buddhism reached the peak of its curve in India. The period of Buddhist growth from Ashoka to Harsha was in many ways the climax of Indian religion, education and art.
It is important to understand that Buddhism was never wiped off from India on a single day and in any single event. Like the causal web of adisease, it was a multi-factorial causation. The process of decline and subsequent disappearance was gradual and lasted for many centuries.
“Initiated in India by the Sakyamuni Buddha, Buddhism has now become a world religion and at present, the Buddhist population is the third largest religious community in the world. Buddhism lasted over a thousand years in India, the land of its origin. But the supreme irony of the history of Indian Buddhism still remains with the unexplained question regarding what led to the disappearance of Buddhism from India. Many scholars of Indian history and religion are devoted to unravelling this puzzle. Due to the lack of historical and archeological evidence, the debate continues for centuries and there is no absolute consensus on this matter till date.
What is not disputed is the gradual decline of Buddhism in India, as the testimony of the Chinese traveler, traveling in India in the early years of the 7th century, witnessed something quite different. In Prayag, , Hsuan Tsang encountered mainly heretics, or non-Buddhists, but that is not surprising given the importance of Prayag as a pilgrimage site for Brahmins. But, even in Sravasti, the capital city of the Lichhavis, 200 AD, established their capital in Pasupathinath, and in a long and glorious period of reign extending through the early part of the ninth century endowed a large number of both Hindu and Buddhist monuments and monasteries, Hsuan Tsang witnessed a much greater number of “Hindus” than Buddhists. Kusinagar, where the Buddha had gone into mahaparinirvana, was in a rather dilapidated state and Hsuan Tsang found few Buddhists. In Varanasi, to be sure, Hsuan Tsang found some 3000 Bhikkus or Buddhist monks, but they were outshadowed by more than 10,000 non-Buddhists. There is scarcely any question that Hsuan Tsang arrived in India at a time when Buddhism was entering into a state of precipitous decline. But even as Buddhism went into decline, it is remarkable that the great seat of Buddhist learning, Nalanda, continued to flourish, retaining its importance until the Muslim invasions of the second millennium.
Split into sects.
But the Buddhism that prevailed was not that of Buddha; we might better describe it as that of his rebellious disciple Subhadda, who, on hearing of the Master’s death, said to the monks: “Enough, sirs! Weep not, neither lament! We are well rid of the great Samana. We used to be annoyed by being told, ‘This beseems you, this beseems you not.’ But now we shall be able to do whatever we like; and what we do not like, that we shall not have to do!” The first thing they did with their freedom was to split into sects. Within two centuries of Buddha’s death eighteen varieties of Buddhistic. doctrine had divided the Master’s heritage. The Buddhists of south India and Ceylon held fast for a time to the simpler and purer creed of the Founder, which came to be called Hinayana, or the “Lesser Vehicle”: The term Hinayana (smaller Vehicle) appeared only much later, around the first century CE, when teachings of a different nature appeared which were called Mahayana (greater Vehicle). Hinayana encompasses eighteen schools. The most important for our purposes are Sarvastivada and Theravada. Theravada is the one extant today in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. Sarvastivada was widespread in Northern India when the Tibetans started to travel there and Buddhism began to be transplanted to Tibet. They worshiped Buddha as a great teacher, but not as a god, and their Scriptures were the Pali texts of the more ancient faith. But throughout northern India, Tibet, Mongolia, China and Japan the Buddhism that prevailed was the Mahayana, or the “Greater Vehicle,” defined and propo gated by Kanishka’s Council; The Mahayana appears to have developed between the 1st Century BC to the 1st Century CE. About the 2nd Century CE Mahayana became clearly defined. Master Nagarjuna developed the Mahayana philosophy of Sunyata (emptiness) and proved that everything is ‘Void’ (not only the self) in a small text called Madhyamika-karika. After the 1st Century CE., the Mahayanists took a definite stand and only then the terms of Mahayana and Hinayana were introduced. These (politically) inspired theologians announced the divinity of Buddha, surrounded him with angels and saints, adopted the Yoga asceticism of Patanjali, and issued in Sanskrit a new set of Holy Writ which, though it lent itself readily to metaphysical and scholastic refinements, proclaimed and certified a more popular religion than the austere pessimism of Shakya-muni.
Around the 6th. century AD, within the Mahayana tradition the tantrayana or tantric texts emerged. Prior to engaging in tantric practices, a proper understanding of the Hinayana and Mahayana philosophy is considered essential. Only then should one obtain initiation or permission from a qualified tantric master to do a specific tantric practice.
Tantric practices are psychologically very profound techniques to quickly achieve Buddhahood. This is considered important, not for oneself, but because as a Buddha one has the best achievable qualities to help others.
Sapped the manhood of India
The growth of Buddhism and monasticism in the first year of our era sapped the manhood of India, and conspired with political division to leave India open to easy conquest. When the Arabs came, pledged to spread a simple and stoic monotheism, they looked with scorn upon the lazy, venal, miracle-mongering Buddhist monks; they smashed the monasteries, killed thousands of monks, and made monasticism un- popular with the cautious. The survivors were re-absorbed into the Hinduism that had begotten them; the ancient orthodoxy received the penitent heresy, and “Brahmanism killed Buddhism by a fraternal embrace.” Brahmanism had always been tolerant; in all the history of the rise and fall of Buddhism and a hundred other sects we find much disputation, but no instance of persecution. On the contrary Brahmanism eased the return of the prodigal by proclaiming Buddha a god (as an avatar of Vishnu), ending animal sacrifice, and accepting into orthodox practice the Buddhist doctrine of the sanctity of all animal life. Quietly and peacefully, after half a thousand years of gradual decay, Buddhism disappeared from India.
Religious ritual replaced with sermons and morality
Mahayana became to Hinayana or primitive Buddhism what Catholicism was to Stoicism and primitive Christianity. Buddha, like Luther, had made the mistake of supposing that the drama of religious ritual could be replaced with sermons and morality; and the victory of a Buddhism rich in myths, miracles, ceremonies and intermediating saints corresponds to the ancient and current triumph of a colourful and dramatic Catholicism over the austere simplicity of early Christianity and modern Protestantism. That same popular preference for polytheism, miracles and myths which destroyed Buddha’s Buddhism finally destroyed, in India, the Buddhism of the Greater Vehicle itself. For to speak with the hindsight wisdom of the historian if Buddhism was to take over so much of Hinduism, so many of its legends, its rites and its gods, soon very little would remain to distinguish the two religions; and the one with the deeper roots, the more popular appeal, and the richer economic resources and political support would gradually absorb the other. Rapidly superstition, which seems to be the very lifeblood of our race, poured over from the older faith to the younger one, until even the phallic enthusiasms of the Shakti sects found place in the ritual of Buddhism. Slowly the patient and tenacious Brahmans recaptured influence and imperial patronage; and the success of the youthful philosopher Shankara in restoring the authority of the Vedas as the basis of Hindu thought put an end to the intellectual leadership of the Buddhists in India.
Softness with Brahmanical deities
The Mahayana was Buddhism softened with Brahmanical deities, practices and myths, and adapted to the needs of the Kushan Tatars and the Mongols of Tibet, over whom Kanishka had extended his rule. A heaven was conceived in which there were many Buddhas, of whom Amida Buddha, the Redeemer, came to be the best beloved by the people; this heaven and a corresponding hell were to be the reward or punishment of good or evil done on earth, and would thereby liberate some of the King’s militia for other services. The greatest of the saints, in this new theology, were the Bodhisattivas, or future Buddhas, who voluntarily refrained from achieving the Nirvana (here freedom from rebirth) that was within their merit and power, in order to be reborn into life after life, and to help others on earth to find the Way. As in Mediterranean Christianity, these saints became so popular that they almost crowded out the head of the pantheon in worship and art. The veneration of relics, the use of holy water, candles, incense, the rosary, clerical vestments, a liturgical dead language, monks and nuns, monastic tonsure and celibacy, confession, fast days, the canonization of saints, purgatory and masses for the dead flourished in Buddhism as in medieval Christianity, and seem to have appeared in Buddhism first,( “The Buddhists,” says Fergusson, “kept five centuries in advance of the Roman Church in the invention and use of all the ceremonies and forms common to both religions.” 3 Edmunds has shown in detail the astonishing parallelism between the Buddhist and the Christian gospels.
Royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions
The secular and political histories adopt rather different arguments. It has been argued that royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions. Under the Kushanas, indeed even under the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage, but as Brahmanism veered off, so to speak, into Vaishnavism and Saivism, and regional kingdoms developed into the major sites of power, Buddhism began to suffer a decline. The itinerant Buddhist monk, if one may put it this way, gave way to forms of life less more conducive to settled agriculture.
Shashanka, the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal was a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists. The single original source for all subsequent narratives about Shashanka’s ruinous conduct towards Buddhists wasdocumented by Ven. Hsuan Tsang during his visit to India in early part of the seventh century A.D.
It is said that Shashanka had destroyed the Bodhitree of Bodh Gaya and ordered the destruction of all Buddhist images and monasteries in his kingdom. This biased and sectarian policy of Shashanka had broken the backbone of Buddhism in India.He had marched on to Bodh Gaya and destroyed the Bodhi tree under whichthe Buddha had attained enlightenment. He forcibly removed the Buddha’s image from the Bodhi Vihara near the tree and installed one of Shiva in its place.
After the rule of Shashanka, the Pala kingdom was established in Bengal. Though the Palas of Bengal had been hospitable to Vaishnavismand Saivism, but nonetheless they were major supporters of Buddhism.However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223),Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was neglected.
Another hostile Shaivite king was Mihirakula who had completely destroyed over 1500 Buddhist shrines. His hostile action was followed by the Shaivite, Toramana who had destroyed the Ghositarama Buddhist monastery at Kausambi.
Sectarian and Internal Conflicts
Buddhist clergy paid insufficient attention to its laity. Buddhist mendicants kept their distance from non-mendicants, and as scholars of Buddhism have noted, no manual for the conduct of the laity was produced until the 11th century. Non-mendicants may not have felt particularly invested in their religion, and as the venues where the mendicants and non-mendicants intersected gradually disappeared, the laity might have felt distanced from the faith. The contrast, in this respect, with Jainism is marked.
Wealth in Buddhist Monasteries
Some scholars have also emphasized the narrative of decay and corruption within a faith where the monks had come to embrace a rather easy-going and even indolent lifestyle, quite mindless of the Buddha’s insistence on aparigraha, or non-possession. The Buddhist monasteries are sometimes described as repositories of great wealth, which was accumulated through generous donations from the royal families and rich devotees in the community.
There were also disputes over money matters and leadership which led to great divide among many groups of Buddhist monks. The unity and harmony of many major monasteries were affected by these disputes. As the monks had ignored the instruction of the Buddha and became greedy for power and wealth, the monasteries got entrapped in controversies .
Neglect by the monks of life and its values.
The main cause was the neglect by the monks of this life and its values. While the Buddhist monks realized that everyone was not fit or could not become a monk or nun, they paid attention only to the life of a monk and not to the life of a householder. The final blow came from without, and was in a sense invited by Buddhism itself. The prestige of the Sangha, or Buddhist Order, had, after Ashoka, drawn the best blood of Magadha into a celibate and pacific clergy; even in Buddha’s time some patriots had complained that “the monk Gautama causes fathers to beget no sons, and families to become extinct.” Now, both these aspects need examination, study, guidance and control. It is not enough to tell a householder that this existing life is only a stepping-stone to the life of a monk. Why and how is it so and what relation it bears to realities has to be explained. Instead Buddhist philosophers began to teach that this life was nothing but a value of tears and misery.
Another reason was the admission of women into monasteries and the more or less indiscriminate conversion of men, women into monks and nuns. While true renunciation and celibacy were appreciated, people wanted to see them well practiced.
Lack of good rapport with the community by the Buddhist Monks
The majority of the Buddhist monks and clergy had often concentrated mainly on own salvation and rarely visited the community to reduce the suffering of the general population. Here, the Buddhist monks and clergy had missed out a very important message by the Buddha. When the Buddha had advised his disciples to visit the community every day and not to stay in a same place for more than three days, it was with a vision that had a far more impact in the society than mere begging for food. He wanted his disciples to meet as many common people as possible during their community visit and help them to overcome the sufferings.
The main idea behind sending the emissaries door to door was to build up a community network and develop a good rapport with the community so that majority of the population could reap the benefit from the teachings of the Buddha. He knew that once the community had accepted his disciples, they would develop faith in his teachings and would follow his advice to end suffering.
The Buddhist monks in India, during the sixth century had deviated from this noble target and stopped visiting the community. As the community visit was rare by the monks, the general Buddhists felt neglected and isolated from the Buddhist monastery. This sense of insecurity made them suffer discrimination from the higher class of the Brahmin society and they gradually lost faith in Buddhism. The Buddhist monks did not visit the houses of the lower caste and the untouchables and as a result, they too did not get the opportunity to adopt Buddhism and gain status in the society. The shellfish nature of the Buddhist monks during that time had generated a sense of hatred and insecurity in the general population.
The Tendency of Hinduism to Absorb its Rival Faiths
The tendency of Hinduism to absorb rival faiths was evident from the fact that many elements from other faiths had also gone into the making of Hinduism. While some scholars focus on outright persecution ,others speak of a long process during which Buddhist practices became absorbed into Hinduism. Though the doctrine of ‘ahimsa’ or non-violence had originated with the Buddha and had certainly found its greatest exposition in the Buddha’s teachings, but by the second half of the 1stmillennium A.D. it had become an integral part of the Hindu teachings. However, it is still not certain whether the Buddha was absorbed into the Hindu pantheon as a gesture of compromise or as an attempt of divide in order to reduce the overwhelming might of Buddhism or whether Hinduism was eager to embrace as its own, certain values that Buddhism stood for against the short-comings of Brahmanism.
The simplicity of the Buddha’s message in emphasizing its stress one quality and crusade against the bloody and costly sacrifices and ritualism of Brahmanism had attracted the oppressed casts in large numbers. The Brahminical revivalists understood the need to appropriate some of these finer aspects of Buddhism and discarded some of the worst of their own practices so as to be able to win over the masses back to the Brahminical fold. Imitating the Buddhists in this regard, the Brahmins, who were once voracious meat-eaters, had turned into vegetarians.
The Final Blow from Islam Invasion
The invasion of the Muslims and the ruthless destruction of Buddhist monasteries extinguished the lamp of Buddhism in North India. The wanton destruction of the great monastery of Uddandapura (Bihar) and the wholesale massacre of its monks might make us visualize how the great monasteries of Nalanda, Vikramasila and others met with a tragic end. Dr. B.R. Ambedkarwas firmly convinced about the view that Islam dealt Buddhism a deathblow. He had described the process of disappearance of Buddhism inIndia as “Brahmanism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders could look to the rulers for support and sustenance and get it.
But Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders had no such hope. It was uncared for orphan and it withered in the cold blast of the native rulers and was consumed in the fire lit up by the conquerors.”Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was certain that the Muslim invasion was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India and he had described appropriately described this event as “the sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained alive to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.”
However, the “sword of Islam” thesis of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar remained controversial and many reputable historians were inclined to dismiss itoutright. This was due to the fact that Islam was a late entrant into India, and Buddhism was showing unmistakable signs of its decline longbefore Islam became established in the Gangetic plains, central India,and the northern end of present-day Andhra and Karnataka.
Though majority of the scholars generally accept this important factor, still they do not believe that this was the truly crucial reason for the disappearance of Buddhism from India. Muslim invasions primarily wrecked only Northern India. But Buddhism was a significant religious force in Southern India too. Mahayana Buddhism mainly developed in the Southern regions. So whatever happened to Buddhism in the northern regions, it still could not explain how the religion disappeared from Southern India as well.
Modern Hinduism as a Restatement of Buddhism
The finer aspects of Buddhism were later incorporated into the Vedas, Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads by Adi Shankaryacharya during the revival of Hinduism in 8th century A.D. As a result of this, we do not find any major difference between the teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism in modern era. One should understand that Hinduism was a later development after Buddhism. There is enough historical evidence that Buddhism paved the way for refining the teachings of Hinduism which came into existence after the disappearance of Buddhism from India. We must always remember that the finer aspects of Buddhism had been later incorporated into Hinduism under the supervision of AdiShankaracharya during the 8th century A.D.
So, by observing the strikingly similar teachings in both these religions, it would be wiser to conclude that modern Hinduism is a restatement of ancient Buddhism. The reverse of this statement is never true on historical perspectives, as an earlier religion cannot predict or copy the teachings of a future religion.
After examining all the contributing factors associated with the disappearance of Buddhism from India, we must understand that it was not a single major factor that could be isolated and held absolutely responsible for this horrendous outcome. Sequence of multiple factors had often acted synergistically over a long period of time in order to force Buddhism disappear from India, the place of its origin.
In accordance to the teachings of the Buddha, the disappearance of Buddhism in India had actually followed the Buddha’s universal Doctrine of Dependent Origination. Here, one factor had led to the other and caused this ultimate outcome. So, we should now concentrate on how to revive Buddhism in a global perspective. Since, Buddhism preaches loving kindness and compassion as well as it can adopt to meet different traditional, moral and cultural needs of the community, it can play a lead role in promoting peace and harmony in the contemporary world.
“ Thus, in spite of preaching mercy to animals, in spite of the sublime ethical religion, in spite of the discussions about the existence or non-existence of a permanent soul, the whole building of Buddhism tumbled down piece-meal and the ruin was simply hideous. The most hideous ceremonies, the most obscene books that human hands ever wrote or the human brain ever conceived, have all been the creation of the degraded Buddhism. The Tartars and the Baluchis and all the hideous races of mankind that came to India, became Buddhists and assimilated with us, brought their national customs and the whole of our national life became a huge page of the most horrible, bestial customs. Sankara came and showed that the real essence of Buddhism and that of Vedanta are not very different but that the disciples did not understand the master and have degraded themselves, denied the existence of soul and one God and have become atheists. That was what Sankara showed and all the Buddhists began to come back to their old religion”.
Swami Vivekananda