Why Buddhism prospered in Asia but died in India
Posted on June 9th, 2012
Posted on June 9th, 2012
Shenali Waduge
Undoubtedly, the philosophy of Buddhism is one of the greatest gifts
to mankind. Its peaceful concepts have distanced its followers from
wars, crusades and is a binding formula for the entire South/South
Eastern/Central/East Asian region of the world of which most nations are
Buddhist countries whilst others including India are not.
The Buddha was not interested in numbers nor was he interested in the
lay deity having a distinct identity. There were no social codes, modes
of worship…in other words adherence to the Buddhist faith was not
obligatory unlike other religions of the world. Anyone, irrespective of
caste, creed was welcome to take refuge in the teachings of Buddha,
Dhamma and Sangha. There was no exclusive allegiance nor was lay deity
required to perform regular religious service – essentially everything
was voluntary. Only those that understood the philosophy behind Buddhism
would be able to cherish its value.
With time the Brahminical Social Order began to secure greater
advantage over Buddhism and with royal patronage shifting from Buddhism
to Hinduism, the fate of Buddhism was sealed and the great philosophy
all but disappeared from India with little help of revival even from
State Governments.
Why India chose to forget Buddhism
A puzzle to most is how Buddhism disappeared in the land of its
birth. Was it because people became absorbed in Hindu practices,
rituals, mythology and caste supremacy or, was it the Moghul invasions,
or could it have been the failure of Bhikkus to sustain the great
philosophy itself?
Needless to say for whatever reasons, Buddhism did decline and disappear in India.
Historian S. R. Goyal has attributed the decline and disappearance of
Buddhism from India to the hostility of the Brahmanas. An incident oft
cited is the destruction of the Bo Tree and Buddhist images by Saivite
King, Shashanka, persecution by Pusyamitra Sunga (185 BC to 151 BC) who
detested the Law of the Buddha had set fire to the Sutras, destroyed
Stupas, razed Samgharamas and massacred Bhikkus and even killed the
deity of the Bodhi tree. There is also mention of the Huna onslaught on
Taxila (in Pakistan), the persecution of Buddhist monks by Mihirkula.
Incidentally, though Moghuls are accused of destroying Hindu temples,
most of these temples were actually built on Buddhist shrine sites.
Results of Moghul invasions were many too – Somapura Mahavihara (now in
Bangladesh) was set ablaze. Odantapuri Mahavihara close to Nalanda was
razed to the ground in 1199 CE after killing all the monks and Bodhgaya
was attacked as well. Though there is evidence that even a century
beyond the Muslim conquest Buddhism remained in places like Gaya till
the end of the 14th century which disproves the notion that Muslim conquest was not singularly responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India.
Thus the inability to gage a particular time period for the process
of decline until Buddhism collapsed towards the end of the 12th
century. Yet, the question remains if Jainism survived why Buddhism
didn’t? The Bengal Puranas depict the Buddhists as being mocked and
subject to verbal chiding.
Yet persecutions may suppress but it does not kill a religion!
So what really happened to Buddhism in India?
No Hindu civilization before Buddhism
There is no mention of “Hindu” in ancient Aryan literature nullifying
the belief that a Hindu nation existed. Hindus profess to be Aryans
citing the Rigveda as the oldest literature in the world. However,
Rigveda was written in Sanskrit and contains references to Prakrit
language (600 BCE to 1000 CE) and Prakrit was associated with Buddhism.
The Rigveda also contains Vaidik prayer to God Indra to kill Dasas. Dr.
Ambedkar claims Dasas and Nagas were the same people and were rulers of
India when the Rigveda was written. The Rigveda also mentions Rishis
like Bharadwaj, Vasistha, Bhrigu, Viswamitra etc – Buddhist literature
mentions these are Buddha’s contemporary so the Rigveda could not have
been the oldest document in the world.
There is neither archeological evidence nor literary evidence that
Sanskrit is anterior to Buddhism? Hindu historian Dr. Majumdar claims
that 75% of Hindu culture derives from Dravidian culture. According to
Brahminical literature the Chaturvarna (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas
and Sudras), the Kshatriyas were exterminated by Brahmin leader
Parasuram. The Brahim text the Gita mentions Vaishyas, Sudras and women
as belonging to papyoni – in other words they were non-Hindus. We also
know that the Vaishyas and the Sudras were disallowed to hear or recite
the Vedas. Moreover, the science of medicine – Ayurveda was the
profession of the Sudras and Charak Samhita the father of Ayurveda was
not only a Buddhist but also the physician of Buddhist emperor Kanishka.
The truth remains that there is nothing like Aryan civilization and
Vedic period in Indian history anterior to Buddhism. Prakrit the
language of the indigenous people was associated with Buddhism in
ancient times. In reality, the Buddhist language is associated with the
Harappan culture as inscriptions used by Buddhist emperor Ashoka to
propagate his message to the people were derived from the language of
the Harappan people. Aryan is a distortion of the word Iranian.
In all probability the Vaidiks falsely inserted the myth that “Aryan
culture” and “Vedic period” in the historical sequence anterior to
Buddhism because they did not want to disclose that the Brahminical
culture came after Buddhism. It was essentially an inferiority issue.
It is clear that there was no “Hindu civilization” before Buddhism,
there was no “Vedic” period before Buddhism because Sanskrit developed
after Buddhism and it was during the Buddhist period that the Vedas were
manufactured. Not wanting to give due place to Buddhism it is often
argued that the Vedas were not written and were merely passed down over
generations through oral scriptures (Shruties). If so, then why were
they not called Vedas instead of shruties? If Sanskrit did not exist
before Buddhism in what language were the Vedas or shruties passed down
from generation to generation?
The Hindu era
We all agree that the history of ALL religions began from their
leaders – the Buddhist era began with Lord Buddha, the Christian era
began with Jesus Christ…etc. The Hindu era begins from Vikrami Samvat
(from Hindu king Chandra Gupta Vikramaditya) and Shaka Samvat which are
2055 and 1922 years old respectively. Yet, there cannot be two eras for
Hindus – the Shaka era started from 78AD related to Kanishka, a Buddhist
emperor of the Kushan dynasty.
Hindu Brahminisation began with the Shaka era and continued to the Vikram era.
The first archaeological evidence of Sanskrit (language of Hindu
Brahmins) called Rudra Danam inscriptions belong to the period of the
Shaka rulers (Mathura, Nasik and Ujjain their capitals). Shaka era
actually started from Kanishka, a Buddhist emperor of Kushan dynasty.
Instead of Shaka era it should be called Kushan era. Another question
seeks to ask why Vikram era associated with Chandra Gupta 11 was made
anterior to Shaka era? What is the relationship of the Hindus with the
Shakas and Chandra Gupta? Kanishka was associated with Buddhism while
Chandra Gupta was associated with Hindu Brahmanism. The only possible
conclusion we can derive is that Vikram era was made anterior to Shaka
era to make Buddhism inferior to Hinduism.
It was during the Shaka era that Buddhism came to be divided into
Mahayana and Hinayana. It was during the Vikram era that Pali, the
language of the Buddhists was exterminated.
Hindu history is perhaps just 2055 years old but in order to show its
superiority it exterminated Pali and destroyed the cultural and
religious identity of Buddhism. There sealed the fate of Buddhism in
India.
Buddhism in Asia
Buddhism has strong foundations in Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka
whilst in other parts of South/South East Asia it is facing
difficulties. The countries ruled by colonists resulted in persecution
of Buddhist through missionary Christian/Catholic schools. Undoubtedly,
there is a resurgence to revive Buddhism and to bring all Buddhist
nations together.
South/South East Asia Theravada Buddhism – Indonesia, Malaysia,
Burma, Thailand, Bangladesh, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Sri Lanka.
In India it was only after Ambedkar started a neo-Buddhist movement
among the untouchables in the 1950s that Buddhism came to be somewhat
revived. In India it is mostly the Indian “untouchables” who are
embracing Buddhism. There are 300 million Dalits who to survive caste
discrimination are turning to different faiths. We may recall how 500,000
Indian Dalits converted to Buddhism in 1956 along with Dr.Ambedkar. Out of 28 Indian states and 7
union territories Buddhism’s reach has become minimal. It is in the
state of Maharashtra that 74% of total Indian Buddhists reside followed
by Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Karnataka, UP, West Bengal,
Madhya Pradesh.
East Asian/Central Asian Mahayana Buddhism – Taiwan, Hong Kong, South
Korea, Japan, Nepal and Bhutan, Ladakh, Russia and China (non-Han
regions – Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjian (East Turkistan). Han
Chinese in inner China have also developed an interest in Buddhism.
It goes without saying that for a very peaceful practicing philosophy
the currents that Buddhism and Buddhists have faced over ancient times
and even towards contemporary times will never find answers as to why
Buddhism has faced the challenges it weathered. There is no streak of
violence in Buddhism. It is only about one’s own journey towards
salvation along a middle path that espouses to refrain from either
extremes to finding the Truth for oneself. That Truth is not the same
for any of us, yet it is the Truth nevertheless.
Similarly in the West too, the people have found Buddhism to be an
easy philosophy to understand and follow. Thus, in the US, Europe,
Australia, Canada and even South America plenty of “Dharma centers” have
emerged in over 90 countries.
Undoubtedly, we must mention Indo-Sri Lanka relationship and make
special mention that there has never been a period of cordiality as that
which existed during the time of King Asoka of India and King
Devanampiyatiss of Sri Lanka. Regrettably, India has chosen to treat Sri
Lanka as a quasi-enemy and has continued to carry out destabilizing
operations against Sri Lanka. India’s present overtures towards
aligning with Sri Lanka through Buddhism shows clear signs of seeking to
be a partner of the Asian block through Buddhism since India has
antagonized enough of its neighbors already.
While India plays no role in the future of Buddhism except its
treatment along scholarly lines devoid of emotional attachment, it is
the practice, the understanding, the reverence given to Buddhism that is
seeing a revival and a greater binding amongst South/South
East/Central/East Asian countries of the world and Sri Lanka should take
a lead to create greater binding.
No comments:
Post a Comment