Why
Buddhism prospered in Asia but died in India
By 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, and 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 disappeared 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
300m Dalits who to survive caste discrimination are turning to different
faiths. We may recall how 50,000 Indian dalits converted to Buddhism. 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.
- Asian Tribune –