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.