Why did Buddhism driven out of India in the 11th Century

marcteng SG

By the 11 Century, Buddhism was driven out from India, as prophesied by the Buddha.

The reason was that India was conquered by the early Islamists.

sanath SG

That and the fact that Buddhism was slowly assimilated into present-day Hinduism, so when the Muslims conquered India, those who were Buddhists were either killed, persecuted or made to change their religion (either Hinduism or Islam).

At a Buddhist Youth Conference in Sep'08, a Buddhist from India whom i had the chance to talk to, told me that because Buddha advocated against the caste system, when the Buddhists were assimilated or converted into Hinduism, the "Buddhists" were relegated to become the "Outcastes". Now alot of them are "re-converting" to Buddhism.

cycle SG

Wow that's good news !

There are now also Africans in Africa that are Buddhist monks. The number is relatively small of cos but I'm allways very impressed whenever ppl go against all odds in a difficult environment (边地) to follow the Triple Gems.

JitKiat SG

http://www.yinshun.org.tw/books/35/yinshun35-19.html

師子身中蟲，自食師子肉

cycle SG

所以说，生为佛弟子我们还是要懂得分辩谁是明师。这当然不是件简单的事，所以我们因该好好地修诫，定，慧。当然也不好一开始就对所有的三宝起不必要的疑心或轻视，那也是执著吧，导致我见和我慢太深的话，还有可能正的不信反而信邪的了。印顺导师就说过，佛弟子要对三宝有信心，没有信，深法难入。

我们大家共勉之。

JitKiat SG

I think the issue is more complicated than just 分辩谁是明师. There are fundamental differences between teaching of different Masters from different Mahayana sects (Humanistic, Zen, Pureland, TianTai, Yogacara, Tibetan). In our life as young Buddhists, we need to learn how to maintain our belief in the path that we have chosen and learn from different Masters from different sects even though some of their teachings contradict with our belief. For example, we may practise pureland by following the teaching of Master Ou Yi, Master Yin Kuang but we can also learn selectively from Master Yin Shun who is an advocate of Humanistic Buddhism.

cycle SG

The fundamental is always to 修戒定慧。 Then all paths will finaly leads to one path. Nothing contradicts nor not contradicts.

So yes, what u said is absolutely true. And all the masters u mentioned are actually 明师. That's why its absolutely correct that we should learn from them no matter which sects they belong to. The problem for many lay ppl like us is how to realise one. A good eg that shows this is [ 善财童子五十三参 ]。

Btw, Master Yin Shun is my 师公. But of cos my poor cultivation has nothing to do with 师公..!

Oh, and i'm not young.

seotiblizzard SG

Its, why WAS buddhism driven out ... not why did.

JitKiat SG

Quote from http://ir.lib.au.edu.tw/dspace/bitstream/987654321/44/1/0193035583.pdf

「智者大師從教法與證法的綜合中，窺見佛學體系，也就是教法的淺深，修證悟入的淺深歷程。……如以客觀研究的眼光，智者大師的教學，並不理想。如『中論』明說『諸佛依二諦』，他卻依『中論』而談三諦。……引用經論，或是截取一節、一句；或是刪略幾字；而且引用偽經，著實不少！然而，智者大師是無比的偉大！正是中國佛學完滿的典型！這是上承印度重修證的大乘經師的傳統──乙型。憑修證的經驗，貫通經論……。舉比喻說：客觀研究者，是工筆畫；費盡工夫，未必畫好，說不定『畫匠』而已。而乙型的佛學，重修證而教觀結合的佛學，是寫意的，有時是漫畫式的。你說不對嗎？卻是越看越像，神氣活現！被稱為『畫家』。客觀研究者，是科學化的，有條有理，使人了解。而乙型的佛學，是藝術化的，使人啟發，使人感動，使人忘我。

印順法師將學問分為三大類型：「知識的學問」、「知識與經驗相結合的學問」與「經驗的學問」。「乙型」即是指第二種「知識與經驗相結合的學問」。

I think Master Yin Shun is great in the sense that he is brave enough to give both positive and negative comments to Chinese Mahayana sects like TianTai (智者大師 belongs to TianTai) and Pureland, well knowing that this will invite flame and misunderstanding. But he did state that his comment was purely from 客觀研究者 perspective. Of course, Master Yin Shun is not just a 客觀研究者. He is most admired due to his compassion as an advocate of Humanistic Buddhism - his guidance to his disciple - TzuChi foundation's Master Cheng Yen was - 为佛教，为众生。

cycle SG

Quote from http://ir.lib.au.edu.tw/dspace/bitstream/987654321/44/1/0193035583.pdf

Absolutely true.

JitKiat SG

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ001/93570.htm

Quote from Master Sheng Yen from Dharma Drum:

已往的融和論者，會把各宗各系的觀點，調和統合著解釋，例如智旭及太虛兩位大師，都是站在中國佛教的立場，投合中國文化大一統的理想，將各系發展以後的佛法，給予整合成為彼此互通互融的全體佛教，故不希望性宗與相宗分河飲水，互相角力，因為自唐末以後的中國佛教，早就有了華嚴與禪合流，禪與淨土雙修，此以永明延壽的《宗鏡錄》等為代表。元以後則有顯密圓融論者，到了明代的蕅益智旭，則極力主張相宗與性宗的互為表裏。當時尚未有大乘三系之說，大家以龍樹為八宗的共祖，所以有天台宗引中觀為自宗的思想，華嚴宗也被視為與唯識學互通，並未有人指出中國佛教的台、賢、禪、淨，都是真常唯心論，法相宗是虛妄唯識論，中觀是性空唯名論。到了太虛大師雖已發現大乘佛教的三宗──法性空慧宗、法相唯識宗、法界圓覺宗，但是他用法界圓覺宗來統攝諸宗，主張八宗皆圓，這也正是智旭大師常說的「圓人說法無法不圓」。從這兩位大師之間的先後呼應，也可以看出他們的苦心，是在於將百川奔騰的各系佛法，導歸一法界，便同一乘味，這是《法華經》的思想背景，也是真常唯心論的特色。

印順長老則從佛教的發展史、各期聖典的成立史，以及各系佛教的地域分佈史來探討問題，希望大家不要硬把不同時代背景、不同地理背景、不同思想文化環境中發展出來的各種特色特性的佛法，打和成為一個局面的思考模式，那就會迷失了佛陀的本懷，模糊了佛法的本義。所以印老探索問題，是採用循葉得枝，循枝得幹，循幹見根的方式。在熱帶雨林中的一棵千年萬年的大樹巨木，枝葉繁茂，都在同一棵樹上長有各種形態的枝葉、花草、藤蔓，若不小心探研，就可能將寄生在樹幹樹枝上的其他植物，當作樹的本身了。寄生植物時間久了，也是能與樹身共存共榮的，所以寄生的不一定就無用，但那畢竟不是樹的本身。

印順長老處理真常唯心論，是站在循末見本的角度，他不會否定此一系的佛法，

更不會認為那是寄生於佛教的外道。因為發展的佛教，就是從根本的原始的法義基礎上開展出來，不可以說不是佛世的產品就不是佛法，其實發展後的大乘精神，更能顯現出佛陀積極救世化世的本懷。真常唯心系的佛教，雖屬於後期大乘，但它確有阿含佛教的基礎依據，也有南方大眾部分別說系的基礎，也有經量部譬喻師的影響，印老也特別指出，《起信論》受有錫蘭佛教《解脫道論》的影響。更有不少的大乘經論如《楞伽經》、《勝鬘經》、《如來藏經》等作後盾，甚至談到《大乘起信論》的背景資料中，也有古傳唯識《攝大乘論》的內容。印老的目的，便是假借講說《起信論》的因緣，把真常唯心論的佛法，自成一系的條理出來，點明它旳來龍去脈，不用籠統和會，不必擔心發現了諸系法義的互相出入而會讓人感到懷疑不信。這也正是歷史的方法論，所表現出來的治學態度及其可信的成果。

====

I also heard an excellent summary form 净界法师。 According to him, 东方人求美，西方人求真，菩萨求善。求真容易得罪人，求美容易失真，菩萨应求善。