Author: M.S.N. Menon
Publication: Organiser
Date: January 22, 2006
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=114&page=14
No. It is a canard. Alie propagated by vested
interests. What are the facts? Buddhism was a reaction to the growing permissiveness
and distortions of Aryan society. It was, therefore, puritanical. But by banning
drinking, dancing, singing and theatre, Buddhism sowed the seeds of opposition.
But Buddhism was also revolutionary. It was
"the logical development of the religion of the Hindus," says Dr.
Radhakrishnan. It played a significant role in human history.
On this, Northcote Parkinson says: "In
the rallying of Asia against western pressure, Buddhism played a central role
like no other religion before or since; its influence extended to the whole
of Asia. It lent vigour to all that was attractive in Hinduism."
Naturally, for about a thousand years (from
3rd century BC to 6th century AD), Buddhism was the dominant religion of India,
although it broke up into two-Mahayana and Hinayana. It had little opposition.
When Fa Hien, the Chinese student, visited India in the 5th century AD, Buddhism
was flourishing along with Hinduism. But by the 6th century AD, Buddhism had
broken up into 18 sects. So, when Hieun Tsang, the Chinese pilgrim visited
India in the 7th century AD, Buddhism was in decline. What is more, by distorting
the Master's message and reverting in some ways to Hindu beliefs and practices,
Mahayana had lost its attraction. Buddha himself had anticipated the decline
in one of his talks with Ananda, his chief disciple.
The conquest of Central Asia and Afghanistan
by the Muslims was a major blow to Buddhism. Historian, Pramanath Bose writes
that "Buddhism...got so engulfed in the superstitions of Turanians that
it transformed itself into some of the grossest forms of Scythian idolatry."
Buddhism as an ethical system had little impact on Central Asia, which explains
how Islam was able to overwhelm this huge region in so short a time.
It was this decline of Buddhism which brought
up the resurgence of Saivism and Vaishnavism. And Shankara, by incorporating
many of the Buddhist doctrines into Hinduism, made Buddhism redundant. But
the final blow to Buddhism came with the advent of Islam in India.
Muslim invaders made it a point to extirpate
Buddhism from India. They destroyed every vihara, where the monks lived and
taught. Thus, the 500 viharas built by Ashoka in Kashmir and the 600 feet
high stupa built by Kanishka were the first to be destroyed. Historian Vincent
Smith says that the monks, who survived the holocaust, fled to south and to
the Himalayas (Nepal, Tibet). In short, few dared to stay in India. The invaders
also destroyed Taxila and Nalanda, the two great Buddhist universities. The
cream of Buddhist scholarship lived here. Thus, every symbol of Buddhism was
destroyed as part of a deliberate policy.
It is not true that Brahmanism opposed Buddhism.
The first disciples of the enlightened one were all Brahmins. For example,
Maha Muggalanna, Sariputta, Maha Kashyapa, Asita, Kaundinya. Buddha rejected
only the Brahminical rituals, the authority of the Vedas and the oppressive
caste system.
According to Smt Rhys Davids, among the 246
poet-authors mentioned in the Thera Gatha, 113 were Brahmins, 70 Kshatriyas.
Thus, it is clear that Buddhism had no real opposition in India. In Fact,
the kings gave equal protection to both Hinduism and Buddhism. For example,
the Gupta empire, although Hindu, gave full protection to Buddhism. So did
Harsha's empire. Lalitaditya, the greatest king of Kashmir, although not a
Buddhist, built the largest Vihara for the Buddhists.
If Buddhism was brought down by anyone (which
is not the case) it was done by the Buddhist monks. The hasya literature in
Sanskrit is full of humour and satire against the Buddhist monks-of how they
took to meat, drinks and women. Naturally, Buddhism lost the respect in which
it was held earlier.
It may be a digression, but let us see how
the Buddhists fared in China. In China, it was the growing monkish population
that forced the emperor to ban Buddhist activities. In 477 AD there were as
many as 6,478 monasteries in northern China. It grew to 30,000 by 534 AD.
And there were as many as 77,258 monks. To the industrious Chinese, this growing
parasitic population was a drag on their economy and a danger to their way
of life. Buddhism never recovered from that blow. But it is also true that,
as in India, Taoism absorbed what was noble in Buddhism.
Although the Buddha did not advocate a monastic
life, the monks propagated that only a monastic life could attain nirvana
with any measure of certainty. Thus millions of Hindus took to monastic life.
It became a way of life among Buddhists.
With focus on nirvana, life itself came to
be secondary, not to speak of defence and security matters. India was thus
least prepared to meet the onslaught of the Muslims. In the event, the Hindus
closed their ranks against the Muslims. And they were not prepared to be tolerant
to any divisive criticism from the Buddhists and Jains. Which explains why
Buddhism almost disappeared from India.
But where did the Buddhists disappear? They
went back to their ancient faith-Hinduism-to resist the Muslims.
