Re: Why Buddhism's Decline in India?

[Malcolm]

There've been a lot of external factors discussed.

The most simple explanation is loss of patronage from the upper class. We can see this pattern repeated in Tibet, China, Japan, Korea, Shrivijaya, etc.

[ManiThePainter]

I would suggest reading chapter 10 of André Wink’s Al-Hind The Making of the Indo-Islamic World. Volume II: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest.

The chapter is called “The well of Buddhism defiled” and it goes into how the loss of patronage led to the demise of Buddhism well before the Islamic raids.

[Malcolm]

...the loss of patronage led to the demise of Buddhism well before the Islamic raids.

Yup.

[Javierfv1212]

Well, the similarities between the Buddhist tantras and the Shaiva tantras are well known.

Quite overstated, in fact.

Of course, it is still quite different philosophically, but there are many similarities as well. They even used the same sacred sites often (the pitha lists are very similar) for example.

All Indians also bath in communal pools, or did at one time.

So this similarity can't really be completely denied.

Using the presence of pan-Indian cultural themes and tropes in Buddhism to explain away the demise of Buddhism in India is lazy scholarship. The reality is that Buddhism was first weakened by the invasion of the White Huns and the collapse of the Guptas, then systematically hounded out of India by hostile Hindu kings (evident because of the frequent references to magical battles between Hindus and Buddhist Mahāsiddhas, especially from the ninth century onward), and the fatal blow was delivered by the Muslims at the end of the 12th century, though there were Buddhist holdouts in Bengal until the 16th century.

BTW I wasn't saying that I agree that the reason that Buddhism died out was because it adopted numerous ideas and practices also found in Hinduism. This
is just a natural evolution that Buddhism went through as an Indian religion.

As a counter example, Jainism also adopted Hindu deities and tantric elements and it survived much better than Buddhism.

I also think that the institutional over-reliance on elite support and on large monastic centers like Nalanda made Buddhism too vulnerable to these attacks.

[ManiThePainter]

The issue isn’t whether Hinduism “became more Buddhist-like” or vice versa.

The issue is that Buddhism was much less interested in structuring society and mandating laws. It was and still is primarily soteriological, concerned with individual liberation. This meant that you could not turn to Buddhism for structure in society like you could with Hinduism and later Islam, both of which had rigid rules about what to eat, what to wear, and who belonged where in the cosmic hierarchy (caste for Hindus, dhimmis for Muslims). This also made these two very attractive religions for royals who could (quite naturally) fit into these categories (often at the top) and rely on them to rule.

One must also remember that the non-royal/non-noble laity in pre-modern times were often illiterate, uneducated and offered praises/blessings to any religion quite freely. As such, we cannot begin to say who amongst the laity were Buddhist, Hindu or Jain, and it is highly implausible that they considered themselves bound by such rigid terms of identity. The same might be said about the nobility who had their own priorities, such as preserving their status in society.

I believe that Matthew Kapstein even wrote about a similar phenomenon in his book “The Tibetans,” where a lama confided in him that Tibetan peasants and laymen often just sought “blessings” rather than the deeper teachings of Buddhism.

Furthermore, Buddhism is primarily a monastic religion; the monasteries were the foremost institutions which preserved Buddhist knowledge and learning, like a backbone. They relied on royal patronage to run (in the same manner that Islamic khanqahs and waqfs, or Christian monasteries did) and so when the patronage ends, they struggle hard.

[thomaslaw]

Of course, it is still quite different philosophically, but there are many similarities as well. They even used the same sacred sites often (the pitha lists are very similar) for example.

What is "pitha"?

[Aemilius]

"Nepal Mandal is an in-depth guide and survey of the principle Buddhist and Hindu monasteries, temples and pīṭhs of the Kathmandu Valley. In seven parts under the rubric of Buddha, Padmasambhava, Gorakhnāth, Śiva, Nārāyaṇ, Mātṛkās and Peaks and Rivers, over one hundred and twenty powerplaces are described, many fully described under the heads Myth, Legend, In the Past and On the Ground."

NEPĀL MAṆḌAL: A Pilgrim's Guide to the Kathmandu Valley – April 2, 2020
by Keith Dowman

Keith Dowman translates "pitha" as 'powerplace'.

[thomaslaw]

This finding supports that the Buddha was regarded as part of the ninth incarnation ‘avatar’ (avatāra) of Vishnu, and India Tantric Buddhism (c. 500-1200 CE) was also similar to Hinduism. That is, Buddhism became similar to or being part of Hinduism at that time as one of the main causes for the decline of Buddhism in India.

Completely false.

Both external and internal factors should be considered and discussed carefully and objectively for understanding Buddhism's decline in India. However, the internal factors within Buddhist communities themselves are particularly important. The main reason is that the essential Buddha-dharma should not be simply just destroyed by Buddhists themselves without even knowing it.

[Malcolm]

Both external and internal factors should be considered and discussed carefully and objectively for understanding Buddhism's decline in India. However, the internal factors within Buddhist communities themselves are particularly important.

You have zero proof that Buddhism became "Hinduized."

[thomaslaw]

Both external and internal factors should be considered and discussed carefully and objectively for understanding Buddhism's decline in India. However, the internal factors within Buddhist communities themselves are particularly important.

You have zero proof that Buddhism became "Hinduized."

Do you mean you have proof that Vajrayana/Tantra is not Hinduzed development? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

[thomaslaw]

http://www.du.ac.in/du/uploads/departme ... 0India.pdf

SEE PAGE 263 of pdf FOR 5 CAUSES OF BUDDHISM'S decline.

It's a sobering wake up call to us too!

Yes, this is very good point indeed!

[Hazel]

Both external and internal factors should be considered and discussed carefully and objectively for understanding Buddhism's decline in India. However, the internal factors within Buddhist communities themselves are particularly important.

You have zero proof that Buddhism became "Hinduized."

Do you mean you have proof that Vajrayana/Tantra is not Hinduzed development? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

The burden of proof is on you.


That said, this is a Mahayana forum and questioning the authenticity of Mahayana is not welcome here. Please take that sort of discussion elsewhere.

[Caoimhghín]

No questions. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[Malcolm]

No questions. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Any one who has actually studied these questions knows that the depiction of the rise of Vajrayāna as a Hinduization of Buddhism is silly. If it is true, then since all the name of a stupa correspond to parts of the classic brahmin burnt offering precinct, Buddhism has been "Hinduized," to use a coarse appellation, from the start.

The fact of the matter is that without Buddhism, there would be no modern Hinduism (Gaudapāda, etc.). All of these tradition coevolved, and the common people, well, they just followed whatever the king told them to follow.

[Caoimhghín]

I don't think that Buddhist Tantra is inherently syncretic, but it seems very obvious it arises in a period of extreme mainstream syncretism. Many Tantras between Hinduism and Buddhism have identical material in them. Someone copied someone. Who knows who?

https://www.academia.edu/24115448/_Conv ... %9Aaivism_

The feature I was laughing mostly at was the sentiment of "The burden is on you. But don't ask too many questions. Leave if you wanna question things."

...but the burden is on "you."

The two sentiments are utterly at odds.

[Malcolm]

I don't think that Buddhist Tantra is inherently syncretic, but it seems very obvious it arises in a period of extreme mainstream syncretism. Many Tantras between Hinduism and Buddhism have identical material in them. Someone copied someone. Who knows who?

There is some limited intertextuality, but not as much people infer based on a very small sample, which both Sanderson and Hatley admit. And what borrowing there is goes both ways, according to Hatley. This is not surprising (Nyingmapas on some occasions borrowed from Bonpo texts, this kind of syncretism is commonly found in Chinese Buddhist texts and so on). But such examples are limited, and cannot be said to indicate that Vajrayāna represents a Hindu corruption of Buddhism. As I pointed out, Indians are Indians, and made use of common themes and tropes for their own reasons and purposes.

[Caoimhghín]

Even before we get textual traces pointing to the existence of "Tantras," you get Buddhism-influenced "Hindu" texts like the Yogasūtras, so certainly these things go both ways.

There is also a Buddhist version of, unless I'm mistaken, the Ramayana in the Taishō Canon which I've yet to read.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I don't think that Buddhist Tantra is inherently syncretic, but it seems very obvious it arises in a period of extreme mainstream syncretism. Many Tantras between Hinduism and Buddhism have identical material in them. Someone copied someone. Who knows who?

https://www.academia.edu/24115448/_Conv ... %9Aaivism_

The feature I was laughing mostly at was the sentiment of "The burden is on you. But don't ask too many questions. Leave if you wanna question things."

...but the burden is on "you."

The two sentiments are utterly at odds.

From time to time we have people involved in discussions on DW who are not interested in Mahayana teachings, and only participate in ‘academic’ discussions on the Mahayana in order to sew doubt in its authenticity. If someone is not in that category, they can safely assume the concern is not about them.

[Malcolm]

There is also a Buddhist version of, unless I'm mistaken, the Ramayana in the Taishō Canon which I've yet to read.

It was also translated into Tibetan, though I am not sure it survived. Some Tibetans fluent in Sanskrit, like Sa skya Paṇḍita in the 13th century, read widely in non-Buddhist literature such as the Mahābharata; similar with the 20th century master, Kunnu Lama, who was fond of reading the Bhagavād Gita, etc.

[ManiThePainter]

Both external and internal factors should be considered and discussed carefully and objectively for understanding Buddhism's decline in India. However, the internal factors within Buddhist communities themselves are particularly important.

You have zero proof that Buddhism became "Hinduized."

Do you mean you have proof that Vajrayana/Tantra is not Hinduzed development? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantra

If you have been following these forums for years as I have (mainly as a silent reader) you would know that there is A LOT of people on here that misunderstand Buddhism, both doctrine as well as historiography and/or historical context. Buddhism’s entry into the West has been fraught with misunderstandings and conjecture since the beginning, to a point, I dare say, that no other religion has been. Much of this has to do with older and outdated research, incorrect understanding of terminology, orientalism and romanticization of Buddhism, New Age appropriation, and trying to understand it through a Hindu lens. There’s also a lot of academics for whom it is important to plant certain controversial seeds since it gives them a lot of prestige by way of having an original/memorable/controversial hypothesis (like Patricia Crone and her controversial research into early Islam).

That being said, what I do know from what I have read about Buddhism in actual Western academic books as well as traditional books, is that Wikipedia is a very poor support for your argument.

Also bear in mind that a lot of people tend to use outdated research to support their assertions. We have quite a few brilliant Buddhologists in the West but not everyone who writes about Buddhism can be said to be one. And even then, there are many flaws and their word is never gospel.