Buddhism’s Disappearance from India
-
@Dawnfirstlight…..
//”Can someone write something about Buddhism in India? Reason being I was challenged by followers from other religion why Buddhism is not popular in India. They even questioned why Chinese believe in Buddhism whereas majority of the Indians don't believe in Buddhism. I told them it is because Buddha said everyone is equal but India has caste system, thus it is not easily accepted by the people there. I think that's the main reason.”//
The below article should answer your questions?
Buddhism’s Disappearance from India
Vinay Lal
One of the supreme ironies of the history of Buddhism in India is the question of how Buddhism came to disappear from the land of its birth. Many scholars of Buddhism, Hinduism, Indian history, and of religion more generally have been devoted to unraveling this puzzle. There is no absolute consensus on this matter, and a few scholars have even contended that Buddhism never disappeared as such from India. On this view, Buddhism simply changed form, or was absorbed into Hindu practices. Such an argument is, in fact, a variation of the view, which perhaps has more adherents than any other, that Buddhism disappeared, not on account of persecution by Hindus, but because of the ascendancy of reformed Hinduism. However, the view that Buddhists were persecuted by Brahmins, who were keen to assert their caste supremacy, still has some adherents, and in recent years has been championed not only by some Dalit writers and their sympathizers but by at least a handful of scholars of pre-modern Indian history. [1]
What is not disputed is the gradual decline of Buddhism in India, as the testimony of the Chinese traveler, Hsuan Tsang, amply demonstrates. Though Buddhism had been the dominant religion in much of the Gangetic plains in the early part of the Christian era, Hsuan Tsang, traveling in India in the early years of the 7th century, witnessed something quite different. In Prayag, or Allahabad as it is known to many, Hsuan Tsang encountered mainly heretics, or non-Buddhists, but that is not surprising given the importance of Prayag as a pilgrimage site for Brahmins. But, even in Sravasti, the capital city of the Lichhavis, a north Indian clan that came to power around 200 AD, established their capital in Pasupathinath, and in a long and glorious period of reign extending through the early part of the ninth century endowed a large number of both Hindu and Buddhist monuments and monasteries, Hsuan Tsang witnessed a much greater number of “Hindus” (ie, non-Buddhists, such as Jains and Saivites) than Buddhists. Kusinagar, the small village some 52 kilometres from Gorakhpur where the Buddha had gone into mahaparinirvana, was in a rather dilapidated state and Hsuan Tsang found few Buddhists. In Varanasi, to be sure, Hsuan Tsang found some 3000 Bhikkus or Buddhist monks, but they were outshadowed by more than 10,000 non-Buddhists. There is scarcely any question that Hsuan Tsang arrived in India at a time when Buddhism was entering into a state of precipitous decline, and by the 13th century Buddhism, as a formal religion, had altogether disappeared from India. [2] But even as Buddhism went into decline, it is remarkable that the great seat of Buddhist learning, Nalanda, continued to flourish, retaining its importance until the Muslim invasions of the second millennium. Moreover, it is from Nalanda that Padmasambhava carried Buddhism to Tibet in the eighth century. Consequently, even the story of Buddhism in India cannot be unequivocally written in a single register of decline.
To consider the question somewhat more systematically, we might wish to consider in serial order the various reasons advanced for Buddhism’s decline and disappearance from India. The various arguments can be grouped under the following headings: sectarian and internal histories, focusing on schisms within the Buddhist faith, the widening differences between the clergy, Bhikkus, and laity, and the growing corruption within the sangha; histories focused on Buddhism’s relations with Brahmanism, dwelling on the alleged persecution of Buddhists by Brahmins, the defeat of the Buddhists by the great theologian Shankara in public debates, as well as on the supposedly characteristic tendency of Hinduism, or rather Brahmanism, to absorb its opponents; and, finally, secular and political histories, which emphasize the withdrawal of royal patronage from Buddhism and, later, the Muslim invasions which had the effect of driving into extinction an already debilitated faith.
Turning our attention to what I have described as sectarian histories, it is generally conceded that the Buddhist clergy paid insufficient attention to its laity. Buddhist mendicants kept their distance from non-mendicants, and as scholars of Buddhism have noted, no manual for the conduct of the laity was produced until the 11th century. Non-mendicants may not have felt particularly invested in their religion, and as the venues where the mendicants and non-mendicants intersected gradually disappeared, the laity might have felt distanced from the faith. The contrast, in this respect, with Jainism is marked. Some scholars have also emphasized the narrative of decay and corruption within a faith where the monks had come to embrace a rather easy-going and even indolent lifestyle, quite mindless of the Buddha’s insistence on aparigraha, or non-possession. The Buddhist monasteries are sometimes described as repositories of great wealth.
The secular and political histories adopt rather different arguments. It has been argued that royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions. Under the Kushanas, indeed even under the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage, but as Brahmanism veered off, so to speak, into Vaishnavism and Saivism, and regional kingdoms developed into the major sites of power, Buddhism began to suffer a decline. The itinerant Buddhist monk, if one may put it this way, gave way to forms of life less more conducive to settled agriculture. The Palas of Bengal, though they had been hospitable to Vaishnavism and Saivism, were nonetheless major supporters of Buddhism. However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223), Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was pushed out -- towards Tibet.
Though Buddhism had already entered into something of a decline by the time of Hsuan Tsang’s visit to India during the reign of Harsha of Kanauj in the early seventh century, it has also been argued that its further demise, particularly in the early part of the second millennium AD, was hastened by the arrival of Islam. On this view, Buddhism found competition in Islam for converts among low-caste Hindus. Even Ambedkar, whose animosity towards Hinduism is palpable, was nonetheless firmly of the view that Islam dealt Buddhism a death blow. As he was to put it, “brahmanism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders could look to the rulers for support and sustenance and get it. Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders had no such hope. It was uncared for orphan and it withered in the cold blast of the native rulers and was consumed in the fire lit up by the conquerors.” Ambedkar was quite certain that this was “the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India.” We thus find Ambekdar embracing the “sword of Islam thesis”: “The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained alive to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.” [3] There are, of course, many problems with this view. The “sword of Islam” thesis remains controversial, at best, and many reputable historians are inclined to dismiss it outright. Islam was, moreover, a late entrant into India, and Buddhism was showing unmistakable signs of its decline long before Islam became established in the Gangetic plains, central India, and the northern end of present-day Andhra and Karnataka.
Many narrative accounts of Buddhism’s decline and eventual disappearance from the land of its faith have been focused on Buddhism’s relations with Hinduism or Brahmanism. Nearly 20 years ago the historian S. R. Goyal wrote that "according to
many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India." The Saivite king, Shashanka, invariably appears in such histories as a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists, though the single original source for all subsequent narratives about Shashanka’s ruinous conduct towards Buddhists remains Hsuan Tsang. Shashanka is reported to have destroyed the Bodhi tree and ordered the destruction of Buddhist images. Hindu nationalists appear to think that many Muslim monuments were once Hindu temples, but partisans of Buddhism are inclined to the view that Hindu temples were often built on the site of Buddhist shrines.
If some scholars focus on outright persecution, others speak of a long process during which Buddhist practices became absorbed into Hinduism. The doctrine of ahimsa may have originated with the Buddha, and certainly found its greatest exposition in the Buddha’s teachings, but by the second half of the 1st millennium AD it had become part of Hindu teachings. The great Brahmin philosopher, Shankaracharya (c. 788-820 AD), is said to have engaged the Buddhists in public debates and each time he emerged triumphant. Monastic practices had once been unknown in Brahminism, but over time this changed. Shankaracharya himself established maths or monasteries at Badrinath in the north, Dwarka in the west, Sringeri in the south, and Puri in the east. The Buddha had, as is commonly noticed, been transformed into an avatara (descent) of Vishnu. The tendency of Hinduism to absorb rival faiths has been commented upon by many, though one could speak equally of the elements from other faiths that have gone into the making of Hinduism. Was Buddha absorbed into the Hindu pantheon so that Buddhism might become defanged, or is it the case that Buddhism stood for certain values that Hinduism was eager to embrace as its own?
Though many Dalit and other anti-Brahminical writers would like to represent Brahminism as a tyrannical faith that wrought massive destruction upon the Buddhists [see www.dalistan.org], the matter is more complicated. A recent study of the Bengal Puranas indubitably shows that the Buddhists were mocked, cast as mischievous and malicious in Brahminical narratives, and subjected to immense rhetorical violence. But rhetorical violence is not necessarily to be read as physical violence perpetrated upon the Buddhists, any more than accounts of thousands of Hindu temples destroyed at the hands of Muslim invaders are to be read literally. Similarly, the absorption of the Buddha into Vishnu’s pantheon may have represented something of a compromise between the Brahmins and Buddhists: since so much of what Buddhism stood for had been incorporated into certain strands of Brahminism, the Buddha was at least to be given his just dues. This anxiety of absorption continues down to the present day, and one of the more curious expressions of this anxiety must surely be a letter from the All India Bhikkhu Sangha to the-then Prime Minister of India, P. V. Narasimha Rao. In his letter of 23 February 1995, the President of the Sangha complained that the actor Arun Govil, who had played Rama in the TV serial Ramayana, had been chosen to play the Buddha in the TV serial by the same name. Could anyone really play the Buddha? “As you know,” the letter reminds Rao, “the Buddha was never a mythological figure as Rama & Hanuman but very much a historical figure.” [5] If nothing else, we might at least read the disappearance of Buddhism from India as a parable about how myth always outlives history.
-
Buddhism's disappearance from india was due to the spread of arab influences and hinduism.
_/\_
-
yes....besides such influences i.e. spread of Islam, the reasons can be multifactorial....with a key factor stems from political reasons and adoption....etc...
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
@Dawnfirstlight…..
//”Can someone write something about Buddhism in India? Reason being I was challenged by followers from other religion why Buddhism is not popular in India. They even questioned why Chinese believe in Buddhism whereas majority of the Indians don't believe in Buddhism. I told them it is because Buddha said everyone is equal but India has caste system, thus it is not easily accepted by the people there. I think that's the main reason.”//
The below article should answer your questions?
Buddhism’s Disappearance from India
Vinay Lal
One of the supreme ironies of the history of Buddhism in India is the question of how Buddhism came to disappear from the land of its birth. Many scholars of Buddhism, Hinduism, Indian history, and of religion more generally have been devoted to unraveling this puzzle. There is no absolute consensus on this matter, and a few scholars have even contended that Buddhism never disappeared as such from India. On this view, Buddhism simply changed form, or was absorbed into Hindu practices. Such an argument is, in fact, a variation of the view, which perhaps has more adherents than any other, that Buddhism disappeared, not on account of persecution by Hindus, but because of the ascendancy of reformed Hinduism. However, the view that Buddhists were persecuted by Brahmins, who were keen to assert their caste supremacy, still has some adherents, and in recent years has been championed not only by some Dalit writers and their sympathizers but by at least a handful of scholars of pre-modern Indian history. [1]
What is not disputed is the gradual decline of Buddhism in India, as the testimony of the Chinese traveler, Hsuan Tsang, amply demonstrates. Though Buddhism had been the dominant religion in much of the Gangetic plains in the early part of the Christian era, Hsuan Tsang, traveling in India in the early years of the 7th century, witnessed something quite different. In Prayag, or Allahabad as it is known to many, Hsuan Tsang encountered mainly heretics, or non-Buddhists, but that is not surprising given the importance of Prayag as a pilgrimage site for Brahmins. But, even in Sravasti, the capital city of the Lichhavis, a north Indian clan that came to power around 200 AD, established their capital in Pasupathinath, and in a long and glorious period of reign extending through the early part of the ninth century endowed a large number of both Hindu and Buddhist monuments and monasteries, Hsuan Tsang witnessed a much greater number of “Hindus” (ie, non-Buddhists, such as Jains and Saivites) than Buddhists. Kusinagar, the small village some 52 kilometres from Gorakhpur where the Buddha had gone into mahaparinirvana, was in a rather dilapidated state and Hsuan Tsang found few Buddhists. In Varanasi, to be sure, Hsuan Tsang found some 3000 Bhikkus or Buddhist monks, but they were outshadowed by more than 10,000 non-Buddhists. There is scarcely any question that Hsuan Tsang arrived in India at a time when Buddhism was entering into a state of precipitous decline, and by the 13th century Buddhism, as a formal religion, had altogether disappeared from India. [2] But even as Buddhism went into decline, it is remarkable that the great seat of Buddhist learning, Nalanda, continued to flourish, retaining its importance until the Muslim invasions of the second millennium. Moreover, it is from Nalanda that Padmasambhava carried Buddhism to Tibet in the eighth century. Consequently, even the story of Buddhism in India cannot be unequivocally written in a single register of decline.
To consider the question somewhat more systematically, we might wish to consider in serial order the various reasons advanced for Buddhism’s decline and disappearance from India. The various arguments can be grouped under the following headings: sectarian and internal histories, focusing on schisms within the Buddhist faith, the widening differences between the clergy, Bhikkus, and laity, and the growing corruption within the sangha; histories focused on Buddhism’s relations with Brahmanism, dwelling on the alleged persecution of Buddhists by Brahmins, the defeat of the Buddhists by the great theologian Shankara in public debates, as well as on the supposedly characteristic tendency of Hinduism, or rather Brahmanism, to absorb its opponents; and, finally, secular and political histories, which emphasize the withdrawal of royal patronage from Buddhism and, later, the Muslim invasions which had the effect of driving into extinction an already debilitated faith.
Turning our attention to what I have described as sectarian histories, it is generally conceded that the Buddhist clergy paid insufficient attention to its laity. Buddhist mendicants kept their distance from non-mendicants, and as scholars of Buddhism have noted, no manual for the conduct of the laity was produced until the 11th century. Non-mendicants may not have felt particularly invested in their religion, and as the venues where the mendicants and non-mendicants intersected gradually disappeared, the laity might have felt distanced from the faith. The contrast, in this respect, with Jainism is marked. Some scholars have also emphasized the narrative of decay and corruption within a faith where the monks had come to embrace a rather easy-going and even indolent lifestyle, quite mindless of the Buddha’s insistence on aparigraha, or non-possession. The Buddhist monasteries are sometimes described as repositories of great wealth.
The secular and political histories adopt rather different arguments. It has been argued that royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions. Under the Kushanas, indeed even under the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage, but as Brahmanism veered off, so to speak, into Vaishnavism and Saivism, and regional kingdoms developed into the major sites of power, Buddhism began to suffer a decline. The itinerant Buddhist monk, if one may put it this way, gave way to forms of life less more conducive to settled agriculture. The Palas of Bengal, though they had been hospitable to Vaishnavism and Saivism, were nonetheless major supporters of Buddhism. However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223), Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was pushed out -- towards Tibet.
Though Buddhism had already entered into something of a decline by the time of Hsuan Tsang’s visit to India during the reign of Harsha of Kanauj in the early seventh century, it has also been argued that its further demise, particularly in the early part of the second millennium AD, was hastened by the arrival of Islam. On this view, Buddhism found competition in Islam for converts among low-caste Hindus. Even Ambedkar, whose animosity towards Hinduism is palpable, was nonetheless firmly of the view that Islam dealt Buddhism a death blow. As he was to put it, “brahmanism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders could look to the rulers for support and sustenance and get it. Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders had no such hope. It was uncared for orphan and it withered in the cold blast of the native rulers and was consumed in the fire lit up by the conquerors.” Ambedkar was quite certain that this was “the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India.” We thus find Ambekdar embracing the “sword of Islam thesis”: “The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained alive to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.” [3] There are, of course, many problems with this view. The “sword of Islam” thesis remains controversial, at best, and many reputable historians are inclined to dismiss it outright. Islam was, moreover, a late entrant into India, and Buddhism was showing unmistakable signs of its decline long before Islam became established in the Gangetic plains, central India, and the northern end of present-day Andhra and Karnataka.
Many narrative accounts of Buddhism’s decline and eventual disappearance from the land of its faith have been focused on Buddhism’s relations with Hinduism or Brahmanism. Nearly 20 years ago the historian S. R. Goyal wrote that "according to
many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India." The Saivite king, Shashanka, invariably appears in such histories as a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists, though the single original source for all subsequent narratives about Shashanka’s ruinous conduct towards Buddhists remains Hsuan Tsang. Shashanka is reported to have destroyed the Bodhi tree and ordered the destruction of Buddhist images. Hindu nationalists appear to think that many Muslim monuments were once Hindu temples, but partisans of Buddhism are inclined to the view that Hindu temples were often built on the site of Buddhist shrines.
If some scholars focus on outright persecution, others speak of a long process during which Buddhist practices became absorbed into Hinduism. The doctrine of ahimsa may have originated with the Buddha, and certainly found its greatest exposition in the Buddha’s teachings, but by the second half of the 1st millennium AD it had become part of Hindu teachings. The great Brahmin philosopher, Shankaracharya (c. 788-820 AD), is said to have engaged the Buddhists in public debates and each time he emerged triumphant. Monastic practices had once been unknown in Brahminism, but over time this changed. Shankaracharya himself established maths or monasteries at Badrinath in the north, Dwarka in the west, Sringeri in the south, and Puri in the east. The Buddha had, as is commonly noticed, been transformed into an avatara (descent) of Vishnu. The tendency of Hinduism to absorb rival faiths has been commented upon by many, though one could speak equally of the elements from other faiths that have gone into the making of Hinduism. Was Buddha absorbed into the Hindu pantheon so that Buddhism might become defanged, or is it the case that Buddhism stood for certain values that Hinduism was eager to embrace as its own?
Though many Dalit and other anti-Brahminical writers would like to represent Brahminism as a tyrannical faith that wrought massive destruction upon the Buddhists [see www.dalistan.org], the matter is more complicated. A recent study of the Bengal Puranas indubitably shows that the Buddhists were mocked, cast as mischievous and malicious in Brahminical narratives, and subjected to immense rhetorical violence. But rhetorical violence is not necessarily to be read as physical violence perpetrated upon the Buddhists, any more than accounts of thousands of Hindu temples destroyed at the hands of Muslim invaders are to be read literally. Similarly, the absorption of the Buddha into Vishnu’s pantheon may have represented something of a compromise between the Brahmins and Buddhists: since so much of what Buddhism stood for had been incorporated into certain strands of Brahminism, the Buddha was at least to be given his just dues. This anxiety of absorption continues down to the present day, and one of the more curious expressions of this anxiety must surely be a letter from the All India Bhikkhu Sangha to the-then Prime Minister of India, P. V. Narasimha Rao. In his letter of 23 February 1995, the President of the Sangha complained that the actor Arun Govil, who had played Rama in the TV serial Ramayana, had been chosen to play the Buddha in the TV serial by the same name. Could anyone really play the Buddha? “As you know,” the letter reminds Rao, “the Buddha was never a mythological figure as Rama & Hanuman but very much a historical figure.” [5] If nothing else, we might at least read the disappearance of Buddhism from India as a parable about how myth always outlives history.
Thanks for sharing. From the article above, can tell that there are many factors that contributed to Buddhism's disappearance from India. Hope that people will read it and stop using Buddhism's disappearance from India to make Buddhists lose their faith in Buddhism.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Hope that people will read it and stop using Buddhism's disappearance from India to make Buddhists lose their faith in Buddhism.
But it flourished in China.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 1941:
But it flourished in China.
Yeah. There are people who are trying to "shake" our faith by saying why we Chinese believe in Buddhism whereas majority of the Indians are not Buddhists. To me, I don't bother what majority people believe in, I believe what I strongly believe is the Truth.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Yeah. There are people who are trying to "shake" our faith by saying why we Chinese believe in Buddhism whereas majority of the Indians are not Buddhists. To me, I don't bother what majority people believe in, I believe what I strongly believe is the Truth.
ha... treat those people as test questions to gain deeper understanding
my pov is... there are people who have misunderstandings and distorted views on buddhism... which are easy targets to convert them... sad to say this.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
ha... treat those people as test questions to gain deeper understandingmy pov is... there are people who have misunderstandings and distorted views on buddhism... which are easy targets to convert them... sad to say this.
Perhaps a prophet will be despised in his town. Perhaps the point of original should understand better... But I don't understand Buddhism to say...
-
Imao .. still blame arab/muslim influences, hinduism influences, political influences, society decay, etc...or multiple angle factors contributing to this v. super complex question... lolololol for buddhism poof disappearances from india, where it did take root and flourish enormously!! Spread to China? Yeah. Don't know you China so many warring states, so many wars... When I look into history, I can't really credit historical china (w/ buddhism influence) is comparatively speaking better in morality to other countries (w/o buddhism influence). Just like communism is a fail that have good ideals nevertheless. Buddhism is the saame. It is a spirtuality that try to make people feel good ... when it becomes it cannot culturally integrated into society, it just poof. Because no one is actually doing the ideals, they wanna to feel that they are good people and very enlightened lah... lololol. Frankly speaking Buddhism disappearance act from India is No.1. Compared to christianity, persecuted and then persecuted also still survive. I have to give credits to christianity that it does win on surviality ... sorry i should repharse .. they win on hallucination... ahaha..
-
its like asking why Middle East become strongly Muslim instead of Jewish or Christian
or why South Americans are largely Catholic
or that Europeans are slowly become agnostic or atheists
you can trace thousands of reasons for last 2000 years, then merely 'why Indians arent Buddhists and Chinese are?"
-
It is inevitable that Buddhism will be wiped out in India when the aggressor has no qualm in killing non-believer. If you are a buddhist who understand the precept "Do not Kill", what will you do? Defend your faith by killing your aggressor? Anyway, when I travel to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh --all places where Buddhism used to flourish, I have never seen such misery and human suffering. It is endless cycle of poverty and violence in all these countries. Well, all these people who are descendants who rejected or abused Buddhism are suffering now..Karma has a way of working we never understand.. Who know the earlier buddhists in India who are killed are now rebirth into a better place !
-
those whose faith are shaken just be historical past are not real believer ,those who faith are not shaken are rooted believer of their religion
singapore is historical part of malaysia ,so singapore should go back to malaysia ?
what logic ?
Enter the mandala world and realise your world of unseen truth in Buddhism
-
Originally posted by bohiruci:
those whose faith are shaken just be historical past are not real believer ,those who faith are not shaken are rooted believer of their religion
singapore is historical part of malaysia ,so singapore should go back to malaysia ?
what logic ?
Enter the mandala world and realise your world of unseen truth in Buddhism
Yeah, agree with you. I'd seen the testimonials of those so called "ex-Buddhist" converts. They don't even understand the basic Buddhism.
-
I believe if one gets into Buddhism to seek release from stress and suffering, than one’s faith should not be shaken. That should be the right reason getting involved in Buddhism itself.
-
Why buddhism disappear from India and flourish in China?
Because at that time, the land that is now known as India are a few smaller countries that is not strong enough to fight against the Arab invaders. So, they quickly lose out.
But China was big and united, the Arab invaders is not strong enough to attack China or Tibet which was under China protection. That's why.
The question now is, why only buddhism disappear from India, while hinduism remain?
There are many reasons behind, one is because buddhist at that time focus too much on renunciation, they give up on wordly things, and stay in forest for meditation for many years until very few able to spread the dharma to the people and the king. That's why when hsuan zang fashi come to India, buddhism already in declining stage.
While in China, when buddhism starts to spread in China, mahayana (in layman's term, save self as well as others) already take its root there, people not just practice themselves, but also go and spread dharma for the sake of others, that's why it can flourish so well and for so long. -
Originally posted by TrueReppuzan:
Spread to China? Yeah. Don’t know you China so many warring states, so many wars… When I look into history, I can’t really credit historical china (w/ buddhism influence) is comparatively speaking better in morality to other countries (w/o buddhism influence).
Just like communism is a fail that have good ideals nevertheless. Buddhism is the saame. It is a spirtuality that try to make people feel good … when it becomes it cannot culturally integrated into society, it just poof. Because no one is actually doing the ideals, they wanna to feel that they are good people and very enlightened lah… lololol.
Frankly speaking Buddhism disappearance act from India is No.1. Compared to christianity, persecuted and then persecuted also still survive. I have to give credits to christianity that it does win on surviality … sorry i should repharse .. they win on hallucination… ahaha..
History shows that buddhism is the only religion that don't use force to convert other country to buddhism.
In our society, every now and then, we can hear christian defame buddhism in public talk and recorded in youtube etc. Even now, you yourself has come to this forum for a challenge.
There are many known war recorded in ancient China because China traditionally like to record every single detail in history. But the war are usually within China itself and not to other countries like other countries do.
Obviously your history has failed. -
like any consumer products, consumer buy what they think is easy, easy to understand, easy to use and attractive.
buddha knew the dharma he realized was so profound and subtle that at first, he did not even want to teach anyone because he thought nobody would understand. it was only after exercising his powers to survey the world that he discovered that there was indeed people who had the faculties to understand it.
rather than "gaining enlightenment, realizing emptiness, four noble truths" etc, christianity is more simple. believe, and you go heaven. dont believe, you go hell. oh and there miracles too.
these promises are appealing and simple - you dont need to practice years of meditation and you have some assurance. so it is popular.
but does popular and mainstream mean true, correct, or complete? that is another question.
likewise, hinduism was able to appeal to more people with their big host of gods to worship, just like taoism and ancestor worship with their promises of worldly benefits from the gods, may appeal to some people as it too was a simple and appealing practice. and this is why vajrayana introduced skillful means like worshipping deities and bodhisattvas for worldly favors. these are easier to understand and more immediately attractive to majority of people. then gradually introduce them to the profound and liberating teachings of buddhism. if you introduce the profound in the beginning, they may not be receptive or interested or understand them.
and if you explain four noble truths eightfold path meditation etc or even emptiness, to your grandma, they may not understand. the most they may follow your advise to do chanting.
on a deeper level... nowadays awareness teachings of advaita vedanta of hinduism and the likes are more popular than buddhist teachings on no-self and emptiness. awareness teachings are easier to grasp, appealing, and practical. just see how popular and mainstream the books of eckhart tolle have become.
on the other hand, because no-self, emptiness, dependent origination is more subtle and profound, fewer people know about it and experience it. even in buddhism few people actually have direct realization of it, which is sad. truly and deeply realized beings are hard to find. yet it is crucial to have direct realization of such for true liberation from samsara.
that is why everybody should strive for profound wisdom and ultimate liberation. know the true way and practice. simple, popular, mainstream and appealing does not mean true and complete.
as greg goode noted here (i dont think this article is really well written though, it is missing something):
http://www.emptiness.co/adv_to_empt#realization
Where to study the teachings Awareness teachings.
Awareness teachings are very easy to find these days. There are satsangs, retreats, workshops, conferences, FaceBook, Google+, portal sites, networks of friends, and many personal websites. And, of course, there are quite a few books and some publishers specializing in these teachings.
Emptiness teachings. As I write this in January 2012, emptiness teachings are much harder to come by. One must usually attend teachings at a Buddhist dharma center, and then not all dharma centers have classes in emptiness. Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist centers may have emptiness classes, but sometimes these classes are given only in the Tibetan or Chinese languages. There are some classes in Madhyamika or Buddhist philosophy taught in colleges and universities. And sometimes professors will offer public, non-academic seminars. As for writings, when one includes the Western varieties of what we're calling emptiness teachings (which include various kinds of non-essentialist areas of culture), then there are writings that number in the thousands. Depending on the author (whether Eastern or Western), the reading can be quite challenging.
...
Awareness teachings. In the awareness teachings, it is quite common to talk about one's own realization or other aspects of one's spiritual state. Often this is part of a teacher's teachings. “I did it; you can too.”
Emptiness teachings. In the emptiness teachings, this is rarely heard, if ever. Buddhist teachers may talk about the realization of someone in the past, and you might hear how difficult and earth-shattering this realization is. But people tend not to talk about their own case. At least I have never heard it. In over 15 years of studying these teachings, working with teachers, visiting temples and monasteries, and reading thousands pages of emptiness teachings, I can't recall even one time that someone said, “Back when I directly realized emptiness....”
-
buddha said the dispensation will disappear when a counterfeit dharma has arisen
this means teachings degenerate, and people no longer practice the true teachings
e.g. "Some scholars have also emphasized the narrative of decay and corruption within a faith where the monks had come to embrace a rather easy-going and even indolent lifestyle, quite mindless of the Buddha’s insistence on aparigraha, or non-possession. The Buddhist monasteries are sometimes described as repositories of great wealth."
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
buddha said the dispensation will disappear when a counterfeit dharma has arisen
this means teachings degenerate, and people no longer practice the true teachings
e.g. "Some scholars have also emphasized the narrative of decay and corruption within a faith where the monks had come to embrace a rather easy-going and even indolent lifestyle, quite mindless of the Buddha’s insistence on aparigraha, or non-possession. The Buddhist monasteries are sometimes described as repositories of great wealth."
Was reading the link posted by Dawnfirstlight in another thread on the ‘Karmapa’s Sacred Prediction Letter’ and the ‘Karmapa Controversy’ and how it has lead to the creation of the existence of two 17th Karmapa of the Karma Kagyu lineage. One, Ogyen Trinley Dorje recognized by both the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government presently residing in Dharmasala, and the other, declared by the Shamar Rinpoche as the ‘real’ 17th Karmapa residing in Rumtek monastery in Sikkim.
The asset of the sect is supposed to pass on death of the previous Karmapa to the next Karmapa. I read an article that the asset of the Karma Kagyu linkage is worth 1.2 Billion dollars. That could be one good reason why the Shamar Rinpoche is refusing to give up control of Rumtek monastery and nominated his own Karmapa instead. He is also the nephew of the last Karmapa. All this has lead to a split and confusion in the lineage and it seems there is nothing any one could do about the whole situation. It is certainly not good for the Faith in particular.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n79erzOJE6k
I'd watched the above interesting video clip "What is God? What is Buddha" and shared it with my friends who are free thinkers. They love to watch this video clip as they like Tsem Rinpoche's approach in addressing the issue. It is humans who degenerate the religions. Just ask ourselves if there is a quick fix to our problems, why are there 10 commandments and 5 or 8 precepts to follow. Living is already not easy, I believe after life is more complex than living. Choosing the easy way out is just self deceiving.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
The asset of the sect is supposed to pass on death of the previous Karmapa to the next Karmapa. I read an article that the asset of the Karma Kagyu linkage is worth 1.2 Billion dollars. That could be one good reason why the Shamar Rinpoche is refusing to give up control of Rumtek monastery and nominated his own Karmapa instead. He is also the nephew of the last Karmapa. All this has lead to a split and confusion in the lineage and it seems there is nothing any one could do about the whole situation. It is certainly not good for the Faith in particular.
I think you should be careful about how you are writing. Your statement above sounds like a speculative slander of Shamar Rinpoche's character. I would like to remind you that he is also a sangha member and besides, in Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's mirror divination of Dorje Yudronma, it has been predicted that Shamar Rinpoche will reach the final level of Mahamudra realisation in this life (non-meditation yoga).. this prediction was made when Shamar Rinpoche was still very young and before the whole affair started, therefore it is impartial and most of the part of the prediction have come to pass. Therefore potentially you are impugning the character of a bodhisattva on the high bhumis. This may create future obstacles for you on your path. Please be careful in future.
-
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:
I think you should be careful about how you are writing. Your statement above sounds like a speculative slander of Shamar Rinpoche's character. I would like to remind you that he is also a sangha member and besides, in Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's mirror divination of Dorje Yudronma, it has been predicted that Shamar Rinpoche will reach the final level of Mahamudra realisation in this life (non-meditation yoga).. this prediction was made when Shamar Rinpoche was still very young and before the whole affair started, therefore it is impartial and most of the part of the prediction have come to pass. Therefore potentially you are impugning the character of a bodhisattva on the high bhumis. This may create future obstacles for you on your path. Please be careful in future.
Thanks for your advice. Certainly have no intention whatsoever of trying to slander a member of the Sangha. By the way, you may have heard of the below prophecy by the 5th Karmapa on the 17th lineage issue.
At the end of the time of the Sixteenth in the rosary of Karmapa
And at the beginning of the time of the 17th,An incarnation of a demon (lit. "samaya-breaker")
One with the name Na-tha (also, a "relative," spec. "nephew")
Will arise in this seat, Sacho. By the power of the person's perverted aspirations,
The Karmapa lineage will be near destruction.At that time, one having true aspirations from a previous life,
A heart emanation of Padmasambhava,
From the Western direction,
One with a necklace of moles, fierce and wrathful,
Whose mouth speaks wrathful speech,
Having dark maroon colour and eyes protruding.
This one will subdue the incarnation of the samaya breaker,
He will protect Tibet and Kham for a while.
At that time happiness, like beholding the sun
In Tibet this will occur, I think.Without this, even if karmically virtuous ones come
The dharma will wane downwards,
As fruit of the negative aspirations of the demon.
It will be difficult for happiness to arise.From the center the king of the center will be defiled
The emanation of a demon, an officer of high rank, coming from Kong,
Will disturb the center and destroy the center's domain.
Many outsiders not existing before, [Not knowing] what has arisen, will conceal.The beings of the degenerate times, will be seduced by the demon.
Not having faith in Dharma, will become full of suffering.
Upper, lower and middle, in all three regions,
Blood of disturbances and arguments will rain.
From quarrels, disturbances and debates,
There will be no place of peace even for awhile.
Except for this poor and busy state
There will be no place for riches and leisure
Except for these very tormented fetters,
There is no liberty.Three precious ones, the three roots and the Dharma protectors,
It is not that they don't have compassion.
Due to the Karma of beings and the power of aspirations of the demon,
A time will arrive of a downward decrease.
At that time the Secret Lineage Dharma,
Will have more power and bring swift blessings. -
I simply accept HH Karmapa Thaye Thrinley Dorje as Karmarpa spiritual leader, because my refuge guru Shangpa Rinpoche accepts him as spiritual leader. He in return, was asked by the 16th karmarpa to put his faith on Sharmapa Rinpoche. I have no problem in anyone accepting the other Karmapa as the real Karmarpa. I feel the real blessings come from the Dharma activities generated by both is more important and who we accept is due to our affinity with them. HE Beru Khenste Rinpoche says it is possible that both of them are Karmarpas! What is damaging is the the dissension caused by bickering over which Karmarpa is real! Another thing, the HH Dalai Lama for all his status as spiritual leader for Tibetans, has no bearing on deciding who is Karmarpa, because no.1, the he not from Karma Kagyrud, he even not the spiritual head of Geludpa sect, I think Ganden Tripa is, though I may stand to be corrected on this point, no.2, Karmarpa is the first lineage the precedes all the other tulku lineages. Thus in identifying tulkus, Karmarpa probably has more authority than the Dalai Lama, no disrespect intended!
-
Also, the day one karmarpa bows in reverential salutation is the day we know really the true Karmarpa is! In the meantime, we shall practice our Dharma and find inner peace within ourselves!
-
@Weychin……
I feel the real blessings come from the Dharma activities generated by both is more important and who we accept is due to our affinity with them.
Yes, I think this is a better way at looking at the whole issue instead of the bickering over who is the real Karmapa.