Buddhism in India

drkrn

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
2,455
Likes
902
Adi Shakaracharya not only defeated Buddhists but also many other sects and brought them back to sanatan dharma.
Philosophical tour





Sharada temple at Sringeri Sharada Peetham, Sringeri
Adi Shankara then travelled with his disciples to Maharashtra and Srisailam. In Srisailam, he composed Shivanandalahari, a devotional hymn in praise of Shiva. The Madhaviya Shankaravijayam says that when Shankara was about to be sacrificed by a Kapalika, the god Narasimha appeared to save Shankara in response to Padmapadacharya's prayer to him. As a result, Adi Shankara composed the Laksmi-Narasimha stotra.[29]





Sarvajna Peetha, on Kodachadri peak, near Kollur where Adi Shankara is believed to have meditated
He then travelled to Gokarṇa, the temple of Hari-Shankara and the Mūkambika temple at Kollur. At Kollur, he accepted as his disciple a boy believed to be dumb by his parents. He gave him the name, Hastāmalakācārya ("one with the amalaka fruit on his palm", i.e., one who has clearly realised the Self). Next, he visited sringeri to establish the Śārada Pīṭham and made Sureśvarācārya his disciple.[30]

After this, Adi Shankara began a Dig-vijaya "tour of conquest" for the propagation of the Advaita philosophy by controverting all philosophies opposed to it. He travelled throughout India, from South India to Kashmir and Nepal, preaching to the local populace and debating philosophy with Hindu, Buddhist and other scholars and monks along the way.

With the Malayali King Sudhanva as companion, Shankara passed through Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Vidarbha. He then started towards Karnataka where he encountered a band of armed Kapalikas. King Sudhanva, with his Nairs, resisted and defeated the Kapalikas. They safely reached Gokarna where Shankara defeated in debate the Shaiva scholar, Neelakanta.

Proceeding to Saurashtra (the ancient Kambhoja) and having visited the shrines of Girnar, Somnath and Prabhasa and explaining the superiority of Vedanta in all these places, he arrived at Dwarka. Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara of Ujjayini, the proponent of Bhedābeda philosophy, was humbled. All the scholars of Ujjayini (also known as Avanti) accepted Adi Shankara's philosophy.

He then defeated the Jainas in philosophical debates at a place called Bahlika. Thereafter, the Acharya established his victory over several philosophers and ascetics in Kamboja (region of North Kashmir), Darada and many regions situated in the desert and crossing mighty peaks, entered Kashmir. Later, he had an encounter with a tantrik, Navagupta at Kamarupa.[31]

Adi Shankara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can do some more net search and will find some very very interesting facts about Adi Shankaracharya.
all i knew was a philosophical debate in which adi sankaracharya was the winner.never heard that losers converted in to hinduism.
 

Decklander

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
2,654
Likes
4,106
Adi Sakaracharya is revered for having reconverted people by use of just dharm dwandh without the use of force or sword.
 

afako

Hindufying India
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
2,919
Likes
13,319
Country flag
Buddh Dharma is like a branch of the tree called Santana Dharma (Hinduism). Jain Dharma and Sikh Dharma are also roots of the same tree.
 

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,411
Buddh Dharma is like a branch of the tree called Santana Dharma (Hinduism). Jain Dharma and Sikh Dharma are also roots of the same tree.
IMO Buddhism is one of the roots' of what we know as Hinduism today.
 

aerokan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,024
Likes
817
Country flag
Any religion which preaches extremes will fail eventually and get out of existence however strong it may look in a given time.

Buddhism takes it to the other extreme compared to our friendly 'religion of peace'.
 

nirranj

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
928
Likes
790
Country flag
Buddhism is a renaissance movement in Hinduism. Buddha never said he is founder of a new religion. Whatever buddha preached are only to refine Indian way of Living (Hinduism) and the society took what it wanted in the end and a refined Hinnduism prevailed in the end.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
6,049
Likes
11,091
Country flag
It didn't fail, its just that the notion of a 'different religion' as desired by some power hungry monks did not pick ground.

Most Hindus maybe don't directly worship in our temples, but more Hindus attend our temples than our own people themselves.

Except of Mahayana and Vajrayana sect which share a lot from mainstream Hindu philosophy, other forms became corrupted forms and slowly became institutionalized (though Sri Lankans and Ambedkarites will refute this), therefore it did not survive that wave.

I for one don't see Hindus as different from our kind as we emerged as a result and with the intention to reduce the differentiation and some autocracy in Hindu stream in those days. But never to challenge them the way Ambedkarite worshippers claim.

One more thing;

Buddhism is NOT a religion; the English language doesn't have a word for dharma as it was centered around Christianity/Judaism/anti-Islamic etc views which limit one's natural thinking and establish dogmas of 'so and so' religion.

Just like all the other lied ísms, the colonials used it to weaken a common structure. Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain etc were never different. They were different branching philosophies but were never different.

I don't understand why many ignorant Indians refuse to recognize this.
 
Last edited:

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,160
Likes
20,977
Country flag
Last edited by a moderator:

ericliang313

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
32
Likes
18
It's a shame that it did, I honestly believe that India's relations with China - and all of Asia, in fact - would be considerably stronger if India had a wider Buddhist following today.
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,302
Country flag
Buddhism was never a majority 'religion' in India. Only the imperial patronage by Ashoka gave it a boost. Buddhism managed to take roots in other cultures because it provides fine philosophical and social structures through the developments that were developed in India. But, there was no such advantage in India itself because here these developments were already in place through various traditions of 'Hinduism'. Thus the competition was stiiff and Buddhism didn't survive it. Though it survived as a minority tradition in the northern plains till 12th century and was finally wiped out by the Jihadi destruction that took place at the end of 12th century. It would have survived if it had even a single strong center in the south, but it didn't so it didn't. The Indian Mahaayaana tradition was also lost in the south east Asia. Theravaada Buddhism took over in Kambuja and champaa, while Java was islamised.
It clearly was a major religion in India.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,565
It's a shame that it did, I honestly believe that India's relations with China - and all of Asia, in fact - would be considerably stronger if India had a wider Buddhist following today.
I think the same. However, Buddhism has made a comeback in India since the 1950s. Most Indian Buddhists nowadays are Dalits (untouchables) who refuse to associate with "Hinduism". There are around 8 million Indian Buddhists today.

You might find these links interesting:
Dalit Buddhist movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
B. R. Ambedkar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,565
Adi Shakaracharya not only defeated Buddhists but also many other sects and brought them back to sanatan dharma.
"Hindus" can't win any debates even in the 21st century. What makes you think they could defeat Buddhists in intellectual debates 1200 years ago?

I am not a Buddhist, but I can see that Buddhism is far more rational than "Hinduism". At best, people like Shankara might have convinced kings and political elites to patronize Brahmanical cults instead of Buddhism. It was due primarily to the diversion of royal patronage from Buddhism to Brahmanism that the former stopped being a major force in India (until being revived by Ambedkar).
 

pkroyal

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
545
Likes
721
India / Hindustan / Bharat is an interesting land mass.
Spiritually advanced ( read Macaulay's letter to British Parliament) & culturally vibrant.

No single religion can satisfy the spiritual quest of its masses.

Despite nearly 500 plus years of Islamic rule only about 17 % of the population in India practices this religion.
whereas where ever Islamic rulers have invaded, Islam became the majority religion (whether by threat, inducements or plain conversion because of its supposed goodness). Islam started from Saudi Arabia, spread to Iraq, Iran, Turkey, till Afghanistan. Even in Indonesia & Malaysia Islam is practiced by the majority.

Spiritual liberty is what an Indian seeks, though four major religions of the world have emanated from this sacred land.

Within a Hindu household it is not uncommon to see the Father worshiping Lord Shiva, Mother Lord Sri krishna, Daughter Santoshi Mata or lord Ganapati & the son Lord Hanuman. The concept of innumerable devi - devtaa is " aham brahmasmi" I am myself the spiritual dimension / manifestation. No single religion whether it is Buddhism/ islam / Christianity or any other, can impress a person exposed to Hinduism with its inherent depth & luxury of self defining one's spiritual pursuit.
 

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
134
Buddhism failed in India because

1) It lacked Royal patronage later.

2) Muslim attack

3) Many Hindu rituals began to infiltrate into Buddhist religion such as Goddess Tara and Tantrikism.
 

Glint

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
273
Likes
187
I wouldn't say it failed. I would say it just didn't succeed the way it was suppose too.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
766
Country flag
I wonder if demographics played a part. Buddhisim was a protestant movement aimed at eradicating the social injustices plied upon the downtrodden masses by the elite minority. The Buddha realized that irrationality was the primary tool used/abused by the empowered minority to subjugate the disempowered majority. He then identified the roots of irrational thoughts and advocated categorical rejection of those beliefs. However in doing so I feel Buddhism fell victim to a self-induced paradox. IMO the very philosophical foundation of rejecting irrationality through intellectual equanimity is not very attractive to a target audience which is devoid of literacy and hope- which in India's case have always been the majority. The historically successful religious orders have always adopted four main mechanisms: 1. Belief in the supernatural, 2. Scriptural authority 3. Empowerment of a clergy class and 4. Emphasis on religious tasks over thought. Through these mechanisms a religious movement first creates a power dynamic in the society and then caters to both- the intellectual elite (largely through pseudo intellectualism) as well as the beleaguered masses. People who are illiterate, devoid of hope and or who have been systematically robbed of self-dignity over the course of eons tend to be addicted to irrational distractions like scriptural dictums, rituals, pilgrimages, festivals etc. because it provides emotional security and gives meaning to their lives. Any religious philosophy which rejects these aspects of life is bound to have a diminished appeal to competing philosophies which don't.
 
Last edited:

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
6,049
Likes
11,091
Country flag
It's a shame that it did, I honestly believe that India's relations with China - and all of Asia, in fact - would be considerably stronger if India had a wider Buddhist following today.
Correction.

If India was a Hindu nationalist single-party state (a nationalist version of CCP), then the relations would have been must stronger culturally yes.

Today's India is very British-like, a lot culturally marxist (the term meaning hating one's own culture and suppressing it), lazy, materialistic and internally self-damaging.

A Hindu nationalist single party state with leaders like our current PM from the beginning would have made us a global power by now and entire Asia would have been our allies (except islamic states).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top