Buddhism in India

maomao

Veteran Hunter of Maleecha
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
5,028
Likes
8,277
Country flag
Buddhism is still present in India, however bit subdued as Buddha is not popularly worshiped as 9th Avatar of Vishnu......Buddhist Hinduism got dented majorly due to Islamic invasions! But I see Budha idol now being again propping up in Vishnu temples especially where-ever Dashavatar are displayed!
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,407
Likes
7,041
Country flag
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
These are not Buddhists by choice but just Ambedkarites who consider him as a prophet and hate mainstream Hinduism. They are no different from the converted evangelicals and give a bad name to us Buddhists.

They defy the very teachings of rationale and balance in Buddh dharma. How can one blame entire Hindu civilization for casteism which was a social evil in the Indian society. Nowhere was it mentioned to torture dalits.

See all these dalit Buddhists, dalit Christians, dalit muslims etc are just political creations to divide India.

They should not exist technically.

Please read the book by a Mr. Rajiv Malhotra on BREAKING INDIA.

Today Buddhism in its real senses is well preserved only in the mountain states from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh in India. Unlike these Ambedkarite political creations, we still preserve our origin and are not ashamed of being associated with mainstream Hinduism. We proudly associate with you people and don't consider you any different.

The leading priests of Mahabodhi temple are Hindus. More Hindus from India visit the temple than all the Buddhists. :)


Any doubts you got, just listen to His Holiness Dalai Lama. Not only He clarifies our position but also is the founding member of World Hindu Council.

Please don't give us a bad name by accepting these bullshit politicized theories as 'Buddhism'.
 

Eesh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
393
Likes
166
Buddhism the one of the most prominent religion of the world has failed in India its birthplace.

1. It has failed to survive as a state religion.

2. It has failed to survive as a way of life and currently India has only 0.5 to 1 % buddhists here.

Buddhism was heavily propagated by one of the biggest Emperors of India and of the world Samrat Ashok.



But if you see now its presence in India is negligible . Some people say that it was extinguished from India because of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, some say that the Muslim invasion was responsible for it, but it doesn't appear like that because Chinese Buddhists are also turning atheists without any violence. Moreover mere violence can't kick a religion out of the practice, it must have some socio-economical and spiritual factors behind it. Swami Vivekanand said :-



There must be some other reasons except violence for this, What you guys say?
Therec were major causes of demise of Buddhism, IMO. One was loss of state sponsorship. Second was its unequal philosophical battle with Hinduism. It was made more difficult by Jain philosophers.

In fact Pushamitra was driven by the ruined state of the Magadh empire and overthrew it. He launched major reforms of economy as well as military.
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,446
Likes
661
Country flag
Following is an excerpt from the Book titled "Ashoka - The search of India's Lost Emperor" by Charles Allan

"Tucked away in this same account by Stirling is a reference to an enormous
stone pillar seen by him inside the Hindu temple of Bhaskareshvara in
Bhubaneshwar. It appeared to Stirling that the temple had been constructed
around the stone column, which he described as being forty feet high. When the
Bhaskareshvara lingam was next reported on, in the 1880s, it had shrunk to a
mere stump, rising no more than four feet in height. Its significance might have
been forgotten but for the discovery that would come in 1929 of the head and
shoulders of a stone lion in a pit just forty feet north of the Bhaskareshvara
temple, followed by the further recovery of a stone bell-capital and fragments of
a pillar temple from an old tank or reservoir two miles west of Bhaskareshvara.
These would add weight to the claim that all were parts of the same pillar, which
had once stood on the site now occupied by the Bhaskareshvara temple. The
sensitivities of the temple authorities have prevented the matter from being taken
any further."

This is a mere one single example of how Hinduism had taken over the Buddhist culture which had been flourishing and nourishing India for over a Millennia.

mod edit: flamebait removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,848
Likes
7,840
Country flag
@HeinzGud you can participate as long as you don't flame-bait. I merged your existing thread since it was pointlessly inflammatory
==
Now on topic:

I used to have a different view on this - that Buddhism was "reformist" and "rational" etc. This does not hold up to scrutiny. I feel most of this is came from a very orientalist interpretation of things. Then later folks like Karl Jaspers shoehorned Buddhism into his "Axial Age" theory

Reading actual philosophical texts changed my view. The main difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is independent origination vs dependent origination. All this extra caste, reform etc is fluff added by politically motivated historians. Hinduism says everything emanates from all pervading Brahman. Buddhism says everything depends on everything else, the nature of reality is shunyata i.e nothingness.

Sure Buddha probably challenged the traditional social order, but the followers of Buddhism were elites. It's a sophisticated philosophy, you can't expect the common folks to understand and appreciate it. Despite imperial patronage Buddhism was probably never a majority religion. The common people of India probably just continued following whatever were following earlier.
 
Last edited:

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,446
Likes
661
Country flag
@HeinzGud you can participate as long as you don't flame-bait. I merged your existing thread since it was pointlessly inflammatory
==
Now on topic:

I used to have a different view on this - that Buddhism was "reformist" and "rational" etc. This does not hold up to scrutiny. I feel most of this is came from a very orientalist interpretation of things. Then later folks like Karl Jaspers shoehorned Buddhism into his "Axial Age" theory

Reading actual philosophical texts changed my view. The main difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is independent origination vs dependent origination. All this extra caste, reform etc is fluff added by politically motivated historians. Hinduism says everything emanates from all pervading Brahman. Buddhism says everything depends on everything else, the nature of reality is shunyata i.e nothingness.

Sure Buddha probably challenged the traditional social order, but the followers of Buddhism were elites. It's a sophisticated philosophy, you can't expect the common folks to understand and appreciate it. Despite imperial patronage Buddhism was probably never a majority religion. The common people of India probably just continued following whatever were following earlier.
Whatever you say boss... (Didn't realized that this thread existed)

Well, what I really want to emphasize is that how the 7th century Hindu revival had uprooted the natural bond between then Vedic Hinduism and Buddhism in India. Many of the present Hindu holiest shrines from North to South were once belong to Buddhism. They had be forcefully occupied and desecrated by Hindu militants so that great knowledge and philosophy was lost to India forever.

I believe that if India remembered her Buddhist past that she would have been fared better in history compared with today.

Sure Buddha probably challenged the traditional social order, but the followers of Buddhism were elites. It's a sophisticated philosophy, you can't expect the common folks to understand and appreciate it. Despite imperial patronage Buddhism was probably never a majority religion. The common people of India probably just continued following whatever were following earlier.
I disagree with you here. Although at the initial stages Buddhism was more or less confined to the North Indian elite class, we cannot justify that it was remained the same for ever. Take a look at Sri Lanka for an example. Here, Buddhism took it's root among the elite and commoners alike. When the elite was gone during political turmoil. It was the commoners who had preserved the annals of Buddhism and passed it on to future generations.

I strongly believed that Indian commoners were forced to relegate Buddhism for Hinduism around 7th Century AD. Incidentally this was the the ancient Sinhalese kingdom began loose it's grasp of the territory and attacks from the mainland increased it's ferocity culminating in the total abandonment of the Sinhalese capitals from the Northern dry zone. There should be some connection between these cases.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,848
Likes
7,840
Country flag
Many of the present Hindu holiest shrines from North to South were once belong to Buddhism. They had be forcefully occupied and desecrated by Hindu militants so that great knowledge and philosophy was lost to India forever.
You're making up some weird fantasy of religious conflict which simply did not exist. India has places like the Ellora caves where Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples co-exist side-by-side (600-100CE)

The only Indian centres of learning which were actually destroyed were Nalanda and Taxila by Bakhtiyar Khilji

They had be forcefully occupied and desecrated by Hindu militants so that great knowledge and philosophy was lost to India forever.

I believe that if India remembered her Buddhist past that she would have been fared better in history compared with today.
Hyperbole.

Buddhism isn't some super secret philosophy which was forgotten. Most people didn't find it interesting. Dependent origination has a strain of Nihilism in it which is what was probably distasteful to most people.

Buddhism being something which the "entire orient" follows is another false assumption made by early european indologists. Japan and China are not really Buddhist. They're Shinto and Confucian. Infact both of them had periods where they purged out Buddhism from their society.

Not only in India, these terrorists desecrated and occupied thousands of hindu temples all around Southeast Asia. After losing in debates to hindus of Indias and losing in wars from Islamists in pak-afghan region, they're now playing victim card
A lot of Sri Lankan early Buddhist intellectuals were influenced by the British and orientalist theories.
 

Aghore_King

Regular Member
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
460
Likes
1,113
Country flag
You're making up some weird fantasy of religious conflict which simply did not exist. India has places like the Ellora caves where Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples co-exist side-by-side (600-100CE)

The only Indian centres of learning which were actually destroyed were Nalanda and Taxila by Bakhtiyar Khilji


Hyperbole.

Buddhism isn't some super secret philosophy which was forgotten. Most people didn't find it interesting. Dependent origination has a strain of Nihilism in it which is what was probably distasteful to most people.

Buddhism being something which the "entire orient" follows is another false assumption made by early european indologists. Japan and China are not really Buddhist. They're Shinto and Confucian. Infact both of them had periods where they purged out Buddhism from their society.


A lot of Sri Lankan early Buddhist intellectuals were influenced by the British and orientalist theories.
Infact tibetans too added the concept of Gods such as Mahakala when buddhism failed to gain mass following there.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,848
Likes
7,840
Country flag
Many folks don't know this but most of current Sri Lankan "buddhist nationalism" was created by Anagarika Dharmapala (late 1800s to early 1900).

He was heavily influenced by European indologists and Christianity. Totally believed in Sinhalese being the pure Aryan race. Some even called his teachings 'Protestant Buddhism'.

Here's a direct quote from this guy:

This bright, beautiful island was made into a Paradise by the Aryan Sinhalese before its destruction was brought about by the barbaric vandals. Its people did not know irreligion ... Christianity and polytheism [i.e. Hinduism] are responsible for the vulgar practices of killing animals, stealing, prostitution, licentiousness, lying and drunkenness ... The ancient, historic, refined people, under the diabolism of vicious paganism, introduced by the British administrators, are now declining slowly away

Does this guy even sound like a Buddhist ? More like a Christian. Or at the very least a westerner

=

So @HeinzGud, India didn't forget Dharma/Dhamma. It's Sri Lankans who've forgotten and are (probably) following some weird fusion of Buddhism with Christianity
 
Last edited:

Indx TechStyle

Kitty mod
Mod
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
15,030
Likes
35,968
Country flag
Well, what I really want to emphasize is that how the 7th century Hindu revival had uprooted the natural bond between then Vedic Hinduism and Buddhism in India. Many of the present Hindu holiest shrines from North to South were once belong to Buddhism. They had be forcefully occupied and desecrated by Hindu militants so that great knowledge and philosophy was lost to India forever.
Hinduism wasn't ever a unified religion (misinterpreted as one religion by abrahamics) and it didn't even an essence of unity (tribal kind of unity) among sects of various beliefs and disbeliefs. Buddhism, Janism or Sikhism were never seen in isolation from greater Dharmic umhrella. This is what made ancient Indians nurturing different thoughts with their same cultural identity and altruism towards each other. They are still called Hindus in India.

Buddhism (along atheist Hindu sects) advocated loose knit agnosticism or atheism what obviously a commoner won't like. It's very comfortable to believe that there is some sky daddy sitting up there to help you. Hence, Bhakti movement initiated and caste system was weakened, people continued with Sanatana and rise of apostasy in India started to retard.

Unlike Islam, Christianity or Judaism, Indian Dharmic sects never had this Budhhist vs Hindu tribalism. Nor any reliable source even implies a conflict between Budhhists and rest of Indians. So these imaginary Hindu militants are nothing more than your pathetic fantasy.

Buddhism is essentially an Indian thought and flourished around to countries where people liked it.
I believe that if India remembered her Buddhist past that she would have been fared better in history compared with today.
Buddhism isn't a thing of past in India. It remained in a relatively low profile is a different thing.
I disagree with you here. Although at the initial stages Buddhism was more or less confined to the North Indian elite class, we cannot justify that it was remained the same for ever. Take a look at Sri Lanka for an example. Here, Buddhism took it's root among the elite and commoners alike.
Sri Lanka (and South India) are mostly Dravidian states with historical identity conflicts with Aryans of North. These conflicts led to diffusion of different ideas faster than any other place. These places had highest rate of conversions to Buddhists, Muslim and Christians .
Mods please don't delete this,let other members know the hindophobic behavior of sl Buddhists,
Naked tribalism and identity politics around Buddhism (what @HeinzGud is doing) is one essential characteristic what isn't present in Buddhism.
So anyone making it Buddhist vs Hindu knows a little about it. This little knowledge and flawed perspective is probably what motivates him to claim a different identity of Sri Lanka than India. Better we don't call these extremists as Buddhists.

As LB said:
Many folks don't know this but most of current Sri Lankan "buddhist nationalism" was created by Anagarika Dharmapala (late 1800s to early 1900).
Sri Lankans who've forgotten and are (probably) following some weird fusion of Buddhism with Christianity
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,848
Likes
7,840
Country flag
"GBC will be organised under the overall framework of the flagship event of the Ministry of Tourism. Eminent scholars from prominent Buddhist universities/institutions in India and abroad will participate in the GBC.

In the run-up to the GBC, four regional conferences in India: Telangana, Sarnath, Gangtok and Dharamshala and abroad: Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Cambodia) will be organised."

 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
6,216
Likes
34,983
Country flag
Following is an excerpt from the Book titled "Ashoka - The search of India's Lost Emperor" by Charles Allan

"Tucked away in this same account by Stirling is a reference to an enormous
stone pillar seen by him inside the Hindu temple of Bhaskareshvara in
Bhubaneshwar. It appeared to Stirling that the temple had been constructed
around the stone column, which he described as being forty feet high. When
the Bhaskareshvara lingam was next reported on, in the 1880s, it had shrunk to a
mere stump, rising no more than four feet in height. Its significance might have
been forgotten but for the discovery that would come in 1929 of the head and
shoulders of a stone lion in a pit just forty feet north of the Bhaskareshvara
temple, followed by the further recovery of a stone bell-capital and fragments of
a pillar temple from an old tank or reservoir two miles west of Bhaskareshvara.
These would add weight to the claim that all were parts of the same pillar, which
had once stood on the site now occupied by the Bhaskareshvara temple. The
sensitivities of the temple authorities have prevented the matter from being taken
any further."

This is a mere one single example of how Hinduism had taken over the Buddhist culture which had been flourishing and nourishing India for over a Millennia.

mod edit: flamebait removed
Those who say that “HINDUISM destroyed Buddhism in India” understand neither SANATANA DHARMA nor Buddha and his work. And that Ashoka turned Buddhist due to bloodshed is typical marxshiet larp.

Nevertheless you can never cite a single instance of an Indian ruler killing civilians in the name of religion. Not even Ashoka.

Ashoka was an ordinary follower of Buddhism as per Maski rock edict, at least 2.5 years before Kalinga. He calls himself ' Sakya Buddha' or an lay follower of Buddhism.

Ashokawasbuddhistbeforekalinga.png



Ashoka murdered his own brother to be the king. Buddhist texts mention that Ashoka killed 99 of his half brother, only sparing his own brother, Tissa. He also killed hundreds of their loyalists, personally decapitating 500 of them. Such was the barbaric nature/ Would such a man would be moved by the massacre in Kalinga? When the BRAHAMNA council in Kashi excommunicated him for fratricide, he "converted" to Buddhism.


This is a mere one single example of how Hinduism had taken over the Buddhist culture which had been flourishing and nourishing India for over a Millennia.
Nobody says "Advaita broke away from Vedanta", nor "Mahayana broke away from Buddhism". Likewise, it is nonsense to claim "Buddhism broke away from DHARMA / HINDUISM.
For example that the wheel in our flag, signifying the chakravarti, whose empire is like a wheel linking the periphery to the centre, is not specifically a Buddhist symbol.Ashoka merely stepped on a path much older: the CHAKRAVARTI tradition of the MAHABHARATA & earlier.

Fun fact : Radha Kumud Mookerji holds Padmavibhushan award for his excellence on Itihas and look the letter he wrote to nehru.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Radha Kumud Mookerji the triumph DHARMA.jpg


And what coomer replied?

Demolished lies of nehrucuck.jpg
 
Last edited:

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
6,216
Likes
34,983
Country flag
@HeinzGud you can participate as long as you don't flame-bait. I merged your existing thread since it was pointlessly inflammatory
==
Now on topic:

I used to have a different view on this - that Buddhism was "reformist" and "rational" etc. This does not hold up to scrutiny. I feel most of this is came from a very orientalist interpretation of things. Then later folks like Karl Jaspers shoehorned Buddhism into his "Axial Age" theory

Reading actual philosophical texts changed my view. The main difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is independent origination vs dependent origination. All this extra caste, reform etc is fluff added by politically motivated historians. Hinduism says everything emanates from all pervading Brahman. Buddhism says everything depends on everything else, the nature of reality is shunyata i.e nothingness.

Sure Buddha probably challenged the traditional social order, but the followers of Buddhism were elites. It's a sophisticated philosophy, you can't expect the common folks to understand and appreciate it. Despite imperial patronage Buddhism was probably never a majority religion. The common people of India probably just continued following whatever were following earlier.
Swami Vivekananda speech on buddhism
" The relation between Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion of the Vedas) and what is called Buddhism at the present day is nearly the same between Judaism & Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shakya Muni as a Hindu, The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shakya Muni as God and worship him. But the real difference that we Hindus want to show between modern Buddhism and what we should understand as teachings of Lord Buddha lies principally in this: Shakya Muni came to preach nothing new."
There are many reasons for downfall of buddhism and the larp of Hindu persecuted buddhism is far from it.


For example buddhists paid importance to the life of a monk and not householder thus the ordinary man was at a loss how to live life. So the extreme asceticism practiced and popularized by both Buddhism and Jainism disturbed the social life of India. As in Magadha, the seat of many imperial dynasties, became Bihar, the land of Viharas. There was nothing in buddhism to emphasize the importance of life in this world and its values. These causes led to a bloodless revolt by the orthodox in the eight-century ad.

" In fact, Gaudapada, the grand teacher of Sankara, unified the current spanda (vibration) doctrine of Saivism, the vijnana (mind) doctrine of the Buddhists and the Atman doctrine of the Upanishads in his Mandukyakarikas. This paved the way for Sankara to assimilate and absorb buddhism completely. "

Ironiec as shiet when they whine about non existent buddhism persecution in BHARAT just asked them who destroyed Nalanda, and who emptied Afghanistan of buddhists?
 
Last edited:

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
6,216
Likes
34,983
Country flag
बौद्ध ग्रंथ महावंश में श्रीराम, दशरथ,भरत,कुश आदि राजाओं को बौद्धों का माई-बाप लिखा गया है अनुवादक भी बौद्ध भिक्षु है और प्रकाशन भी सम्यक प्रकाशन है.

DHARMA Alone Triumphs51.jpg
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
6,216
Likes
34,983
Country flag
बौद्ध ग्रंथों में चाणक्य और चन्द्रगुप्त मौर्य का उल्लेख?

AACHARYA CHANAKYA BRAHMAN.jpg
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,848
Likes
7,840
Country flag
Isn't it true that Qasim conquered all of modern day Baluchistan and Sindh because of Buddhists? And I"m supposed to respect these people? No way.
Yes and no. That whole "Buddhism lost because of non violence" is BS. Buddhism was basically the belief system of elite Kshatriyas. Non violence doesn't even figure in the 4 tenents of Buddhism, this perception is because of Western hippie culture.

My understanding is that Buddhism is centralised and tied to state power, unlike Hinduism which is decentralized. If the state gets destroyed then Buddhism gets wiped out but Hinduism can survive.

However, the opposite is also true - if the state somehow survives then it's very powerful and can go toe to toe with most foes.

Just look at South East Asia, it's the Hindu kingdoms which converted to Islam. Buddhist states like Thailand, Myanmar and Vietnam have powerful and influential militaries. There's a great book "Zen at War" on how Japan effectively used Buddhism post Meiji to promote militarism.
 
Last edited:

Varoon2

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
177
Likes
580
Country flag
The original Buddhism as taught by Buddha himself, was all about compassion, non-violence and egalitarianism. Violence was acceptable only in self-defense, and that too with a heavy heart. But later Buddhism became associated with powerful states, particularly in East Asia, and that caused a distortion of the original message. Defending the Dharma became equivalent to defending or even promoting, the state.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,861
Likes
2,958
Country flag
Yes and no. That whole "Buddhism lost because of non violence" is BS. Buddhism was basically the belief system of elite Kshatriyas. Non violence doesn't even figure in the 4 tenents of Buddhism, this perception is because of Western hippie culture.

My understanding is that Buddhism is centralised and tied to state power, unlike Hinduism which is decentralized. If the state gets destroyed then Buddhism gets wiped out but Hinduism can survive.

However, the opposite is also true - if the state somehow survives then it's very powerful and can go toe to toe with most foes.

Just look at South East Asia, it's the Hindu kingdoms which converted to Islam. Buddhist states like Thailand, Myanmar and Vietnam have powerful and influential militaries. There's a great book "Zen at War" on how Japan effectively used Buddhism post Meiji to promote militarism.
I do not know whether Buddhism can be labelled as a belief system of the Kshatriyas. A blanket statement like that should not be made. The Buddha preached non violence and was against the Hindu yagnas/jogyas involving slaughter of animals. It is believed that the sacrifice of animals in pre Buddhist Indic rituals gradually declined after the advent of Buddhism. Vegetarian diet and practices also flourished and took hold in large parts of India barring Bengal and NE due to Buddhism and Jainism`s message of ahmisa towards all living creatures. In Bengal which became Buddhist during Pala period it was believed that Tantric practices in Kali temples which involved slaughter of animals and fish was frowned upon. After the Pala empire declined and the Hindu Sena dynasty took over the Tantric and Shakti practices of animal sacrifice took over. Today most Bengalis are fish lovers. Non violence may not have been a key precept of Buddhism but it did leave its influence on India and made most non Tantric and non Shakti yagnas benign and symbolic.

Also someone was talking about rationalism in Buddhism. If one thinks about the Enlightenment era rationalism of Baruch and Spinoza then he would indeed be disappointed in Buddhism. Buddhist metaphysics and cosmology dwarfs even the Hindu metaphysical concepts. The concept of anatta itself required a lot of metaphysical concepts to be introduced by Buddhist monks so as to explain it to the layman.

However what one can say is that the Buddha(personally) believed in the practice of pramana. He asked his own followers and disciples to rationalize his own teachings and accept only what they deemed to be rationally true. This idea alone makes him different from all of the Abrahamic prophets and many Indian saints too. The Buddha was a psychologist and belittled dogmatic thought.



Finally coming to the Buddhist religion, it is probably the greatest anti thesis of all that Buddha stood for or what we have understood he stood for. In my understanding the Buddha wanted each person to be a Bodhhisatva and to gain his own Enlightenment. It was as if one`s Enlightenment was unique and only he alone could find the inner meaning of his life. Sadly Buddhism as a religion distorted his teachings, brought a whole lot of cosmic metaphysics and mumbo jumbo in it. Be it the ancient Buddhist sects or the modern Neo Buddhists, Buddha`s core essence has been lost to his "disciples" who use the religion for their own nefarious designs. Imagine worshiping someone who was against the very existence of God. As the lecherous but witty Osho once said, there are two ways to destroy the Buddha, one is to ignore him and the other is to worship him. A Buddha would always be misunderstood.



 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top