• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why did Buddhism and Hinduism switch places in India/East Asia

ronki23

Well-Known Member
What happened to the Hindus in Burma, Thaliand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam? Why weren't there Hindus in China or Japan?

Surely if Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, why do these countries have an overwhelming majority of people who worship only Buddha but not the other Hindu Gods?

And in India, why no people who believe soley in Buddha?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Some respectful speculations:

What happened to the Hindus in Burma, Thaliand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam? Why weren't there Hindus in China or Japan?

It seems to me that, even today, Hinduism is strongly correlated to certain specific ethnic groups and their traditions. To some extent, as political and demographic situations changed in Southeast Asia the popularity of Hinduism changed accordingly.

Also, Hinduism seems to me to be something of a high-maintenance faith, so to speak. It can't easily keep significant numbers in any given territory without a certain amount of acting Gurus.

At one point those of Southeast Asia became perhaps too entangled with the Khmer rulers to their own good. The eventual arising of Khmer rulers that favored Theravada Buddhism and, later, the fall of the Khmer regime itself certainly had some impact on the popularity of Hinduism.

There are Hindus in China and Japan, but not in very significant numbers. I assume that it is mainly because the demographics (and the availability of quality Gurus) never favored the settling of Hindu traditions in those territories.


Surely if Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, why do these countries have an overwhelming majority of people who worship only Buddha but not the other Hindu Gods?

Because that is a Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one, and there are far more Buddhists than Hindus there.

It is not often a big deal that the Hindu and Buddhist views of Vishnu and Buddha clash... but all the same, they do clash.


And in India, why no people who believe soley in Buddha?

If I had to guess, it is mostly a matter of "ready availability", so to speak. India has some fine Gurus and there is not a whole lot of reason not to learn their language and Dharma if you happen to live there.
 

Satyamavejayanti

Well-Known Member
"ronki23"

Namaste,

What happened to the Hindus in Burma, Thaliand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam? Why weren't there Hindus in China or Japan?

There are still practicing Hindus in Many South Asian countries and also in China and Japan.

Wiki helps.
Hinduism in Southeast Asia - Wikipedia

If we look at the History and Culture of all these places we find the contribution of Hinduism is immense, from Names of places to Monarchs.

Numbers of Hindus don't matter, its how they influenced and helped develop cultures, traditions, languages and philosophies that is important.

Surely if Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu, why do these countries have an overwhelming majority of people who worship only Buddha but not the other Hindu Gods?

As i said, numbers don't matter at all, we can even say that Sidhartta was himself a Hindu, and therefore there is still that link.

And in India, why no people who believe soley in Buddha?

History of Buddhism in India - Wikipedia
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Hinduism has been a stay-at-home religion. ;)

Judaism, Zoroastrianism (at least in the recent time) and Jainism also are stay-at-home religions. Not really into proselytization.
 

ronki23

Well-Known Member
The antics of Adi Shankara in the 8th century assuming he was born in 788 and died in 820 CE are well known and part of history. Sankara postulated the Vedas as authority; and hence was ranked as a Sanatani. Later on, the priestly class appropriated this and Max Muller called it Hinduism. Thus Hinduism dates back to to the 8th century.

He was the arch foe of Buddhism and the principal architect of its downfall in India (Pande 1994: p. 255). Adi Shankara, along with Madhva and Ramanuja, was instrumental in the revival of Hinduism through aggressive and violent means.

The historians like Vincent Smith suggested that it was due to Adi Sankaracharya there wasdecline of Buddhism in India. Others argue that it was due to the Muslim invasion (of Bakhtyar) that Nalanda was routed and the library there was burned and thousands of Buddha viharas were destroyed subsequently. Much of this is described in The Book of Thoth(Leaves of Wisdom).

Shashanka was the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal. He was manipulated by the Brahmins to become a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists. He had destroyed the Bodhi tree of Bodh Gaya and ordered the mass destruction of all Buddhist images and monasteries in his kingdom.

1. Lal, V. 2004. Buddhism’s Disappearance from India [serial online]. [cited 2009 August 26]; [2 screens]. Available from

2. Jaini, P.S., Narain A.K., ed., 1980. The Disappearance of Buddhism and the Survival of Jainism: A Study in Contrast. Studies in History of Buddhism. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Company:181-91.

3. Ahir, D.C. 2005. Buddhism Declined in India: How and Why? Delhi: B.R. Publishing.

Prof. P. Sankaranarayanan in his article The life and work of Sri Sankara published in the web page of Kanchi Mutt writes: “Buddhism, the rebel child of the Vedic religion and philosophy, denied God and the soul, laid the axe at the very roots of Vedic thought and posed a great danger to its very survival. This onslaught was stemmed occasionally, compelling Buddhism to seek refuge in other lands. While the credit for this should go primarily to the Mimamsaka, Kumarila Bhatta, it was because of Sri Sankara’s dialectical skill and irrefutable arguments that it ceased to have sway over the minds of the inheritors of Vedic religion.”

T1) The Divyavadana (ed. Vaidya, 282). The most important of the murderous Hindu bigots who carried out their systematic campaign of violence against the peaceful followers of Lord Buddhawas Pushyamitra (184-48 B.C.), the founder of the Shunga dynasty. For details and refrences do see below

2) Goyal [430] “The culprit in this case was Toramana, a member of the same dynasty as the Shaivite Mihirakula who did “immense damage to the Buddhist shrines in Gandhara, Punjab and Kashmir.” For details and refrences do see BELOW

3) Mihirakula is said to have razed 1600 viharas, stupas and monasteries, and “put to death 900 Kotis, or lay adherents of Buddhism” [Joshi, 404].

4) The Aryamanjushrimulakalpa tells us that Pushyamitra “destroyed monasteries with relics and killed monks of good conduct.” [Jayaswal, 18-19]

5) As Goyal [394] notes, “According to many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India.”

6) The celebrated Tibetan historian Lama Taranatha mentions the march of Pushyamitra from Madhyadesha to Jalandhara. In the course of his campaigns, the book states, Pushyamitra burned down numerous Buddhist monasteries and killed a number of learned monks The archaeological evidence for the ravages wrought by Pushyamitra and other Hindu fanatic rulers on famous Buddhist shrines is abundant.

7) The Brhannaradiya-purana lays it down as a principal sin for a Brahmana to enter the house of a Buddhist even in times of great peril.

8) The drama Mrchchhakatika shows that in Ujjain the Buddhist monks were despised and their sight was considered inauspicious.

9) The Vishnupurana (XVIII 13-18) also regards the Buddha as Mayamoha who appeared in the world to delude the demons. Kumarila is said to have instigated King Sudhanvan of Ujjain to exterminate the Buddhists.

10) The Kerala-utpatti describes how he exterminated the Buddhists from Kerala.”

11) The Chinese traveller Yuan Chwang (Huen Tsang), who visited India in the seventh century records the oppressions of Shashanka, the king of Gauda, who was a devotee of Shiva.

12) Yuan Chwang’s account reads, “In recent times Shashanka, the enemy and oppressor of Buddhism, cut down the Bodhi tree, destroyed its roots down to the water and burned what remained.” [Watters II p.115] He also says that Shashanka tried “to have the image (of Lord Buddha at Bodhgaya) removed and replaced by one of Shiva”.

13) Another independent account of Shashanka’s oppressions is found in the Aryamanjushrimulakalpa, which refers to Shashanka destroying “the beautiful image of Buddha” [Jayaswal, 49-50].

14) Another prominent seventh century murderer of Buddhists was Sudhanvan of Ujjain, already mentioned in the quotation from Goyal above as having been supposedly instigated by Kumarila Bhatt.

15) Madhava Acharya, in his “Sankara-digvijayam” of the fourteenth century A.D., records that Suddhanvan “issued orders to put to death all the Buddhists from Ramesvaram to the Himalayas”.

16) Even after the Islamic invasions of India, Hindu bigotry and hatred for Buddhists was not subdued. According to Sharmasvamin, a Tibetan pilgrim who visited Bihar three decades after the invasion of Bakhtiaruddin Khilji in the 12th century, the biggest library at Nalanda was destroyed by Hindu mendicants who took advantage of the chaos produced by the invasion.

He says that “they (Hindus) performed a Yajna, a fire sacrifice, and threw living embers and ashes from the sacrifice into the Buddhist temples. This produced a great conflagration which consumed Ratnabodhi, the nine-storeyed library of the Nalanda University”. [Prakash, 213]. Numerous destroyed Buddhist shrines were converted into Hindu temples after their destruction.

17) Ahir [58] notes that “The Seat of Buddha’s Enlightenment was in the possession of a Hindu Mahant till 1952.

18) Similarly, at Kushinara, where the Buddha had entered into Mahaparinirvana, the cremation stupa had been converted into a Hindu temple, and on top of it stood the temple of Rambhar Bhavani when Cunningham discovered the site in 1860-61.

19) Among the shrines which still continue to be dedicated to Hindu gods mention may be made of the Caityas of Chezrala and Ter in Andhra Pradesh which are now Shiva and Vishnu temples respectively.

20) The temple of Madhava at Sal Kusa, opposite Gauhati in Asam, was once a sacred shrine of the Buddhists. …

21) And the famous Jagannatha temple at Puri in Orissa was also originally a Buddhist shrine.

22) Similarly, the Vishnupada temple at Gaya was also once a Buddhist shrine.” As Rajendralal Mitra notes in his famous work of 1878 [quoted in Ahir, 59] the feet of Buddha at Gaya were rechristened the feet of Vishnu and held as the most sacred object of worship in the new Vishnupada temple.

23) According to the records of Hieun Tsang and Kalhana’s Rajaatarangini, Asoka the great repented, converted to Buddhism (273-232 BC) and did a lot for Buddhism. Asoka renounced violence, and renounced his religion after the Kalinga war, and he became a Buddhist. During Asoka, Buddhism had become the state religion. The Brahmans did not like him, and many historians think the Brahaman opposition to Asoka led to the destruction of the Muyarian dynasty says the following about the Kushans (emphasis is mine and not Nehru’s): ” This Kushan Empire is interesting in many ways. IT WAS A BUDDHIST EMPIRE, and one of its famous rulers-the Emperor Kanishka-was ardently devoted to the dharma…the Kushans were Mongolians or closely allied to them. From the Kushan capital there must have been a continuous coming and going to the Mongolian homelands, and Buddhist learning and Buddhist culture must have gone to China and Mongolia…the Kushan Empire sat like a colossus astride the back of Asia, in between the Greaco-Roman world in the south. It was a halfway house both between India, and Rome, and India and China. The Kushan period corresponded with the last days of the Roman Republic when Julius Ceaser was alive, and first 200 years of the Roman Empire

25) THE HINDU KASHATRIYA HINDU AND BUDDHIST WARS
Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says (Page 103 and 104) “Chandragupta proclaimed his holy war “against all foreign rulers in India. The Kashatriyas and the Aryan aristocracy, deprived of their power and positions by the aliens (Kushans), were at the back of this war. After a dozen or so years of fighting, Chandragupta managed to gain control over Northern India including what is now called UP. He then crowned himself king of kings. Thus began the Gupta dynasty. It was a period of somewhat aggressive Hinduism and nationalism. The foreign rulers-the Turkis and Parathions and other Non-Aryans were rooted our and forcibly removed. We thus find racial antagonism at work. The Indo-Aryan aristocrat was proud of his race and looked down upon these barbarians and malachas. Indo-Aryan States and rulers were conquered by the Guptas were dealt with leniently, But there was not leniency for non-Aryans.

26) Jawarhalal Nehru in his book Glimpses of World History says “Chandragupta’s son Samadugupta was an even more aggressive fighter than his father….the Kushans were pushed back across the Indus…Samadugupta’s son, Chandragupta II was also a warrior king, and he conquered Kathiwad and Gujrat, which had been under the rule of a Saka or Turki dynasty for a long time. He took the name Vikramaditya…..The Gupta period was a period of Hindu imperialism in India. There was a great revival of old Aryan culture and Sanskrit learning. The Hellenistic, or Greek and Mongolian elements in Indian life and culture which had been brought by the Greeks, Kushans and others were not encouraged, and were in fact deliberately superseded by laying stress on the Indo-Aryan traditions. Sanskrit was the official court language. But EVEN IN THOSE DAYS SANSKRIT WAS NOT THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The antics of Adi Shankara in the 8th century assuming he was born in 788 and died in 820 CE are well known and part of history. .. Sanskrit was the official court language. But EVEN IN THOSE DAYS SANSKRIT WAS NOT THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE.
- Thus Hinduism dates back to to the 8th century.
- The historians like Vincent Smith suggested that it was due to Adi Sankaracharya there wasdecline of Buddhism in India.
- Shashanka was the Shaivite Brahmin king of Bengal. He was manipulated by the Brahmins to become a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists.
Well, that is a long post and I will reply to portions that I consider important. Yes, Sanskrit was not the common language of the people, it was a scholarly, liturgical language. It may not even have been the court language at any time. But what exactly do you mean by 'antics of Sankaracharya'? Advaita Vedanta is one of the most popular philosophies among Hindus. What you have written is uncivil and derogatory. And I think you are a decent person.
- Like in prehistoric days, it has always been difficult to pin Hinduism. Hinduism derives its name from River Indus (Sindhu) and denoted the various beliefs and people from East of River Indus, and that is how it is mentioned even in Avesta (Hapta-Hendu - Skt. Sapta-Saindhava, which indicates both belief and people). So Hinduism is that old.
- I do not agree to the views of Vincent Smith. I think Buddhism became too complicated with its own various philosophies, and consequently un-understandable to the common people that is why it declined. Common Hinduism was simple, worship the God or Goddess of your choice, and he/she takes care of you.
- I do not think there is any historical evidence of oppression of Buddhists. Yes, there could have been one or two kings like that. The Hun Kings Mihirakula, Toramana also are supposed to have been a Saivite and oppressor of Buddhists (Shashanka - Wikipedia - 7th Century). Harsha too is supposed to have been a Saivite but he was very sympathetic to Buddhism. But then, the Pala kings were strong and Buddhists (750 to 1,200 CE). Moreover, that does not explain the disappearance of Buddhism in other parts of India. The stories of religious strife in India have been created by biased people. Where is the question of oppressing Buddhists when Buddha himself was accepted as an avatara of Lord Vishnu?
- Do not talk about brahmins engaged in priestly work. It is not that they were against Buddhism only, they were against Advaita too, against all philosophies that did not bring them clients (Yajamana) and money. After independence, Nehru and Indira supported many historians who were anti-Hindu and pseudo-socialists, Rama Chandra Guha and Romila Thapar are examples of that.

Kindly read this (Pala Empire - Wikipedia) to understand that there was no rivalry between Hinduism and Buddhism in the time of Pala Kings.
 
Last edited:
Top