Check out this video next on Dr. BR Ambedkar's revival of "new" Buddhism in India: ua-cam.com/video/qlH_qieCgCA/v-deo.html Consider joining us on Patreon if you find benefit in these videos, and get fun extras like exclusive behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
@@DougsDharma There are lot of assumptions and western point of views in this video, few examples not all: 1)Defining Hinduism as only the Home/hearth and sacrificial activities even if it is just a tiny part of it. Hinduism celebrate multiple school of thoughts e.g. astik and nastik which means one who believe in vedas, one who dont believe in vedas and other who believe in veda but dont take it as authority. One who believe in vedas have more generally classified in 6 school of thoughts like samkhya, yoga, mimansa, vedant etc, newer one are like sikhism, neo vedantism. Whereas one who dont believe in Vedas are like jainism, bhuddism, charvaka, lokayukta etc. Then there is third type of school of thoughts which are based on agamas and believe in veda but not as an authority like astika. Examples are Kashmir shaivism , shaktism etc. Most of the thought process of Buddhism is similar to Mimansa and samkhya as almost all school of thoughts in India are related. Take for example this sutra of upnishad, .................................. " Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Puurnnam-Udacyate | Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate || Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih || " which means "That is whole; this is whole; From that whole this whole came; From that whole, this whole removed, What remains is whole." ....................................... Now sunayavada sees whole as sunya, vedanta sees whole as Brahma, Kashmir shavisim sees whole as Shiva, Samkhya sees whole as purusha and prakriti. Second: Hinduism is limited to life cycle ceremonies and priest only do that. There are thousands of communities and sects who dont do life cycle ceremonies or have officiated priest. Further, there are multiple communities of Buddhists who do all these ceremonies and have offciated priests also. Buddha was never concerned about it. Buddha as much followed Hinduism as other used to follow at that time. Let me take few texts from the early Buddhist tradition at random: The Dhammapada, a major text ascribed to the Buddha himself and Sonadanda Sutta, a minor text recording Buddha’s dialogues. The last chapter of the Dhammapada (Carter and Palihawardana, Trans., 1987) is about the Brahmins. Here are three from the fifty-odd verses on the issue: "Not by matted hair, or by clan, Or by birth does one become a brahmana In whom is truth and dhamma, He is the pure one, and he is the brahmana (§393; 78) Again, And I do not call one brahmana Merely by being born from a [brahmana] womb, Sprung from a [brahmana] mother. He is merely a “bho-sayer” If he is a possessor of things. One who has nothing and takes nothing, That one I call a brahmana. (§396; 78) Or again, Who, here, having abandoned the human bond, Has transcended the heavenly bond, Who is released form all bonds, That one I call brahmana. (417; 81) In tenor, theme, and substance, all the verses are of the same nature: Buddha tells us who or what a ‘true’ Brahmin is. He does not say that he is talking about Hinduism in general. Bhudda never ever in any speech or text rejected Hinduism or differentiated himself from Hinduism. Fourth: Lingam doesn't mean male penis. Lingam means sign or symbol. The lingam is supported by a "lingi" i.e. symbol/sign/ distinguishing symbol is supported or represents or depicts some entity or some energy form. That is why human sex organ is sign or distinguishing symbol of their gender/form of energy which differentiate between male, female etc, similarly like multiple different signs or symbols e.g. as world is lingam of iccha, gyan and karma sakti ( desire, knowledge and action energy/power) of Shiva as per Kashmir shavisim. Fifth: Hatha yoga is way older than so called Buddhist concept. Its root philosophy is Samkhya which is said to be as old as vedas. Sixth: There is only one instance of destruction of temple by Hindu king and that too was personal reason related to his family not religious issue. There is no text which tells that Hindus or Indians have destroyed any temple for religious issue as no one used to see one self as western religions identity about self. Seventh:" Islam didn't impact much on Buddhism. " An absolute lie based on new kind of scholars. You dont need to work hard to know real history. read the books written by these Muslim rulers themselves.There is one word "Bhut", most of the temples and statues of Buddha in Gandhar or current Afghanistan and Pakistan were destroyed by Islam. From these only this word "Bhut" came in existence and it is still used in Hindi which means Statue as mostly Buddha's statues were destroyed by Islam. Eight: For Islam there is no difference in Hinduism and Buddhism, both are kafir/non believers. They called everybody who were not following Islam in Indian subcontinent as "Hindoo" not some as Buddhist and other as Hindu. Further, Hinduism is not just concerned about local deities as thought by Islam ( i dont know whom among Islam thought so as you haven't named anyone), Hinduism or people of India used to think and still thinks "vasudev kutumbakam", which concerns with whole world/universe. Buddhism never disappeared from India, it just dissolved itself in the ways of life of Indians. As none of the school of thoughts is called as religion in India so was Buddhism was also not called as a religion. All school of thoughts mingles and mingled with each other and effected and effects the way of livings of Indians still today. It is just western encounter with Buddhism outside India called it is as Buddhism nothing more. Buddhism is as much part of Indian school of thoughts and you can find multiple examples of it in Tark ( debates) in multiple commentaries about multiple texts/Sanskrit text/pali text/Tamil text/regional texts where opposite side of the principal school of thought is described as vedantist, Samkhyian, Mimansa follower, Chanikvadi ( one type of Buddhism), Sunyavadi ( One type of Buddhism) etc.
Pakistan, Afghanistan , Baluchistan was Buddhist majority ...Just Like Persia was Parsi Majority.. Islamic Invasion cleansed them all with force ,and the multiple genocides and destruction evidence still resides in all these areas. Only Hinduism fought back and managed to survive somehow . The oldest living civilisation of the world,even after 1000 yrs of Invasion rule
@@gobimurugesan2411well there are many who patronized buddhism jainism and so called hinduism and some who tried to eradicate buddhism For eg the guptas Lalitaditya Muktapida palas chandras and other build many buddhist stupas And shungas who tried to destroy buddhism But the one thing to agree is that the brahmins who were in king's court manipulated many text just to keep society under their control
Even the Arabic historian has written about the destruction of Buddhist monasteries in India. The last Abbot of Nalanda escaped and sought refuge in Tibet.
@Saladin Ayyub why would they love Buddha???? It's not by violence that Hindus did.... Hindus did by philosophical debated!! Even if Hindus did by violence it's not even a fraction of what Hindus suffered from Muslim rule
@Saladin Ayyub I wonder why a predominantly Buddhist country became Muslim and I wonder who destroyed those ancient Buddhist Universities..... really makes u think....
As a practitioner of Navayana and being an Indian "Buddhist", it is my duty to revive the traditions of Buddha, Nalanda, Tantra and moreover human sensibility (Budhatva) in this land of full of memories
Ambedkar's Buddhism rejects the foundational doctrines and historic practices of traditional Theravada and Mahayana traditions, such as monk lifestyle after renunciation, karma, rebirth, samsara, meditation, nirvana, Four Noble Truths and others. 🙄
@@italianalcapone Firstly, no school of Buddhism can disagree on the 4 noble truths (Arya Satyani) taught by Buddha because that's the main teaching of Buddha.. Ambedkar has justified and agreed with the Arya Satyani in his book "The Buddha and his Dhamma". Please read it before reaching on any conclusions to decide what were exactly Ambedkar's views.
@@italianalcapone and also not just Buddhism, no Indian philosophy rejects the idea of ultimate liberation or Nirvana as called in Buddhism. In fact this is the final goal of an individual in all these thought systems. In Yoga, it is referred to as MahaSamadhi, while in Vedic systems it is Moksha, in other traditions like Jain, it is Mukti, while in Buddhism it is called Nirvana...Approach to attain this liberation may vary among these thought systems but nonetheless that's the goal towards which all converge. Hence, Navayana does not have a slightest scope to reject the concept of Nirvana
@@apurvaj3319 according to Ambedkar, the four noble truths is a ' gospel of pessimism ' and may have been inserted into Buddhism by wrong headed Buddhist monks of a later era
In their book on Buddhism, Huston Smith & Philip Novak make a similar point to one you make in this vid. They argue that Hinduism made changes to incorporate Buddhist reforms and that with the develop of Mahayana, Buddhism started to sound more like Hinduism. In the end Buddhism was reabsorbed back into Hinduism.
Interesting, thanks for the info osumarko. There are aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism that do recall Vedic Brahmanism or Hinduism, but in general the only place where Buddhism or Buddhists were absorbed into Hinduism was India. Elsewhere Buddhism developed quite on its own.
@@DougsDharma Upanishads have philosophy (advita) and have nothing to do with Buddhism.... Nagarjuna from South India travelers to North becomes buddist... His philosophy is foundation for Mahayana school in Buddhism
@@haragopal1 what 😳😂non duality has nothing to do with buddhism get your facts corrected, all teachings of tathagata are to destroy duality and about nagarjuna he was born in bhrahmin caste, he wrote commentaries on tathagata's teachings and his contribution is commendable ,there were many great naladna scholars they preserved the authencity of tathatas's words so that next generation may benefit
@@Blessedbuddha1911 non duality means Advaita in hindu concept It Means onenes self or state called ""brahman"" It's pantheism... On the other hand Buddhism says there's absolutely nothing ... It's emptiness or there's no self in Buddhism....
@@haragopal1 both traditions has a concept of non duality not only vedanta but both sees in a diiferent angle , no self is nothingness😳 im sorry that is absolutely wrong , it never said nothing is there ,things are there but in absolute level it's not there, emptiness doesn't mean nothingness ,emptiness means things has no inherent existence,phenomena are empty of substance or essence because they are dependently co-arising Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen that they have no intrinsic, independent reality of their own. Yes Madhyamaka tradition in buddhism rejects the existence of absolute realities or beings such as Brahaman or Self . In the highest sense, "ultimate reality" is not an ontological Absolute reality that lies beneath an unreal world, nor is it the non-duality of a personal self (atman) and an absolute Self. Instead, it is the knowledge which is based on a deconstruction of such reifications and conceptual proliferations .It also means that there is no "transcendental ground," and that "ultimate reality" has no existence of its own, but is the negation of such a transcendental reality, and the impossibility of any statement on such an ultimately existing transcendental reality: it is no more than a fabrication of the mind . and lastly there were many traditions in ancient india and india cherished and preserved those traditions for long, india was a land of seekers not mere believers, reason why bhramanical tradition always look down on buddha's way just because it has different view and beacuse has different view unlike vedas and upnishads ,he never said that is wrong , so what if one's mental dispositions works in this way ,what's wrong in it ,if one's mental dispositions doesn't work in that way then what is the loss,either way we should believe in what our mental dispostions can digest , there is nothing wrong or right in it, today india lost valuable knowledge even other traditions are almost on the verge of perishing just beacuse habit of thinking and anlysing is no more cherised today 🙏
Being an Indian, I feel it's resurrection of Hinduism through Advaita Vedanta philosophy is the main reason which is almost similar to Buddhism except they talked about one absolute God theory against dependent origination theory of Buddhism and was led by Adi Shankaracharya.
Yes, that's a prominent reason that wasn't mentioned. Vedanta could appeal to the same Indian elites as Buddhism, and reinterpret Hindu praxis in a way that undercut Buddhism. To this day, Buddhism is mostly a religion in India of elites and those on the margins of society.
@@DougsDharma Both are nondual religious philosophies, but Vedanta developed more as a response to Buddhism. So while Buddhism denies essentialism as valid, Vedanta says essence is the very foundation of reality. Given the vagueries of language, however, it's arguable that the differences mostly come down to religious loyalties and praxis. Interestingly enough, modern Vedanta was also influenced by contact with European religions, specifically Unitarianism (brought by the British).
@ Magnulus76 Actually, that may not be true. More and more researchers from India keep finding the Indian influences on European thought, that have been hidden for so long. So it might have been the other way. Also, the very idea of 'Neo Hinduism' has problems becoz it basically shows a lack of proper understanding of Vedic Hinduism (which has been tagged Brahminism by propagandists). But anyway. To understand what I am talking about, I want you to watch one video. Please type the following and watch the first video that follows: 'Rajiv Malhotra India's Unacknowledged Contributions to Mind Sciences'
What I would emphasize and which I saw in comments section too is that "Hinduism was a folkish religion of India just like Shinto religion of Japan and Taoism/folk religions of china. It was an open architecture with an amazingly solid and intricate Philosophical structure with a almost infinite flexibility to absorb the philosophy/teachings of other teachings. It has a tendency to accommodate/assimilate rather to uproot/destroy. Buddhism being Indian religion has also those similar properties. Buddhism in India never grew sans the shadow of Hinduism. It grew with the Hinduism. People were not rigid anyhow in India. The clergy may have been slightly hostile but usually they weren't to the verge to making another sect/belief extinct." The Indian religions are by their thinking and nature mostly pluralistic and accommodative as they usually believe in multiplicity of paths and nature of seeking. I am proud of this tradition.
Yes well Buddhism grew up partly in opposition to the Vedic Brahmanism of the Buddha's day; although he did accept many of the tenets of the Upaniṣadic belief system, he rejected its focus on a permanent self, its acceptance of the Vedas as revealed truth, as well as its belief in caste superiority.
@@DougsDharma actually caste system and varna system arent same at that time the vedas got corrupted... later scholars like adi shankaracharya and ramanujacharya came to reform it
@@DougsDharma Caste System has origin in 10th Mandala of Rig Veda (Earliest text of Vedic Religion). This Mandala was added at laater stages. Earlier Rig Veda had only 7 Chapters (2-8). 1,9 and 10 were added later. Also, it was Varna System and not Caste system at the starting which was based on Qualities and not on Birth. But, evil Brahmins changed everything for their benefit with the help of Shastras and Puranas. Buddha did the right thing by rejecting Vedas, as they were already corrupted by the Brahmins. Even, I am thinking of joining Buddhism to get out of such a religion (Hinduism) which propagtes Casteism.
Also On another occasion, Kassapa asked the Buddha: "What is the reason that formerly there were fewer rules, but more monks were established in the knowledge of Arahatship, while now there are more rules, but fewer monks are established in the knowledge of Arahatship?" The Buddha replied: "So it happens, Kassapa, when beings deteriorate and the true Dhamma vanishes: then there are more rules and fewer Arahats. There will be, however, no vanishing of the true Dhamma until a sham Dhamma arises in the world. But when a sham Dhamma arises in the world, there will be more rules and fewer Arahats. "But, Kassapa, it is not a cataclysm of the four elements - earth, water, fire and air - that makes the Dhamma disappear. Nor is the reason for its disappearance similar to the overloading of a ship that causes it to sink. It is rather the presence of five detrimental attitudes that causes the obscuration and disappearance of the Dhamma. "These are the five: it is the lack of respect and regard for the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, the training, and for meditative concentration, on the part of monks and nuns, and male and female lay devotees. But so long as there is respect and regard for those five things, the Dhamma will remain free of obscuration and will not disappear."
Buddhism in Western India declined due to adoption of Hinduism and forgein invasions (Huns and Muslim Invasions). It declined due to adoption of Saivism in Southern India. And due to Turkic invasion in Eastern India.
Buddhism was declined way before muslims came to India and it was not due to that there where 64 schools of thought in india who used to persuade the other to convert to his faith if they lost the debate with them Buddhism and jainism were also one of those school of thoughts so after many years after Buddhism rised their school of thoughts kept loosening the debates and Hinduism revived
Supreme Buddha did mention that the Dhamma will vanish within 5000 years. So this is something that is slowly happening even right now. Islamic invasion made it more worse in India, and made Buddhism vanish there. And Hinduism was created with vedic aspects and fusion of Buddhist teachings. It lead to that because the Brahmins wanted to regain their power, therefore the caste system is the cause of the declining of Buddhism. Fortunately, Emperor Ashoka came to power and converted to Buddhism and spread the Dhamma around the world. So he made Buddhism flourish again. Sri Lanka played the important role of protecting Buddhism and the true Dhamma. I would say Thailand, Sri Lanka and Cambodia are the most Buddhist practising countries right now
Yes well, the Buddha is recorded to have said that the dhamma would vanish in 500 years, which fortunately hasn't happened! (This may however have been a later interpolation, arguably fitting the rising of new innovations towards the early centuries of the new millennium).
@@DougsDharma 500 years well i supose in one sense the Buddha was correct. 500 years after the Buddha passed the sangha had changed, the practice had changed , new texts and concepts had started to be introduced, new sects had apeared. Idols, worship and permanant temples had spread and become wealthy. It had become an established religion, the Buddhas life had become full of miracles like walking after birth with lotus sprouting from his footprints and giving a talk with miricles and superpowers throughout his life, he had become godlike no longer just a man who discovered a practice to escape suffering, this places enlightenment out of reach for mere mortals. The dhamma was no longer the dhamma and practice of the Buddha and his disciples. So yes 500 yrs was pretty much correct. Edit: i should add that it is still posible to become an arahant, rare but possible and was even achieved in the 20th century by monks like Empty Cloud, Lp Mum , Lp Khao etc..if you practice what the Buddha did and not the religous culty twaddle.
Buddha had said that only Brahmana & Kshatriyas are meant for enlightenment and next Buddha would be from Brahmana community, which lead to many Brahmanas joining his movement. Where was the threat of loss of power of Brahmanas? Even Ashoka about whom you are talking specifically mentioned protecting & respecting brahmanas hundreds of time. Ashoka targetted & persecuted Jaina & Ajivaka monks but not Vedic brahamana or brahamanas in general.
@@emptyemptiness8372 About what specifically? Go read what Buddha talked in Lalitavistara Sutra about who could become Bhodisattva? Or even how Buddha stressed so much on preserving blood lineage while talking about his sister's marriage within same family. Buddha is not some modern day left progressive as you people are making him out to be. Buddhism was always faith/practice of elites/rich globalists/existing establishment in every country that in entered - India, China , Japan. It was not some revolution against 'brahminical caste system' as taught by fee Buddhists. koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2012/05/buddha-and-caste.html?m=1
Reluctant arguments. Buddhism was already at its golden age in China, Korea an Japan from 6th century. They didn’t wait for islam invasion to have Buddhism. Nalanda had 10 000 monks killed but you said as a small conflict.
That said, of course there was violence and bloodshed in India. The main question I am interested in is why Buddhism declined in India and whether and to what degree this sort of violence was responsible.
The golden age of Buddhism was during the life and time of Buddha himself, not in the 6th century. As time passes, the teachings of Buddha becomes more and more further away from his teachings.
Doug's Dharma I appreciate your analysis of the internal decline of Buddhism. That’s was a probably the major reason for the downfall of Buddhism in India. However, the Islamic invasion was definitely the decisive terminator, obviously not a myth. Your approach, to me, seems to be over sympathetic with the bloody invasion, otherwise “revisionistic”.
Maitreya Buddha it’s your definition. The historical definition means that when something dominates and has the largest influence in the largest areas, it’s its golden age. Around 6th century, Buddhism dominates East Asia, Central and South Asia, which means it’s the biggest religion at that time, in regards to the vast area of influence.
Buddhists suffered from so many invasions as Buddhism follows Ahima, which is to refrain from violence. I think Buddhists were helpless. As a result, the Muslims of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Maldives, Indonesia, Malaysia are all converted from Buddhism to Islam.
@@DougsDharmaHe is right. he is not speculating for example Eastern bengal which was buddhist converted to Islam very easily but western bengal which was hindu survived hundreds of years of Islamic occupation.
@@groundzero5708but not Afghanistan,a lot of Pakistan central Asia arguably a lot of Indonesia as well. India still had Buddhist empire in 19th century too
There was no such thing called Hinduism or religion in India. People used to follow different belives and collectively called Hindus by outsiders. That is why I believe Buddhism absorbed in one of the beliefs in India and never was separate religion.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana to put more simply. There were multiple tribal/natural belief system but brahminical/vedic system were always able to have certain control over other belief systems. They failed to do that for Buddhism for a long period but finally managed it by reforming their own system.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana to put more simply. There were multiple tribal/natural belief system but brahminical/vedic system were always able to have certain control over other belief systems. They failed to do that for Buddhism for a long period but finally managed it by reforming their own system.
my man u have said a lot of truth but u have said a lot of wrong too, northwest india was majorly buddhist during the islamic invasions although ruled by hindu kings , in fact the very reason why the first arab invasion into india was successful was because sindh was ruled by a hindu king " RAJA DAHIR SEN" but about 60-70 percent of his kingdom's population was buddhist and they supported the arab invasion , buddhists also formed the majority in eastern afghanistan, eastern balochistan ,western pakistan( that entire pashtun areas) and east bengal(modern day bangladesh) . the only regions that had a clear hindu majority when islam invaded and r majority muslim today were punjab and kashmir . Also do u know whats the persian word for idol?? its "Buth" !! do i even need to say anything more , we all know how gracefully islam treats idol worshippers.scholars like audrey truskey have an extreme lvl of islamic bias and that seems to have incalculated such a false image of islam within you .
I am a Buddhist from India, and very glad to see people from the other side of the world become interested in our religion. I am glad to see many Americans making their way to Buddhism. Here are the main reasons why Buddhism ended in its native country: 1. Islamic invasions. This is probably the biggest blow to Buddhism not only for India but for several Buddhist nations that were invaded by Islam and converted to Islam. Examples include Afghanistan, all of Central Asia, Indonesia, Maldives, Bangladesh, and even some parts of Iran as well. *DID YOU KNOW* that the Ghurids, the first Islamic empire to have permanently make establishment in India were actually converts to Islam from Buddhism? They are from Afghanistan. A Rajput King by the name Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Muhammad Ghor of the Ghurid dynasty several times, but finally lost to the Ghurids in the Second Battle of Tarain in 1192. Also, a mamluk of Muhammad Ghor started and established the Delhi Sultanate, and Khilji was a general of the Delhi Sultanate who destroyed Nalanda. The Turks not only in India, but even in Central Asia converted the populations from Buddhism to Islam. 2. Brahmanical ideologies and brainwash. The Brahmins defeated the Buddhists in the debates, and started to integrate the religion of the Buddha with Hinduism. They even made claims such as Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu which many people started to believe. One must not forget Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin king who tried to decimate Buddhism in India. 3. Hun invasions. A Chinese traveller to India Xuanzang saw that Buddhism was vanishing in the Gandhara region, and it was mostly due to the invasions by the Hun invaders from Central Asia.
Pushpamitra Shung attacked them but even after his attacks it continued to flourish, it was Adi Shankaracharya who revived Hinduism in the 8th century through non-violence. And it mostly disappeared in the 12th century when the sultanate was invading our country.
Buddhism never declined it is just faded away, Indians just soaked up whatever Buddhism had to offer and Hinduism is related to culture of India which recycles itself every few centuries. Other reason is Buddhism fell into what Hinduism struggled with, it became elite just like Brahmanical Hinduism. Buddhism dropped 'pali' language of the people and adopted Sanskrit which was more priestly and language of the royal. Also, after Muslim invasion the royalties Buddhist got from merchants and Hindu kings just declined drastically while Hinduism was not Sangha based or had no core organization it thrived in villages of India. Hinduism didn't require any donation and it was so much decentralized that every attempt to eradicate Hinduism by foreign powers failed miserably. Hinduism just reinvents itself every few centuries.
"Islam thinks Buddhism as more cosmopolitan....." You are dead wrong here. So, how did they view Buddhist idol worshipping? Why most of Buddhist monasteries got burned down by Islamic rulers. Nalanda University, people say was the biggest university at that time with more than 10,000 scholars from around the world which Khilji brought it down and it burnt for months. Why Buddhism hasn't survived in any of the Islamic countries? Why Buddha idols are being destroyed even to this date?
@@DougsDharma evidences are quite opposite to whatever the book is saying. If you look at the todays India most of the major hindu temples were converted to mosques, even today hindus are fighting in courts to get some of those restored. Islam brought many good things to India, tolerance was not one of them. I don want to argue here as you have cited the book but todays books are written with their own biased lenses.
They were burned and destroyed by hindu rulers many times too. Study about Shashanka, The senas, The varmans and how they ruthlessly masscared the buddhists of Bengal and magdha Islam hammered the final nail in Buddhism's coffin. It is also said that the buddhists persuaded the turks to attack the sena dynasty of bengal because to save themselves from sena kindom's oppression.
Very well-done video. I once heard a learned scholar-monastic from Thailand say that emperor Aśoka's involvement in sending missionaries to other countries was because he suspected Buddhism might decline in India. In your view, do you think this is supported by the evidence?
It's hard to say, there's virtually no evidence about Asoka's beliefs apart from his rock and pillar edicts. The Buddha himself though seems to have sent missionaries out to other countries already to spread the dharma. So it was probably not new to Asoka.
@@neoloaded 😅well illetarate they are just spreading knowledge and enlightenment to public 😅 🙂Buddha never said I started buddhism or follow buddhism he just put his thoughts 🤭
Just throwing this out there, a video on southern esoteric Buddhism/ Tantra in Theravada would be super interesting to see. I greatly enjoy your channel!
Most of the theravadin esoteric practices in Thailand, laos,cambodia and myanmar predate the arival of buddhism. Many are khmer in origin and have anamist roots and were absorbed by local buddhist sects long before the buddhist reformation.
Sindh had a Buddhist majority in 712 AD. Raja Dahirsen was last hindu ruler of Sindh. Come 1947, still Sindh had a sizeable hindu population, however, zero Buddhist population. What you are saying is true, however, I cannot agree with your assessment that your third point is least important. I have given you the case of Sindh as an example. You are correct that Buddhism had become dependent on royal patronage and donations. As they dried out, Buddhism could not take on the islamic onslaught. Hinduism as you very correctly pointed out was much grounded. If you see the almost 1,000 years of Islamic rule, some Hindu kings or groups was constantly opposing the western invaders, whether be it east west south or north. Ofcourse there were some Hindu collaborators also. Though, I am not a student of history, I cannot recall a single Buddhist struggle against Islamic invaders. I agree with you that Hinduism was a religion of home and hearth. Hinduism's world view was indeed global, however grounded in its soil. Buddhism thrived out of the monasteries, royal patronage and contribution from merchant class. When these factors collapsed, Bhuddism had no stomach for a good fight. Hindus kept on fighting. You give Hindus less credit for the struggle they waged for hundreds of years. From Alexander to the British, some Hindu was always there for a fight.
5:20 The Buddha made it clear that bhikkhus should not beg for food and things, except in times of great need, but rather wait for something to be offered. During alms round, the bhikkhu makes no request, does not even look at people, although he may quietly wait to see if an offering is to be made before moving on. And usually dhamma talks are only conducted upon an invitation, also known as pavaaranaa. Otherwise there is no contacts or communications during the alms round as both bhikkhus and lay people are to observe mindfulness. Hence an alms round is not considered begging, for the bhikkhu does not solicit anything but is ready mindfully to receive any alms that lay people may wish to give. 🙂
The Buddha said the monastic was to rely upon alms food for sustenance at all times, not simply during times of great need. Whether we term that "begging" or not is I guess a matter of semantics. It is soliciting donations of food, etc.
Thanks for this video. I think the violence unleashed by the Muslims on the Buddhists may have been a major factor (for erasure) in the Sindh region. Am I wrong? Please also make a video explaining how Islam nearly completely replaced Buddhism in the area that is now Bangladesh. I have wondered about it for so long.
Pakistan, Afghanistan , Baluchistan was Buddhist majority ...Just Like Persia was Parsi Majority.. Islamic Invasion cleansed them all with force ,and the multiple genocides and destruction evidence still resides in all these areas. Only Hinduism fought back and managed to survive somehow . The oldest living civilisation of the world,even after 1000 yrs of Invasion rule
The most important message conveyed in your research is the survival of Buddhism depends very much on the interdependence of the Sangha and the laity, which is the original intent of the Buddha. Once the link is broken or weaken, the metaphysical research of Sangha in an ivory tower even under royal patronage may not be relevant to daily life and eventually will be discarded by the society. Thanks a lot for your reminder to Buddhist around the world.
Nice video. Very thoughtful, and backed with knowledge. Can you please make a video of why Buddhism declined in Central Asia, Afghanistan, Maldives next?
Yes the King Dahir of Sindh was Hindu cum Buddhist ruler fought against Arabs. There was many schools of thought in India and there was no struggle. It was the Muslim rule that destroyed peace and the spiritual growth.
You have seen the Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha and the destruction of statues in the Middle East during the last decade. Even today the excavated Buddha statues are being destroyed in Pakistan and Afganistan.
This guy forgot how Buddhist majority Afganistan was destroyed and even many Buddhist guys betrayed Raja Dahir and sided with muslims while fighting against Islam in modern day Pakistan........While Hinduism is still surviving there but Buddhism was completely wiped out and what an irony that is🤣. Muslims were not tolerant of Buddhism they saw that Buddhism was an easy target and Hinduism as difficult to conquer. So, they used Buddhists against Hindus by telling that Buddhism is superior to Hinduism but the irony is that Hinduism survived while Buddhism did not. While most of the Hindus were fighting bloody battles with muslims the Buddhists were busy running away to different countries or converting to Islam😪. Even though I am from the lower caste my mother has always told me from the very beginning that keep ideology of Buddhism in my Brain while keeping Hinduism in the heart so that it will be hard for external forces like Islam and other Abrahamic religions to conquer me.
Islamic invaders destroyed several viharas in Afghanistan and Pakistan and massacred monks and forcely converted people to islam. While in india, hinduism faced such problems also, conversion did happen but when islamic rule weakened hindu kings started reconversion of converted people. Also hinduism is seen as a safe place from islam as some islamic rulers are oppressors. Also buddhism was already in decline in india, so islamic invasion made an irreversible change in it. While buddhism faced struggle in the west, it thrived in the East. Many non-Buddhist countries were converted to buddhism and it is still a major religion even today.
During my visit to Mumbai India I saw some Buddhist and Hindu caves and the Buddhist caves were well preserved vs the Hindu caves which were said to be destroyed by the Portuguese. I wondered who was preserving these caves if there were no Buddhist around during Portuguese period in the region. Consider how small the Portuguese colonies were it is hard to believe that they did not discover these caves.
Bhuddhism is wrogly interpreted that it is thrown away from India by Brahmins & Muslims....but the truth is it is taken away from India by more sophisticated countries. as taken away of software CEOs, Best Engineers, best doctors, eminent business men and Kohinur. Bhuddism is like ENERGY, it can never be destroyed but only can modify without changing its core principles.
*PEOPLE COOLLY HAVE FORGOTTEN BUDDHA AND HOLDING ONTO AN "ISM" BY THE NAME BUDDHISM. SO IT'S NOT WORKING. PEOPLE WANT TO BE 100% WORLDLY BUT STILL WANT TO BECOME A GODMAN LIKE BUDDHA. EVERY RELIGION HAS THIS PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS-CONFLICT; PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN A RELIGIOUS GROUP BUT DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR MASTERS' VOICE.*
I would echo Ambedkar here and say Islam has something akin to a caste system baked into it. You have the religious authority and rulers on top, the believers below that, then the people of the book (flowery as that sounds, they're second-class citizens at best), and the people who don't fall into any of the above are outcasts and enemies by default.
Well Islam was opposed to the caste system. Unfortunately most any belief system (including Buddhism) tends to produce in many people a sense of insiders and outsiders. For example we have the monastics, the lay followers, and the non followers. Even the Buddha made these sorts of distinctions.
@@DougsDharma You cannot really call the monks a caste because it's not something you are born into and anyone can become a monk and any monk can simply leave the order. Anyone in the lay community can, likewise, remain a lay person, become a monk or leave the community of their own volition.
@Michal Nazareth Some may condemn the Hindu caste system while knowing Islam has something baked into it which is akin to it, but arguably even worse. I'd suggest reading 'Pakistan, or, The Partition of India', by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar which can be found on the Internet Archive.
@@DougsDharma Actually I happen to be Muslim but I love learning about Eastern religions. Unfortunately there is usually a lot of vitriol when Islam's impact is bought up on those religions.
The area of today's Taliban was the area of Gandharan Buddhism. Kumarjiva, Ashvaghosa, Dignaga, Kanishka etc were active in that area. Its unbelievable seeing the today's violence and fanaticism in that area.
My understanding is a bit different. While I agree that decentralised nature of Hinduism ensured it survived in the rural parts of India and also assimilated Buddhist laity which lost touch with the Sangha especially after collapse of monasteries post Islamic invasion, what I do not understand is why Buddhism got completely wiped out of Afghanistan where there were very few Hindus, if we do not ascribe destruction of Buddhism to Islamic invasion. What I have been able to understand out of my reading is that under Buddhist dynasties, Sangha gained a lot of influence and power. This led to many people of questionable morals to join the Sangha. Infact, in the third (?) Buddhist council to debate over vices affecting the monasteries such as drunkenness amongst monks and a debate on whether to ban wine. No reason to believe such issues got sorted out post collapse of Buddhist dynasties as royal patronage of the Sangha continued even under Hindu dynasties. Once Islamic invasions happened and destroyed monasteries as well as stopped royal patronage, there was no incentive in people joining Sangha. Laity had as you said, already been assimilated amongst Hindus in rural areas. Also, with the Central Asians adopting Islam, silk route trade which was controlled by Buddhist traders fell into the hands of Muslims, thus decreasing patronage from the urban rich.
You didn't mention anything about how A.D Shankaracharya Clobbered Buddhism in the 8th century to the point of oblivion. Now that's really fascinating. I just got done reading this 71 page essay by some one named Kencho Tenzin, Shankar Shankara: A Hindu Re a: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist? I'm curious if you have done any video's on Shankara and the debates between him and various buddhist in his day. ?
Most of what I do is on early Buddhism. Shankara is much later, and his role is wrapped in polemics, so to do a reasonable history of him one would have to get underneath the myth. If I can find anything useful I might do something on him eventually.
@@DougsDharma yeah I got you , well thanks for the reply. It says you said there's so much that went on prior to shankara in 700 something and the destruction of Nalanda in the 12th century. Thanks for sharing that and helping us tune into those earlier days of Buddhism.
No There were already multiple philosophies followed by people in India before Buddhism AND also much after those. Study Bhagavad Gita and many other philosophical texts. There were Charvaks too(who didn’t believe in reincarnation,moksha and were atheists).
Sir, Buddhism became half when Sankara defeated them philosophically. It became a quarter when split within itself. It became one eighth when the money and precious metals hoarded by Buddhists affected the country’s economy and the kings seized them. The last nail on its coffin was self inflicted when the Buddhists betrayed Hindus and joined Islamists.
I don’t get why zealots of Islam always gets a pass . I had commented earlier that we cannot understate the wholesale destruction of great institutions like Nalanda and Vikramshila. In Nalanda alone nine million books were burnt and it took nine months for the embers to die out. This is narrated by the Upadhaya (Head) of Nalanda who fled to Tibet after the destruction he witnessed. In today’s equivalency it is like destroying all the great universities of the world and incinerating every research on science and scientific achievements and then ascribing the decline of science on peripheral reasons. You just have to follow the patterns of systematic destruction of Buddhism and Hinduism unleashed in South East Asian countries where Islam is the majority religion today. History must endeavour to reflect the facts with sincerity however unpleasant they may appear today.
I certainly wouldn't give zealots of any religion a pass, though neither would I strive to foment hatred among people. "Hatreds never cease through hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law." Dhp. 5.
Agree, people so easily give pass to Islamic oppression, it was not just universities, they also burned down cities in similar manner, brutally tortured and raped people as they came, yet people overlook them so easily. Like the saying goes, "People will only see/hear what they wanna see/hear".
The chachnama which chronicled Arab invasion of Sindh mentions a significant number of Buddhists living in North West India (including some parts of Afghanistan) and their relation with the invaders & local rulers?
Thank you for this very helpful video. It gives a sufficiently broad sweep to help the average person understand yet provides the necessary nuances so that we don't see history in simple terms of black and white. This gives me a building block and a launchpad to read up and study further and to understand different areas in the history and development of Buddhism. I really appreciate this.
One of the main thing is Hinduism or sanatan dharm is way before buddhism where hermits were roamed in India with various upanishads as base. Hinduism is way before buddhism except there may be tantra ways, and buddha also practiced the yoga way before so technically originated from sanatan dharm. Get ur things from both point of view, not only from ur own kind..
Buddhism is pretty helpful in understanding your nature and tendencies, but it gives me a kind of vertigo if I mess with it for too long. That feeling of groundlessness is unnerving and scary. It has an appeal to me, nonetheless. In some way, it makes me sorry I ever started.
It’s like the scene in Close Encounters withal the Third Kind when Richard Dreyfus boards the alien craft. How many of us can renounce the past and wrong thinking fully? This world feels like Hell sometimes but it’s a familiar Hell. We get homesick for the suffering. It just feels like that, that’s all.
I am sick of this topic of 'decline' of Buddhism. It never declined. Both Hindu practices and Buddhism merged and influenced each other to a point indistinguishable. Many of the hindu concepts around karma and karuna, daya etc were heavily shaped by buddhist philosophy. Mahayana buddhism became very similar to hinduism. The destruction of Nalanda was however, a major blow to the identity of Buddhism as a separate philosophy. Having visited Nalanda, I was astonished that both vedic and buddhist philosophy were taught with equal importance.
I am born where Pala (Bengal) kingdom ruled. My ancestors were likely Buddhist but later we became Muslim. I agree with you Buddhism is more compatible with the Islamic religion rather than Hinduism. Buddhism did decline in Eastern Indian Buddhist dynasty area due to South Indian Hindu dynasty weaking the Pala dynasty. Though the remaining Buddhism In the area started accepting non Buddhist teachings and practices. Hence why new Theravada Nikayas came back to the area recently to go back and remove non Buddhist sources and practices to practice closer to the Buddha's teachings
The Vendata teachers mixed and down played the Buddha's teachings. Calling Buddhism and Jainism as Hindusim but as a Nastik (Hetrodox) sects. Which makes no sense when they their own unique beliefs and practices separate from the Vedic or Hindu religion
@@knowledgedesk1653 Cola empire..? Which provinces or country does that fall under. I never heard or read any historical accounts on that. Buddhism remained in India till the 15th century but it was already in decline but was growing else where mainly East and Southeast Asia.
Buddhism had dealt a heavy blow to Brahminical faith. Threatened with extinction, Hinduism started to re-organize itself. Attempts were now made to give up the complex system of rites and rituals and make Hinduism simple and attractive. The Hindus even came to accept the Buddha as a Hindu incarnation and accepted the principle of non-violence. This helped revive Hinduism and made it popular again. This took away the fragrance out of the flower of Buddhism. The decline of Buddhism became inevitable
Only Reason was Adi Shankaracharya and His Vedanta Philosophy. Even today Shankars Advait Vedanta is studied and discussed among universities all over the world especially West
Buddhism in India has advised elimination of untouchables which was not supported by the Hindu kings and Brahmins. I believe it is the main reason for disappearing Buddhism in India.
Islamic Invaders played no part Buddhism's demise according to you I guess...Forced Islamization of Sindh,Eastern India and also Burning of Takshashila at the hands of Bakhtiar Khilji was a Probably a Trivial Matter Too right? Just Put the Blame on Hindu, Caste and Brahmins for the Wrongdoings of Buddhist Communities who joined hands with Islamic Invaders and Welcomed their Own Demise which opened the door for Tyrannical Islamic Rule over India for 800 Years which was Suffered by Everyone in India Irrespective of Caste and Religion.
II think you hit it when you mentioned the syncretic nature of ‘religion’ in ancient India. The idea of a singular religion of “Hinduism” did not exist and this could be true with early Buddhism as well. A person could follow elements of one philosophy while worshipping a local god and having a Brahmin priest initiate a wedding ceremony. Even Shankaracharya, who is mentioned by others here was not defending Hinduism in debates but rather the validity of the Vedas and accumulated written knowledge in general. So he may have been looking for Buddhist ideas in the ancient texts which made Buddhism redundant. But I would not discount Islamic invaders as there is quite a lot of documentation on the history of Afghanistan being a predominantly Buddhist country that was invaded.
FYI - "Hinduism", a wrong term to use - you should use the correct term "Sanatan Dharma, a way of life, and it's not a religion in the same sense as the "Abrahamic" religion is. Initial decline started from the last Gupta dynasty. Real decline of Buddhism started from 7the centrury when "Adi Shankaracharya" came into the picture. Destruction of the Nalanda University was the last nail to the coffin of Buddhism.
A key historic point that must not be missed is the occurrence of the "Golden Age of India" under the (Hindu) Gupta empire which existed from the early 4th century CE to late 6th century CE. The region flourished with remarkable advances in newer dynamic schools of thought, such as in the intellectual spheres of mathematics, astronomy, science, medicine, philosophy, literature, art and architecture as well as various religions. Some of these were, in fact, taught at Nalanda University. In other words, there was a rich variety of intellectual pursuits that peaked at the time in India, and naturally, Buddhism had also to compete with those currents. (As a fun analogy, Silicon Valley is among the least religious regions of the US, according to the Pew Research Center.)
Hello Doug ! I made a few comments in this very comment section and will make some more later. Right now, I would just like you to know that one of the sources in your description was 'Audrey Trushcke', who really comes across as anti Hindu and very much like an apologist for people like Aurangzeb. A lot of what she has said has been refuted by many people/groups, such as True Indology on Twitter and she tries to block anyone who tries to point out the factual errors. Regardless of what she wrote in the book about Islam and Buddhism that u cited here, I just want you to know that relying on such a person can be very dangerous, when she clearly seems like one of those people that try to whitewash mughal history, just like the marxists, communists, neo-orientalists etc ever since India's independence, with the aim of destroying India's unity today, which is what the several 'Breaking India Forces' are doing. I know that what I just said has practically nothing to do with Buddhism, but I wanted to say it anyway, becoz several western indologists/historians/scholars are either very biased about India, Sanskrit and Sanskriti or they unintentionally mistranslate texts, thereby causing huge unrest in Indian society, becoz they always view from a very western lens, which is a very big problem. I believe that you should look into it. I would love to share some highly important info on multiple topics related to India, Dharma, Buddhism, Hinduism, Indology and so on, if you are interested ...
I wasn't relying on a book of Trushke's, only a paper, and that only for a very small section of the video where I mention her name. The material presented is really not controversial academically.
it was just like decline of Christianity in Jerusalem 1. one of the prominent reasons would have been the Huns who were recent converts to hinduism and were strictly monotheist in a sense they only worshipped Shiva 2. And brahmins too discriminated against their own children who became buddhists 3. the non violent nature of buddhism may have been a reason for people opting for a more violent hinduism to safeguard themselves from turkic raiders
@@HariOm-ri8hw yes she is complete moron and Bigotted Aurangazeb was most cruel human but we cannot blame him He followed his book of terrorism (quran) line by line His sky god requires to kill non believers apostates and idolators But one great thing happend all native hindus got fed up of him and started to revolt which led to birth of ahoms sikhs and marathas who finished the mughal rule
If Buddhism had not taken concepts like karma and rebirth from Vedic religion and Mahayana/Vajrayana had not corrupted Buddhism, the teachings of Buddhism would have made a lot of sense for the modern world we live in as compared to any other religion. I guess even the Buddha was limited by his times in being unable to totally reject some of those unverifiable Vedic concepts.
oh, this was very comprehensive, useful and clear information, like in other of your videos (I should add); thank you for your generosity in making your knowledge available;
@@DougsDharma Not even a single mention of Adi Shankaracharya who walked lengths and breadths of india debated great buddhist converts into sanatana dharma school of purva mimamsa called mandana mishra?
1) Buddha spent years studying all Sanatan philosophies before he launched out. So the influence was on Buddha rather than vice versa. 2) There were no isms in India. And certainly there was no Hinduism at the time. Brahmins were scholars and certainly didn't subscribe to any one ism either. Religions came & died in Bharat like flavours of the season. E.G Ajivika, bigger than Baudha at one time. Baudha just died a natural death too. It is just that the Western world finds this approach very hard to swallow given their approach of either you are with me or against me...leading to their destruction of paganism & later their fight with Islam, protestanism etc. Main thing is Buddha was always revered by all Sanatanis. He even has a presence in several temples in Bharat to this day. And in most homes. 3) it is said that Buddha didn't believe in the authorities.of.the Vedas. However, most of Buddhism is Upanishadic. It is a package from different Sanatan philosophies n practices. Includes Tantra ofc. 4) Buddha was from the Ikshvaku dynasty same as Ram & it is said he saw himself as avatar of Ram. Sanatan saw him as an avatar of Vishnu who Ram was an avatar of as well. 5) I am close to Tibetans & go to their settlements often. I find all their visible symbolism n practices same as those practiced by Hindus/sanatanis today. 6) Check out Sanatan temples in Andhra. You will find Buddhist monasteries are just the same. This is because Nagarjuna, Nalanda scholar, was from Andhra.
Thank you Dough for doing this video. You point out an important fact in 10:25. That is the adaption of Sanskrit in to Buddhist literature, something Buddha prohibited to do (see advice to Yamelu & Thekalu in Vinaya Pitaka). You have also pointed out the influence of other belief systems on Buddhism. This is the reason why Thrilakshana (Anichcha, Dukkha, Anaththa) has the meaning of [impermanent], [suffering] and [non-self]. According to Pali script this is incorrect and should be corrected as [Insatiable], [suffering] and [no essence]. Concept of self and non-self is part of brahmin veda teaching and something Buddha excluded in his teachings. I understand Buddhist scholars like yourself (specially in western countries) had to accept what was given to you in translation and make sense of it, therefore this is not a criticism of your great work here or anyone else for that matter. I am only asking you to draw your attention in this direction as well. It will give you goosebumps if you see some of the actual meanings of dhamma. Do you know that actual Buddhist breath meditation has nothing to do with breathing air in and out? Here’s a brief explanation of Thrilakshana according to Pali script. [Anichcha(Pali)] = Insatiable = five aggregates of each sensory faculty (30 altogether, AKA world) are not the way we want, we have no control over and has zero gratification. Example (for Eye): take two people called A and B, one loves Buddhism (A) and other hates Buddhism(B). Let’s say we place A and B in front of a statue of lord Buddha. Both have the picture of lord Buddha statue in front of them now. BUT, Person ‘A’ feels happy and thinks statue of Buddha gave him/her happiness Person ‘B’ feels unhappy and thinks statue of Buddha gave him/her unhappiness you see, this proves that statue of Buddha did not have happiness or unhappiness, but ‘A’ felt happy and ‘B’ felt unhappy related to their attachment. This is the issue with all of us and we think outside world give us happiness or unhappiness, but it is ALWAYS not the case, this mental fabrication of ours using attachment (or Thanha) give us those feelings. This zero gratification called Anichcha or Insatiable (shunyatha) and it is not impermanent. [Dukkha(Pali)] = Suffering = Not fulfilling - you try to fulfill your six sensory faculties with gratification from five aggregates that has zero gratification - this will never happen therefore it is dukkha. [Anaththa(Pali)] = no essence = Because of above, five aggregates (or world) has no essence, it gives you suffering. You can apply above to anything in your life and you see this is the cause of each and every problem in the world. Also, if you take this meaning you will see it will fit with all suttas like piece of a puzzle.
@@julianoaraujo8155 Thank you Juliano for your question. My English is not good enough to explain this properly. This is always the case with Buddhism, everything in it including nirvana is an understanding rather than a knowledge so it is difficult to explain. Nevertheless, I will try my best. My main source for this is Ānāpānasati sutta. But this understanding should also tally with other definitions that buddha gave us in other suttas, because dhamma should never contradict. You will see that dhamma never contradicts one sutta to other when you know the correct meaning of Thrilakshana (the drawback of gratification of five aggregates). In Pali Ānāpānasati sutta there are two important words, one is “assa” and the other is “passa” these two words are homonyms in Pali, they have meanings of breathing in and out as well as take something in to mind (adopt) and put something out from mind (let go). But in translation to Sanskrit these words translated as “Ashwaasa” and “Prashwasa” that has the exact meaning of breathing in and out. The reason for this is because the lay people who did this translation thought that buddha meant breathing in and out because the sutta has the name Ānāpānasati which is the breath meditation described in brahmin meditation practices. They never bothered to consider two important things. First is that why buddha introduce same breath meditation brahmins had after he explored these teachings for years and found out that was not the way to nibbana. Second, they totally disregarded Ven. Saariputta’s very detailed explanation of “assa” and “passa” in Seela sutta. So, what do we have to adopt and let go from our mind to attain nibbana according to Ven. Saariputta? He explains how to [adopt] non-lustful, non-hateful and non-delusional (alobha, adwesha, amoha) thoughts according to Thrilakshana and how to [let go] lustful, hateful and delusional (lobha, dwesha, moha) thoughts according to Thrilakshana by developing four Dhyana in detail. I can’t imagine why someone disregard such profound and technical explanation. There are number of dhamma contradictions if we take this as breath in and out as well, but I am not going to write them here. “Breathing in long he knows ‘I am breathing in long.’ Breathing in short he knows ‘I am breathing in short.’ [1] Breathing out long he knows ‘I am breathing out long.’ Breathing out short he knows ‘I am breathing in short.’ [2]. You might wonder how to explain this according to Ven. Saariputta’s explanation. I will leave this for you to research because it’s difficult to write here :). Think along the lines of things hard to adopt and things hard to let go (and vice versa). This very high level and incomplete answer to your question, and apologies for any language issues. If you are really interested in this, I can point you towards someone who can give you more in-depth answer in English.
I respect every religion but It's time for Buddhists worldwide to take responsibility for collecting accurate information about Buddhism from its origins through historical and archaeological research. We shouldn't rely on resources from other religious groups, especially Indian/Nepali Hindus, who have distorted our religious texts with their own beliefs. Beware of false information spread by Hindus, particularly on platforms like UA-cam.
@Voices. Why convert to Buddhism? Should they not convert to Jesu? At least, the missionaries would bring money and milk powder with them, in return for vote against Hinduism and India.
Rise my dalit people? And how can you be follower of Buddha? Buddhism is not hate mongering religion or anti brahmin one in fact Buddha first disciples and ones who wrote down Buddha's teachings are brahmins. This new bhim navya Buddhism is not buddhism at all rather is hate against others in the name of Buddhism which was totally against of Buddha's teachings
@@Anshulhe you don't know the reality. Buddhism founded by Buddha was almost against superstitions prevailing in Vedic cult. Even Vedic cult is the reason for the decline of Buddhism in India. Love and compassion can only be showered on the people who respects it,and not on those who will back stab you. First know the history of Buddhism and then pass on your illogical comments. Indian Buddhism is the purest Buddhism which is present till date. All other sects are mere diluted one.
@@NativeIndian1310 There's no religion which doesn't have superstitions, over time every religion acquire them but vedic Hinduism reformed later with many philosophers and same is case for many religions they start, acquire superstitions and reform and as per scholars main reason for Buddhist decline in India is same that Buddhist monasteries became too superstitions, disconnected from people etc.. Anyways as vedas say if we're getting good from any direction we must humbly accept so should be character of every religion Reform is sign of religion being touch with ordinary people
Serious question, should Buddhists be involved in politics? For example, should most Buddhists automatically support India against China in a war or something like that??
This is a very contentious question. I have a playlist on Buddhism and politics that might give some answers: ua-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRhRTFjzEz5i7G8XoNhORcDs.html
Very good and explanation on decline of Buddhism in India. Could have touched upon the role of Shankaracharya the vedic scholar of 8th century who travelled the length and breadth of India debating with Buddhist scholars and converting them to Sanatana Dharma. His efforts are also said to have played a great role in the decline of Buddhism.
We have an entire text on Shankar Acharya ( something they don’t teach you in India ) Although Shankar Acharya did defeat Buddhist Monks ( plain monks ). Shankar Acharya himself was defeated by Dharma Kriti. Dharma Kriti asked Shankar Archarya to follow Buddhism but the humiliation of defeat made Shankar Acharya to commit suicide in Ganges.
Hi doug. It's really sad MAHATMA(Great soul) BUDDHA spent so much time in India fighting Brahminsim But Buddhist are only 1%population in india. It's half true..The government sensus records 1% Buddhist monk in india there are more people like you and me who follows practice but aren't monk . People from scheduled caste (UNTOUCHABLES before independence) shows their interest in bauddh dhamma After Dr.Ambedkar left hinduim and become follower of buddha. Millions of people use bauddh as there sirname but few state government count them in hindu when cencus is done. 1% is estimate its actually around 3-5% of the total population. Sorry if you find any grammatical errors in my comment 😊
Idc what someone thinking South asian real culture is hindusium and we are following since 10 thousand years and second thing buddha never left hindusium his followers created own religion
I am not great authority on this topic but I am an Indian and follower of Buddha. So I think I can tell my observation on this. You know India is divided in castes. Babasaheb Ambedkar's movement converted a large population to Buddhism but most of the newly converted Buddhists were illiterate and unknown towards buddhism. Then some of them studied Buddhism is neighbouring countries and come back but they bought only the pariyatti part, the Tipitaka but Goenka Ji's work was broad, what I think, he worked in those newly converted Buddhists and simultaneously he taught Buddha's message in the so called upper caste Hindus in a very secular way so they also accepted Buddha wholeheartedly. And VRI has been doing tremendous work to transliteration the Tipitaka in indian scripts. Yes, Goenka Ji's work is broad but Babasaheb's work was pioneering so I think we can not compare both the great personalities.
if as u said the Buddha was not against accumulating wealth and many urban merchants at the time were fond of this idea then what was the point of even having monastics in the beginning
Well monastics were the true keepers of the dharma and the "professionals" along the path. They were the renunciants. The Buddha saw there was nothing ethically wrong with accumulating wealth justly though it was productive of dukkha.
Most all of the buddhist scriptures, literature, symbols, methodology of worships, food & dress habits, are stolen by Brahmin ism, even stupas are converted into shiva linga. All buddhist vihara are converted into big temples, even mythological stories also are stolen, cut&paste. Very sad sir
Well it's good to keep in mind that there was plenty of sharing on all sides. Many of the Buddha's early ideas came from Jainism and Brahminism, although of course he had his own take on them and disagreed with much that he found there.
Until very recently everything was under royal control all over the world, not just Nalanda or India. How did the Angela church came into existence because of royal authority?
Several weeks ago, when you focused on the direction of this channel, I noted that historical context is one of the (virtually) unique aspects and attractions of ''Doug's Dharma''. In the vastness of UA-cam, to own a niche is precious indeed. At the time, I failed to qualify what (for me) is the qualifier of perfect ''length and depth''. There are other sources on UA-cam for this material, but it is invariably just recorded university lectures, running in excess of an hour. You have a gift of covering as much ground (with MORE outside scholarship), in far less time. This is gold. Usually, your videos get placed in my bursting ''favorites'' cache. The essential doctrinal material is not going to be worked through in even a lifetime, at the rate I'm going. Allow me to remark that it is VERY satisfying to watch a video once, and trusting the viewpoint, feel like, ''Awesome! Got it.'' Now I don't really believe I've ''got it'' (I'm sure one could make a career out of specializing in Buddhist historiography). But, of course, while I'm very interested in the subject and it's very important, my concern is mostly soteriological (oh my, UA-cam spellchecker giving me the angry, wiggly red line!). To get this kind of ancillary material in a positively ''entertaining'' 37 minute format, and on a channel that occurs automatically in my ''up next'' is priceless and much appreciated. Metta.
That's great Smitty. Yes, there's no way to be comprehensive with this kind of very complicated historical period, but I've tried at least to sketch an outline.
I think the decline and disapperance of Buddhism in India is a complex phenomena that happened over the course of many centuries. However, at some levels, it is also quite simple. All countries in existence have experienced and endured a number of calamities. In countries that Buddhism has became a part of its ethnic identity (such as Sri Lanka, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc) or state identity (Thailand, Burma, Tibet), Buddhism has survived because there are political and popular support for Buddhism. Buddhism has almost disappeared from Sri Lanka many times due to the same reasons that you have listed for India, and yet Sri Lanka court and people continued to bring back Buddhist order from Burma and Thailand, which is a geographically challenging endeavor. And Buddhism took roots in Sri Lanka again, to the point where Sri Lanka became known as a bastion of Theravada Buddhism. For some reasons Buddhism never achieved this level of cultural identification in India. Like Jainism, Himalayan Buddhism continues to survive in Nepal, due to strong community support of Newari, Bhutanese and different Himalayan people. On the other hand, the destructive power of organized Islamic violence is quite real and cannot be understated. As Islam arose, the ancient religions of the Middle East simply moved out or disappeared, like Zoroastrianism.
Very briefly explained, main reasons of decline but missed or wrongly interpreted Dr Ambedkar’s views on this that is... 1) the philosophical conflict that took place ( within the various kingdoms ) btw Buddhism (Sangha) versus Brahmanism. There were philosophical debates happening btw various Buddhist scholars and Brahmins in universities like Nalanda. Also the sects developed with Buddhism (Mahayana sect played larger role here bcz sanskritization of Buddha teaching took place by this sect, later tantric or vajrayana sect emerges) This was first and foremost reason for declining Buddhism at philosophical level 2) Later the structural damage came from invasion of Islam in india which was quiet easy ( this is only reason been told in Indian history) Also invasion of Islam is very aptly explained by Babasaheb. With invasion why only Buddhism destroyed and not Brahmanism ?? In order for survivals, the Brahmins facilitate & supported the foreign invaders and gain their confidence whereas the Buddhist Sangha monks fled to northern part of india many to Tibet.
The Western scholar ignorantly called Tibetan Buddhism/Vajrayana a Lamaism in 20th and before out of sheer ignorance and most of these proponents were Christian missionaries who failed to convert Tibetan to Christian in 17-20AD.
The best way to understand why Buddhism declined in India is to investigate why Buddhism in countries like Sri Lanka is in decline. Buddha himself predicted how Buddhism decline eventually in the Ani Sutta: The Peg.Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. Amdikar or Secular Buddhism fits with the new peg in this Sutta.
Well, that's one way to look at it. Others say that Mahāyāna was one such peg, or pick your school. Even Theravāda is a peg. So ... the only constant is change.
*PEOPLE COOLLY HAVE FORGOTTEN BUDDHA AND HOLDING ONTO AN "ISM" BY THE NAME BUDDHISM. LIKEWISE EVERY RELIGION HAS BECOME LIKE A POLITICAL PARTY ! SO NO RELIGION IS WORKING PRODUCTIVELY. PEOPLE WANT TO BE 100% WORLDLY BUT STILL WANT TO BECOME A GODMAN LIKE BUDDHA. EVERY RELIGION HAS THIS PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS-CONFLICT; PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN A RELIGIOUS GROUP BUT DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR MASTERS' VOICE.*
History evidence vividly tells that brahminical hatred towards buddhism was very extreme. The Brahmins kings like pushmitra sungha, Sasanka, Mihir Kula etc persecuted Buddhist and temples were adopted.
When Jesus was in India, it was the Brahmins who tried to eliminate him because he was teaching that all people are created equal. Jesus' teachings are more akin to Buddhism than to Judaism. Buddhism was a direct threat to the Brahmin religion's stratified class structure (Varna system). It is said that Brahmins were openly or clandestinely responsible for most of the misfortunes that befell Buddhism, such as losing patronage and protection from kings & rulers, internal corruption and splitting up into different sects & ideologies. There were many known cases of Brahmins who infiltrated Buddhist institutions and sabotaged them from inside by misleading and corruption. There are also examples of Brahmins like Nagarjuna who originally infiltrated Nalanda to sabotage it, but later changed his mind and turned out to become a famous Buddhist teacher-monk.
You should have read 'Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India' by Dr Ambedkar, there he has mentioned the reason of Decline of Buddhism which was ignored by Many Historians. I can provide you online link of writing of Dr Ambedkar, if you want to read them, or you can buy it from Amazon.
@@HariOm-ri8hw be careful he also mentioned a Brhamin as his source, Brhamins have appropriated Buddhism in Indian Institutions and are working for the Hindu Nationalists/Brahmincal goals.
First of all Buddhism is not a religion..not for popularity. Secondly, Buddha's teachings are for each individual to practise for their ownself to get out of samsara (suffering). I would say you need to have affinity to receive the teachings of the Buddha.
Would it be fair to say that the Buddha intended Buddhism to be a sort of elite teaching, for true seekers, similar to how certain gnostics saw themselves in relation to other Christians?
Well he saw the dharma as for everyone, though he did understand that most people wouldn't be interested in becoming monastics. So to that extent, the monastic path is presented as "elite".
I found this comment on my Facebook what are your thoughts on it ' I took a look at the UA-cam video referenced above, and here's my response. It reiterates well-known facts about the history of Buddhism in India, so it isn't particularly controversial. Moving forward from that discussion, I would add that a key point is that for Buddhism to exist as an institution it relied on monasteries of celibate monks, which were in turn dependent on elite patronage. So Buddhism had that vulnerability all along because it needed a source of patronage. By contrast, Brahmanical priests can and do marry, and thus live as householders, so Hindu worshippers at the common level don't rely on institutions in the same way, although there are big temple complexes too. The other issue is that, as noted, Buddhism arose within the cultural milieu of proto-Hinduism (as Hinduism wasn't really defined as a separate, inclusive religion at that point), and so it was in a sense always a kind of add-on, supplementing the normal cultural stratum of Indian Hindu practice. India has had countless gurus over the centuries, and most remain little known to the outer world, and not even known within India. But some, like the Buddha, gained renown because they may have had a more coherent set of teachings, which were further developed, and their followers later got royal patronage (such as King Ashoka), which ensured their survival. So when monasteries were subsequently destroyed by various invaders from the northwest of India, starting even before the advent of Islam, and continuing to later Islamic warriors from Afghanistan, and non-supportive Hindu and Islamic rulers commanded the situation, people in villages and towns just continued on with their normal lives but without any further thought to supporting the now-ruined monasteries. If the monasteries hadn't been destroyed, Buddhism would have continued to merge with Hindu practice anyway, the same as we see in Jainism, which had emerged at the same time as Buddhism and is still around today. Jains now maintain their distinctive scriptures and some practices, but on the whole, they behave very much in line with the everyday Hindu Indian cultural setting. Likewise, in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal, the Newars famously follow both "Hindu" and "Buddhist" holidays and practices as two ends of a single comprehensive cultural practice. A lot of Westerners taking an interest in the philosophical teachings of Buddhism miss Buddhism's cultural context because they approach it as an intellectual framework of self-improvement in the Western model of individualistic inquiry. And so they may too easily forget that Buddhism in India was always just one dimension of Indian cultural performance. Likewise, when it came to places like China and Thailand and so on, it was sustained not as a standalone religion but as part of encompassing cultural practice.'
Thanks utkarsh, I think this is a very perceptive comment, and I'd agree. One point though is that I don't think the monastics needed to rely on "elite" patronage, at least not to the degree they ended up doing. Had they remained closer to their lay adherents they would have been in a better cultural place to resist invasion.
Buddhism was never dominant religion in India even during ashoka is was flourishing in the sense of getting state patronage and development of philosophy but never in Indian history it was dominant religion. I think it's like second biggest religion after Hinduism but never exceeded 25% of population ratio if I'm not wrong
Shiva lingam is not a phallus, much less a "male penis". There is no mention of any phallic association in any Hindu scriptures, the first time anyone wrote the Lingam was a phallus was western anthropologists who would much rather make assumptions about Hinduism than consult the locals. The British colonialist could not conceive of a column (in a "primitive" culture)that did not represent a penis. But no one ever thought the Lingam was a phallus before colonialism, and no Hindus do today either. Doug, this video was well researched, but you have to be sceptical or what Indologists from western academia say. The remnants of cultural evolutionist theory still exists in these myths of what things "really" mean. Lingam is only a phallus to Indologists, Hindus and their ancestors saw it as something else.
@@DougsDharma Answer by Swami Vivekananda(at PARIS CONGRESS OF THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS): The Swami said that the worship of the Shiva-Linga originated from the famous hymn in the Atharva-Veda Samhitâ sung in praise of the Yupa-Stambha, the sacrificial post. In that hymn a description is found of the beginningless and endless Stambha or Skambha, and it is shown that the said Skambha is put in place of the eternal Brahman. As afterwards the Yajna (sacrificial) fire, its smoke, ashes, and flames, the Soma plant, and the ox that used to carry on its back the wood for the Vedic sacrifice gave place to the conceptions of the brightness of Shiva's body, his tawny matted-hair, his blue throat, and the riding on the bull of the Shiva, and so on - just so, the Yupa-Skambha gave place in time to the Shiva-Linga, and was deified to the high Devahood of Shri Shankara. In the Atharva-Veda Samhita, the sacrificial cakes are also extolled along with the attributes of the Brahman. In the Linga Purâna, the same hymn is expanded in the shape of stories, meant to establish the glory of the great Stambha and the superiority of Mahâdeva. Again, there is another fact to be considered. The Buddhists used to erect memorial topes consecrated to the memory of Buddha; and the very poor, who were unable to build big monuments, used to express their devotion to him by dedicating miniature substitutes for them. Similar instances are still seen in the case of Hindu temples in Varanasi and other sacred places of India where those, who cannot afford to build temples, dedicate very small temple-like constructions instead. So it might be quite probable that during the period of Buddhistic ascendancy, the rich Hindus, in imitation of the Buddhists, used to erect something as a memorial resembling their Skambha, and the poor in a similar manner copied them on a reduced scale, and afterwards the miniature memorials of the poor Hindus became a new addition to the Skambha. One of the names of the Buddhist Stupas (memorial topes) is Dhâtu-garbha, that is, "metal-wombed". Within the Dhatu-garbha, in small cases made of stone, shaped like the present Shalagrama, used to be preserved the ashes, bones, and other remains of the distinguished Buddhist Bhikshus, along with gold, silver, and other metals. The Shalagrama-Shilas are natural stones resembling in form these artificially-cut stone-cases of the Buddhist Dhatu-garbha, and thus being first worshipped by the Buddhists, gradually got into Vaishnavism, like many other forms of Buddhistic worship that found their way into Hinduism. On the banks of the Narmadâ and in Nepal, the Buddhistic influence lasted longer than in other parts of India; and the remarkable coincidence that the Narmadeshvara Shiva-Linga, found on the banks of the Narmadâ and hence so called, and the Shalagrama-Shilas of Nepal are given preference to by the Hindus to those found elsewhere in India is a fact that ought to be considered with respect to this point of contention.
@@DougsDharma if you check the sources there, it is a book that is 104 years old,written at the hight of colonialism. If you check the Shiva Purana it mentions that Shiva first appeared as a beam of ligth. Seems clear to me that the lingam is a reference to the Shiva Purana, and even though it ends up looking like a phallus in some few cases, the lingam is not primarily a phallus.
Linga literally means genitals and the lingam has been inspired by the phallus or penis. However people who worship it don't regard it as worshipping someone's phallus but more of as a symbol of shiva.
One could mention the surge of great Acharyas, like Shankaracharya, who were followers of the Vedantic schools like Sankhya, Nyaya, Mimansa, Yoga, Vedanta.. Their scholarly interpretation AND debates on the concept of Brahman and Atman were impressive.. The were masters of the Vedic knowledge.. Perhaps the Buddhist Monks (trained in the "Vitanda" model of negation debates to prove Shunyata, could not sustain their arguments.. Other countries did not have this incredible intellectual eco-system of divergent perspectives, so it thrived there.. It could also be that in a naturally blessed, diverse country like Bharata, "Celebration" is the basic DNA of life.. So a faith (not belief) system based on austerity and negation, could not gain traction amongst the masses..
Excellent, thanks! The big question I have is why the human being chose the “easy” way first... why sangha retreat themselves and “leave” the lay people out. Doesn’t that be the reason why Buddha criated the Sangha? In other words... was the growing of buddhism a goal? Or is just free to happen whatever it happens... thanks Doug!
Well my sense is that it was easier to grow the sangha in power and prestige by allying with powerful lords rather than with the local people. There is a delicate balance here that got a bit out of whack over time. But yes, one of the Buddha's goals was to grow the sangha around the world.
The reasons are different in different regions. For instance, in Sindh, Buddhist practitioners allied with Muhammad Bin Qasim, the Arab invader, whereas the Hindus resisted. Buddhism disappeared from Sindh in less than 2 centuries after the Arab occupation, whereas Hinduism survived longer, although Jaziya compelled the vast majority of Hindus to convert. Each region has its own history.
I am a hindu , I always feels that buddha is also my god and everyone in the world should 🙏 follow his teachings , my mother go on fast during buddh purnima , but you guys wants to separate Hinduism from Buddhism. Their may be differences but buddha himself follows a type of Hinduism , budhha never claim himself as God instead he said that he spread the teachings of Buddhism becouse hindu lord bharma told him to that . I am feeling so sad and depressed after seeing no comments of indian buddhist against this propoganda. In india every hindu is a Buddhist and love buddha as his own 🙏.
buddism was and always will be a different religion we buddhist dont want to associate with you so i dont know why dont stop your propaganda though we respect you religion and beliefs
@@marshmellow1162 yeah Buddhism is a different religion it can't become part of Hinduism because Hinduism is great and your filthy Buddhism can't become a sect or something And Vishnu's avatar Buddha was different person from your gautam Buddha
I'd argue that levying taxes against a religious minority is still intolerant. Especially when you point out what happens when someone refuses to pay those taxes.
Buddha was born in which religion? His parents was sanatan dharma followers. hindu word is not mentioned in any religion books. westners don't understand that 🙄
It's not clear which belief system his parents belonged to; scholarship tells us Vedic Brahmanism (the ancestor to Hinduism) was not particularly common in their area.
@Scepticism Unleashed first check Buddha original name then his wife name and clan ,then his sons name then decide he belongs to which dynasty and culture....
I'd like to mention here also that Jainism and Buddhism are quite similar in principles and teachings even they share many traditions the key difference would be that Jainism tended towards asceticism more than buddhism did. The similarities are the monk tradition is literally same. Monks relied heavily on richer upper class society in jainsism even today. I once read somewhere that Gautama Buddh/ Siddharth attended one of the lectures by Tirthankar Mahavir and he realised that Jainism is way too harsh way of living( principles that were good in theory , but in practice difficult for lower section of society and only could be practiced by upper class) for laypeople so he created a midway of living applicable for everyone. I can literally see similarities there way too similar. Don't look into modern jainsism it's rapidly declining look for old texts. It's really very similar.
Check out this video next on Dr. BR Ambedkar's revival of "new" Buddhism in India: ua-cam.com/video/qlH_qieCgCA/v-deo.html
Consider joining us on Patreon if you find benefit in these videos, and get fun extras like exclusive behind-the-scenes videos, audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
Your comment is saying it's one month old 😂
@@user-Void-Star Yes, I upload these videos in advance actually! 🙂
@@DougsDharma There are lot of assumptions and western point of views in this video, few examples not all:
1)Defining Hinduism as only the Home/hearth and sacrificial activities even if it is just a tiny part of it. Hinduism celebrate multiple school of thoughts e.g. astik and nastik which means one who believe in vedas, one who dont believe in vedas and other who believe in veda but dont take it as authority.
One who believe in vedas have more generally classified in 6 school of thoughts like samkhya, yoga, mimansa, vedant etc, newer one are like sikhism, neo vedantism. Whereas one who dont believe in Vedas are like jainism, bhuddism, charvaka, lokayukta etc. Then there is third type of school of thoughts which are based on agamas and believe in veda but not as an authority like astika. Examples are Kashmir shaivism , shaktism etc.
Most of the thought process of Buddhism is similar to Mimansa and samkhya as almost all school of thoughts in India are related. Take for example this sutra of upnishad,
..................................
" Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Puurnnam-Udacyate |
Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||
"
which means
"That is whole; this is whole; From that whole this whole came; From that whole, this whole removed, What remains is whole."
.......................................
Now sunayavada sees whole as sunya, vedanta sees whole as Brahma, Kashmir shavisim sees whole as Shiva, Samkhya sees whole as purusha and prakriti.
Second: Hinduism is limited to life cycle ceremonies and priest only do that. There are thousands of communities and sects who dont do life cycle ceremonies or have officiated priest. Further, there are multiple communities of Buddhists who do all these ceremonies and have offciated priests also. Buddha was never concerned about it. Buddha as much followed Hinduism as other used to follow at that time.
Let me take few texts from the early Buddhist tradition at random:
The Dhammapada, a major text ascribed to the Buddha himself and Sonadanda Sutta, a minor text recording Buddha’s dialogues. The last chapter of the Dhammapada (Carter and Palihawardana, Trans., 1987)
is about the Brahmins. Here are three from the fifty-odd verses on the issue:
"Not by matted hair, or by clan,
Or by birth does one become a brahmana
In whom is truth and dhamma, He is the pure one, and he is the brahmana (§393; 78)
Again,
And I do not call one brahmana
Merely by being born from a [brahmana] womb,
Sprung from a [brahmana] mother.
He is merely a “bho-sayer”
If he is a possessor of things.
One who has nothing and takes nothing,
That one I call a brahmana. (§396; 78)
Or again,
Who, here, having abandoned the human bond,
Has transcended the heavenly bond,
Who is released form all bonds,
That one I call brahmana. (417; 81)
In tenor, theme, and substance, all the verses are of the same nature: Buddha tells us who or what a ‘true’ Brahmin is. He does not say that he is talking about Hinduism in general. Bhudda never ever in any speech or text rejected Hinduism or differentiated himself from Hinduism.
Fourth: Lingam doesn't mean male penis. Lingam means sign or symbol. The lingam is supported by a "lingi" i.e. symbol/sign/ distinguishing symbol is supported or represents or depicts some entity or some energy form. That is why human sex organ is sign or distinguishing symbol of their gender/form of energy which differentiate between male, female etc, similarly like multiple different signs or symbols e.g. as world is lingam of iccha, gyan and karma sakti ( desire, knowledge and action energy/power) of Shiva as per Kashmir shavisim.
Fifth: Hatha yoga is way older than so called Buddhist concept. Its root philosophy is Samkhya which is said to be as old as vedas.
Sixth: There is only one instance of destruction of temple by Hindu king and that too was personal reason related to his family not religious issue. There is no text which tells that Hindus or Indians have destroyed any temple for religious issue as no one used to see one self as western religions identity about self.
Seventh:" Islam didn't impact much on Buddhism. " An absolute lie based on new kind of scholars. You dont need to work hard to know real history. read the books written by these Muslim rulers themselves.There is one word "Bhut", most of the temples and statues of Buddha in Gandhar or current Afghanistan and Pakistan were destroyed by Islam. From these only this word "Bhut" came in existence and it is still used in Hindi which means Statue as mostly Buddha's statues were destroyed by Islam.
Eight: For Islam there is no difference in Hinduism and Buddhism, both are kafir/non believers. They called everybody who were not following Islam in Indian subcontinent as "Hindoo" not some as Buddhist and other as Hindu.
Further, Hinduism is not just concerned about local deities as thought by Islam ( i dont know whom among Islam thought so as you haven't named anyone), Hinduism or people of India used to think and still thinks "vasudev kutumbakam", which concerns with whole world/universe.
Buddhism never disappeared from India, it just dissolved itself in the ways of life of Indians. As none of the school of thoughts is called as religion in India so was Buddhism was also not called as a religion. All school of thoughts mingles and mingled with each other and effected and effects the way of livings of Indians still today. It is just western encounter with Buddhism outside India called it is as Buddhism nothing more. Buddhism is as much part of Indian school of thoughts and you can find multiple examples of it in Tark ( debates) in multiple commentaries about multiple texts/Sanskrit text/pali text/Tamil text/regional texts where opposite side of the principal school of thought is described as vedantist, Samkhyian, Mimansa follower, Chanikvadi ( one type of Buddhism), Sunyavadi ( One type of Buddhism) etc.
Oi
Pakistan, Afghanistan , Baluchistan was Buddhist majority ...Just Like Persia was Parsi Majority..
Islamic Invasion cleansed them all with force ,and the multiple genocides and destruction evidence still resides in all these areas.
Only Hinduism fought back and managed to survive somehow .
The oldest living civilisation of the world,even after 1000 yrs of Invasion rule
In South Asia, Buddhism survived on himalayas and islands where invaders couldn’t reach.
You perfectly wrong.
It's Hindu kings who destroyed Jainism and Buddhism in India. Before Islam we fought ourselves
@@gobimurugesan2411well there are many who patronized buddhism jainism and so called hinduism and some who tried to eradicate buddhism
For eg the guptas Lalitaditya Muktapida palas chandras and other build many buddhist stupas
And shungas who tried to destroy buddhism
But the one thing to agree is that the brahmins who were in king's court manipulated many text just to keep society under their control
@@gobimurugesan2411 Jains still in exist... Have you never been to Mumbai?
@@12SPASTIC12 ya but they are majority before
Even the Arabic historian has written about the destruction of Buddhist monasteries in India. The last Abbot of Nalanda escaped and sought refuge in Tibet.
Yes, there was destruction of Buddhist monasteries in India, and many people from Nalanda did flee to Tibet.
@@BarbarraBay It also teaches that there is nobody per se to go to hell. And 'hell' is a matter of perspective.
@Peta. What "Arabic historian" are you talking about?
@Saladin Ayyub why would they love Buddha????
It's not by violence that Hindus did.... Hindus did by philosophical debated!!
Even if Hindus did by violence it's not even a fraction of what Hindus suffered from Muslim rule
@Saladin Ayyub I wonder why a predominantly Buddhist country became Muslim and I wonder who destroyed those ancient Buddhist Universities..... really makes u think....
As a practitioner of Navayana and being an Indian "Buddhist", it is my duty to revive the traditions of Buddha, Nalanda, Tantra and moreover human sensibility (Budhatva) in this land of full of memories
Interesting thanks Apurv!
Ambedkar's Buddhism rejects the foundational doctrines and historic practices of traditional Theravada and Mahayana traditions, such as monk lifestyle after renunciation, karma, rebirth, samsara, meditation, nirvana, Four Noble Truths and others. 🙄
@@italianalcapone Firstly, no school of Buddhism can disagree on the 4 noble truths (Arya Satyani) taught by Buddha because that's the main teaching of Buddha.. Ambedkar has justified and agreed with the Arya Satyani in his book "The Buddha and his Dhamma". Please read it before reaching on any conclusions to decide what were exactly Ambedkar's views.
@@italianalcapone and also not just Buddhism, no Indian philosophy rejects the idea of ultimate liberation or Nirvana as called in Buddhism. In fact this is the final goal of an individual in all these thought systems. In Yoga, it is referred to as MahaSamadhi, while in Vedic systems it is Moksha, in other traditions like Jain, it is Mukti, while in Buddhism it is called Nirvana...Approach to attain this liberation may vary among these thought systems but nonetheless that's the goal towards which all converge. Hence, Navayana does not have a slightest scope to reject the concept of Nirvana
@@apurvaj3319 according to Ambedkar, the four noble truths is a ' gospel of pessimism ' and may have been inserted into Buddhism by wrong headed Buddhist monks of a later era
In their book on Buddhism, Huston Smith & Philip Novak make a similar point to one you make in this vid. They argue that Hinduism made changes to incorporate Buddhist reforms and that with the develop of Mahayana, Buddhism started to sound more like Hinduism. In the end Buddhism was reabsorbed back into Hinduism.
Interesting, thanks for the info osumarko. There are aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism that do recall Vedic Brahmanism or Hinduism, but in general the only place where Buddhism or Buddhists were absorbed into Hinduism was India. Elsewhere Buddhism developed quite on its own.
@@DougsDharma Upanishads have philosophy (advita) and have nothing to do with Buddhism....
Nagarjuna from South India travelers to North becomes buddist... His philosophy is foundation for Mahayana school in Buddhism
@@haragopal1 what 😳😂non duality has nothing to do with buddhism get your facts corrected, all teachings of tathagata are to destroy duality and about nagarjuna he was born in bhrahmin caste, he wrote commentaries on tathagata's teachings and his contribution is commendable ,there were many great naladna scholars they preserved the authencity of tathatas's words so that next generation may benefit
@@Blessedbuddha1911 non duality means Advaita in hindu concept
It Means onenes self or state called ""brahman""
It's pantheism...
On the other hand Buddhism says there's absolutely nothing ... It's emptiness or there's no self in Buddhism....
@@haragopal1 both traditions has a concept of non duality not only vedanta but both sees in a diiferent angle , no self is nothingness😳 im sorry that is absolutely wrong , it never said nothing is there ,things are there but in absolute level it's not there, emptiness doesn't mean nothingness ,emptiness means things has no inherent existence,phenomena are empty of substance or essence because they are dependently co-arising Likewise it is because they are dependently co-arisen that they have no intrinsic, independent reality of their own.
Yes Madhyamaka tradition in buddhism rejects the existence of absolute realities or beings such as Brahaman or Self . In the highest sense, "ultimate reality" is not an ontological Absolute reality that lies beneath an unreal world, nor is it the non-duality of a personal self (atman) and an absolute Self. Instead, it is the knowledge which is based on a deconstruction of such reifications and conceptual proliferations .It also means that there is no "transcendental ground," and that "ultimate reality" has no existence of its own, but is the negation of such a transcendental reality, and the impossibility of any statement on such an ultimately existing transcendental reality: it is no more than a fabrication of the mind .
and lastly there were many traditions in ancient india and india cherished and preserved those traditions for long, india was a land of seekers not mere believers, reason why bhramanical tradition always look down on buddha's way just because it has different view and beacuse has different view unlike vedas and upnishads ,he never said that is wrong , so what if one's mental dispositions works in this way ,what's wrong in it ,if one's mental dispositions doesn't work in that way then what is the loss,either way we should believe in what our mental dispostions can digest , there is nothing wrong or right in it, today india lost valuable knowledge even other traditions are almost on the verge of perishing just beacuse habit of thinking and anlysing is no more cherised today 🙏
Being an Indian, I feel it's resurrection of Hinduism through Advaita Vedanta philosophy is the main reason which is almost similar to Buddhism except they talked about one absolute God theory against dependent origination theory of Buddhism and was led by Adi Shankaracharya.
The link between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is quite complex and interesting, one I'm still trying to get my head around. 🙂
@@DougsDharma Zen = Advaita.
Yes, that's a prominent reason that wasn't mentioned. Vedanta could appeal to the same Indian elites as Buddhism, and reinterpret Hindu praxis in a way that undercut Buddhism. To this day, Buddhism is mostly a religion in India of elites and those on the margins of society.
@@DougsDharma Both are nondual religious philosophies, but Vedanta developed more as a response to Buddhism. So while Buddhism denies essentialism as valid, Vedanta says essence is the very foundation of reality. Given the vagueries of language, however, it's arguable that the differences mostly come down to religious loyalties and praxis.
Interestingly enough, modern Vedanta was also influenced by contact with European religions, specifically Unitarianism (brought by the British).
@ Magnulus76
Actually, that may not be true. More and more researchers from India keep finding the Indian influences on European thought, that have been hidden for so long. So it might have been the other way. Also, the very idea of 'Neo Hinduism' has problems becoz it basically shows a lack of proper understanding of Vedic Hinduism (which has been tagged Brahminism by propagandists).
But anyway. To understand what I am talking about, I want you to watch one video. Please type the following and watch the first video that follows:
'Rajiv Malhotra India's Unacknowledged Contributions to Mind Sciences'
What I would emphasize and which I saw in comments section too is that "Hinduism was a folkish religion of India just like Shinto religion of Japan and Taoism/folk religions of china. It was an open architecture with an amazingly solid and intricate Philosophical structure with a almost infinite flexibility to absorb the philosophy/teachings of other teachings. It has a tendency to accommodate/assimilate rather to uproot/destroy. Buddhism being Indian religion has also those similar properties. Buddhism in India never grew sans the shadow of Hinduism. It grew with the Hinduism. People were not rigid anyhow in India. The clergy may have been slightly hostile but usually they weren't to the verge to making another sect/belief extinct." The Indian religions are by their thinking and nature mostly pluralistic and accommodative as they usually believe in multiplicity of paths and nature of seeking. I am proud of this tradition.
Yes well Buddhism grew up partly in opposition to the Vedic Brahmanism of the Buddha's day; although he did accept many of the tenets of the Upaniṣadic belief system, he rejected its focus on a permanent self, its acceptance of the Vedas as revealed truth, as well as its belief in caste superiority.
@@DougsDharma actually caste system and varna system arent same at that time the vedas got corrupted...
later scholars like adi shankaracharya and ramanujacharya came to reform it
@@DougsDharma Caste System has origin in 10th Mandala of Rig Veda (Earliest text of Vedic Religion). This Mandala was added at laater stages. Earlier Rig Veda had only 7 Chapters (2-8). 1,9 and 10 were added later. Also, it was Varna System and not Caste system at the starting which was based on Qualities and not on Birth. But, evil Brahmins changed everything for their benefit with the help of Shastras and Puranas.
Buddha did the right thing by rejecting Vedas, as they were already corrupted by the Brahmins. Even, I am thinking of joining Buddhism to get out of such a religion (Hinduism) which propagtes Casteism.
@@tommygun7614 why change your religion? Why not fight along with right minded fellow Hindus like me for equality. #Hindutva
@@paramitachakraborty8338 Are you ready to give up all Shastras and Puranas?
Also
On another occasion, Kassapa asked the Buddha: "What is the reason that formerly there were fewer rules, but more monks were established in the knowledge of Arahatship, while now there are more rules, but fewer monks are established in the knowledge of Arahatship?" The Buddha replied:
"So it happens, Kassapa, when beings deteriorate and the true Dhamma vanishes: then there are more rules and fewer Arahats. There will be, however, no vanishing of the true Dhamma until a sham Dhamma arises in the world. But when a sham Dhamma arises in the world, there will be more rules and fewer Arahats.
"But, Kassapa, it is not a cataclysm of the four elements - earth, water, fire and air - that makes the Dhamma disappear. Nor is the reason for its disappearance similar to the overloading of a ship that causes it to sink. It is rather the presence of five detrimental attitudes that causes the obscuration and disappearance of the Dhamma.
"These are the five: it is the lack of respect and regard for the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, the training, and for meditative concentration, on the part of monks and nuns, and male and female lay devotees. But so long as there is respect and regard for those five things, the Dhamma will remain free of obscuration and will not disappear."
That's right Yasith, that too might make a difference.
Buddhism in Western India declined due to adoption of Hinduism and forgein invasions (Huns and Muslim Invasions). It declined due to adoption of Saivism in Southern India. And due to Turkic invasion in Eastern India.
ua-cam.com/video/1UOjDYDAV64/v-deo.html
@@taidelek9994 Turkic invasion in western India mostly present Pak
Buddhism was declined way before muslims came to India and it was not due to that there where 64 schools of thought in india who used to persuade the other to convert to his faith if they lost the debate with them Buddhism and jainism were also one of those school of thoughts so after many years after Buddhism rised their school of thoughts kept loosening the debates and Hinduism revived
Muslims are a lot more recent as oppose to Buddhism
@@arindambose9863 Brahmans literally converted everything back to Hinduism.
Supreme Buddha did mention that the Dhamma will vanish within 5000 years.
So this is something that is slowly happening even right now.
Islamic invasion made it more worse in India, and made Buddhism vanish there.
And Hinduism was created with vedic aspects and fusion of Buddhist teachings. It lead to that because the Brahmins wanted to
regain their power, therefore the caste system is the cause of the declining of Buddhism. Fortunately, Emperor Ashoka came to power and converted to Buddhism and spread the Dhamma around the world. So he made Buddhism flourish again.
Sri Lanka played the important role of protecting Buddhism and the true Dhamma.
I would say Thailand, Sri Lanka and Cambodia are the most Buddhist practising countries right now
Yes well, the Buddha is recorded to have said that the dhamma would vanish in 500 years, which fortunately hasn't happened! (This may however have been a later interpolation, arguably fitting the rising of new innovations towards the early centuries of the new millennium).
@@DougsDharma 500 years well i supose in one sense the Buddha was correct. 500 years after the Buddha passed the sangha had changed, the practice had changed , new texts and concepts had started to be introduced, new sects had apeared. Idols, worship and permanant temples had spread and become wealthy. It had become an established religion, the Buddhas life had become full of miracles like walking after birth with lotus sprouting from his footprints and giving a talk with miricles and superpowers throughout his life, he had become godlike no longer just a man who discovered a practice to escape suffering, this places enlightenment out of reach for mere mortals. The dhamma was no longer the dhamma and practice of the Buddha and his disciples. So yes 500 yrs was pretty much correct.
Edit: i should add that it is still posible to become an arahant, rare but possible and was even achieved in the 20th century by monks like Empty Cloud, Lp Mum , Lp Khao etc..if you practice what the Buddha did and not the religous culty twaddle.
Buddha had said that only Brahmana & Kshatriyas are meant for enlightenment and next Buddha would be from Brahmana community, which lead to many Brahmanas joining his movement. Where was the threat of loss of power of Brahmanas? Even Ashoka about whom you are talking specifically mentioned protecting & respecting brahmanas hundreds of time. Ashoka targetted & persecuted Jaina & Ajivaka monks but not Vedic brahamana or brahamanas in general.
@@theyoungindians9027 umm no. No he didnt, no it isnt and no it wont.
@@emptyemptiness8372 About what specifically?
Go read what Buddha talked in Lalitavistara Sutra about who could become Bhodisattva? Or even how Buddha stressed so much on preserving blood lineage while talking about his sister's marriage within same family.
Buddha is not some modern day left progressive as you people are making him out to be.
Buddhism was always faith/practice of elites/rich globalists/existing establishment in every country that in entered - India, China , Japan. It was not some revolution against 'brahminical caste system' as taught by fee Buddhists. koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2012/05/buddha-and-caste.html?m=1
Reluctant arguments. Buddhism was already at its golden age in China, Korea an Japan from 6th century. They didn’t wait for islam invasion to have Buddhism.
Nalanda had 10 000 monks killed but you said as a small conflict.
Historians I've read question these numbers as inflated.
That said, of course there was violence and bloodshed in India. The main question I am interested in is why Buddhism declined in India and whether and to what degree this sort of violence was responsible.
The golden age of Buddhism was during the life and time of Buddha himself, not in the 6th century. As time passes, the teachings of Buddha becomes more and more further away from his teachings.
Doug's Dharma I appreciate your analysis of the internal decline of Buddhism. That’s was a probably the major reason for the downfall of Buddhism in India. However, the Islamic invasion was definitely the decisive terminator, obviously not a myth. Your approach, to me, seems to be over sympathetic with the bloody invasion, otherwise “revisionistic”.
Maitreya Buddha it’s your definition. The historical definition means that when something dominates and has the largest influence in the largest areas, it’s its golden age.
Around 6th century, Buddhism dominates East Asia, Central and South Asia, which means it’s the biggest religion at that time, in regards to the vast area of influence.
Buddhists suffered from so many invasions as Buddhism follows Ahima, which is to refrain from violence. I think Buddhists were helpless. As a result, the Muslims of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Maldives, Indonesia, Malaysia are all converted from Buddhism to Islam.
This may be one background condition, but what's needed is historical investigation and analysis rather than speculation.
@@DougsDharmaHe is right. he is not speculating for example Eastern bengal which was buddhist converted to Islam very easily but western bengal which was hindu survived hundreds of years of Islamic occupation.
@@ravisharma9294Lol Buddhism was already declined in india
Lol eastern bengal was also hindu lol@@ravisharma9294
@@groundzero5708but not Afghanistan,a lot of Pakistan central Asia arguably a lot of Indonesia as well.
India still had Buddhist empire in 19th century too
There was no such thing called Hinduism or religion in India. People used to follow different belives and collectively called Hindus by outsiders. That is why I believe Buddhism absorbed in one of the beliefs in India and never was separate religion.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana to put more simply. There were multiple tribal/natural belief system but brahminical/vedic system were always able to have certain control over other belief systems. They failed to do that for Buddhism for a long period but finally managed it by reforming their own system.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana to put more simply. There were multiple tribal/natural belief system but brahminical/vedic system were always able to have certain control over other belief systems. They failed to do that for Buddhism for a long period but finally managed it by reforming their own system.
Agree, we have too many diversity of practices happening to put in one religion
This is very true
@@jinofhellno,there were already ascetics and people following different philosophies before Buddhism.
my man u have said a lot of truth but u have said a lot of wrong too, northwest india was majorly buddhist during the islamic invasions although ruled by hindu kings , in fact the very reason why the first arab invasion into india was successful was because sindh was ruled by a hindu king " RAJA DAHIR SEN" but about 60-70 percent of his kingdom's population was buddhist and they supported the arab invasion , buddhists also formed the majority in eastern afghanistan, eastern balochistan ,western pakistan( that entire pashtun areas) and east bengal(modern day bangladesh) . the only regions that had a clear hindu majority when islam invaded and r majority muslim today were punjab and kashmir . Also do u know whats the persian word for idol?? its "Buth" !! do i even need to say anything more , we all know how gracefully islam treats idol worshippers.scholars like audrey truskey have an extreme lvl of islamic bias and that seems to have
incalculated such a false image of islam within you .
Kashmir was also Buddhist majority ,it was major centre of Buddhism where 4 th Buddhist council was held .Hindus were always minority in kashmir
@@altafwani9445 Nope
I agree with you . His thinking is in line with all the left wing liberals of India .
@@altafwani9445 nope kashmir was the centre of shaiva dharma tantra...and went through extreme bloodshed to become the hell it is today..
@@byron-ih2ge it was Buddhism and from Buddhism converted to islam ,hinduism was always minority
I am a Buddhist from India, and very glad to see people from the other side of the world become interested in our religion.
I am glad to see many Americans making their way to Buddhism.
Here are the main reasons why Buddhism ended in its native country:
1. Islamic invasions. This is probably the biggest blow to Buddhism not only for India but for several Buddhist nations that were invaded by Islam and converted to Islam. Examples include Afghanistan, all of Central Asia, Indonesia, Maldives, Bangladesh, and even some parts of Iran as well.
*DID YOU KNOW* that the Ghurids, the first Islamic empire to have permanently make establishment in India were actually converts to Islam from Buddhism?
They are from Afghanistan. A Rajput King by the name Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Muhammad Ghor of the Ghurid dynasty several times, but finally lost to the Ghurids in the Second Battle of Tarain in 1192. Also, a mamluk of Muhammad Ghor started and established the Delhi Sultanate, and Khilji was a general of the Delhi Sultanate who destroyed Nalanda. The Turks not only in India, but even in Central Asia converted the populations from Buddhism to Islam.
2. Brahmanical ideologies and brainwash. The Brahmins defeated the Buddhists in the debates, and started to integrate the religion of the Buddha with Hinduism. They even made claims such as Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu which many people started to believe. One must not forget Pushyamitra Shunga, a Brahmin king who tried to decimate Buddhism in India.
3. Hun invasions. A Chinese traveller to India Xuanzang saw that Buddhism was vanishing in the Gandhara region, and it was mostly due to the invasions by the Hun invaders from Central Asia.
Thanks for your comment. I suggest watching the video and reading the scholarship linked in the show notes for an alternate view.
@@DougsDharma Will do, thanks for the reply!
@wrong notes Yeah. It goes against Brahmanical ideas and Islamic ideas
Pushpamitra Shung attacked them but even after his attacks it continued to flourish, it was Adi Shankaracharya who revived Hinduism in the 8th century through non-violence. And it mostly disappeared in the 12th century when the sultanate was invading our country.
Facts. Thanks for telling the truth.
Buddhism never declined it is just faded away, Indians just soaked up whatever Buddhism had to offer and Hinduism is related to culture of India which recycles itself every few centuries. Other reason is Buddhism fell into what Hinduism struggled with, it became elite just like Brahmanical Hinduism. Buddhism dropped 'pali' language of the people and adopted Sanskrit which was more priestly and language of the royal. Also, after Muslim invasion the royalties Buddhist got from merchants and Hindu kings just declined drastically while Hinduism was not Sangha based or had no core organization it thrived in villages of India. Hinduism didn't require any donation and it was so much decentralized that every attempt to eradicate Hinduism by foreign powers failed miserably. Hinduism just reinvents itself every few centuries.
"Islam thinks Buddhism as more cosmopolitan....." You are dead wrong here. So, how did they view Buddhist idol worshipping? Why most of Buddhist monasteries got burned down by Islamic rulers. Nalanda University, people say was the biggest university at that time with more than 10,000 scholars from around the world which Khilji brought it down and it burnt for months. Why Buddhism hasn't survived in any of the Islamic countries? Why Buddha idols are being destroyed even to this date?
This video is talking about attitudes many centuries ago, and is based on scholarship in the books cited in the information box below the video.
@@DougsDharma evidences are quite opposite to whatever the book is saying. If you look at the todays India most of the major hindu temples were converted to mosques, even today hindus are fighting in courts to get some of those restored. Islam brought many good things to India, tolerance was not one of them. I don want to argue here as you have cited the book but todays books are written with their own biased lenses.
@@nikhilkay1 right
@@DougsDharma Doug you’re still wrong. You’re being prideful.
They were burned and destroyed by hindu rulers many times too.
Study about Shashanka, The senas, The varmans and how they ruthlessly masscared the buddhists of Bengal and magdha
Islam hammered the final nail in Buddhism's coffin.
It is also said that the buddhists persuaded the turks to attack the sena dynasty of bengal because to save themselves from sena kindom's oppression.
Very well-done video. I once heard a learned scholar-monastic from Thailand say that emperor Aśoka's involvement in sending missionaries to other countries was because he suspected Buddhism might decline in India. In your view, do you think this is supported by the evidence?
It's hard to say, there's virtually no evidence about Asoka's beliefs apart from his rock and pillar edicts. The Buddha himself though seems to have sent missionaries out to other countries already to spread the dharma. So it was probably not new to Asoka.
@@DougsDharma Thanks, sādhu.
Bro there is no concept of missionaries in Indian dharmic culture whether it is jainism or Hinduism or buddhism
@@Nope-111 Then who were Bodhidharma (Zen) and Sanghamitra and Mahindra (Sri Lanka)?
@@neoloaded 😅well illetarate they are just spreading knowledge and enlightenment to public 😅
🙂Buddha never said I started buddhism or follow buddhism he just put his thoughts 🤭
Just throwing this out there, a video on southern esoteric Buddhism/ Tantra in Theravada would be super interesting to see. I greatly enjoy your channel!
Thanks S K! Yes, I've read a bit about that and it is interesting. It's something I might do when I feel I have more of a handle on the material. 🙂
Most of the theravadin esoteric practices in Thailand, laos,cambodia and myanmar predate the arival of buddhism. Many are khmer in origin and have anamist roots and were absorbed by local buddhist sects long before the buddhist reformation.
Sindh had a Buddhist majority in 712 AD.
Raja Dahirsen was last hindu ruler of Sindh. Come 1947, still Sindh had a sizeable hindu population, however, zero Buddhist population. What you are saying is true, however, I cannot agree with your assessment that your third point is least important. I have given you the case of Sindh as an example. You are correct that Buddhism had become dependent on royal patronage and donations. As they dried out, Buddhism could not take on the islamic onslaught. Hinduism as you very correctly pointed out was much grounded. If you see the almost 1,000 years of Islamic rule, some Hindu kings or groups was constantly opposing the western invaders, whether be it east west south or north. Ofcourse there were some Hindu collaborators also. Though, I am not a student of history, I cannot recall a single Buddhist struggle against Islamic invaders.
I agree with you that Hinduism was a religion of home and hearth. Hinduism's world view was indeed global, however grounded in its soil. Buddhism thrived out of the monasteries, royal patronage and contribution from merchant class. When these factors collapsed, Bhuddism had no stomach for a good fight. Hindus kept on fighting. You give Hindus less credit for the struggle they waged for hundreds of years. From Alexander to the British, some Hindu was always there for a fight.
yes ,this video is the same liberal bullsh*t without proper facts
5:20 The Buddha made it clear that bhikkhus should not beg for food and things, except in times of great need, but rather wait for something to be offered. During alms round, the bhikkhu makes no request, does not even look at people, although he may quietly wait to see if an offering is to be made before moving on. And usually dhamma talks are only conducted upon an invitation, also known as pavaaranaa. Otherwise there is no contacts or communications during the alms round as both bhikkhus and lay people are to observe mindfulness. Hence an alms round is not considered begging, for the bhikkhu does not solicit anything but is ready mindfully to receive any alms that lay people may wish to give. 🙂
The Buddha said the monastic was to rely upon alms food for sustenance at all times, not simply during times of great need. Whether we term that "begging" or not is I guess a matter of semantics. It is soliciting donations of food, etc.
Thanks for this video. I think the violence unleashed by the Muslims on the Buddhists may have been a major factor (for erasure) in the Sindh region. Am I wrong? Please also make a video explaining how Islam nearly completely replaced Buddhism in the area that is now Bangladesh. I have wondered about it for so long.
Pakistan, Afghanistan , Baluchistan was Buddhist majority ...Just Like Persia was Parsi Majority..
Islamic Invasion cleansed them all with force ,and the multiple genocides and destruction evidence still resides in all these areas.
Only Hinduism fought back and managed to survive somehow .
The oldest living civilisation of the world,even after 1000 yrs of Invasion rule
The most important message conveyed in your research is the survival of Buddhism depends very much on the interdependence of the Sangha and the laity, which is the original intent of the Buddha. Once the link is broken or weaken, the metaphysical research of Sangha in an ivory tower even under royal patronage may not be relevant to daily life and eventually will be discarded by the society. Thanks a lot for your reminder to Buddhist around the world.
Yes, I think that's an important lesson. 🙏
Nice video. Very thoughtful, and backed with knowledge.
Can you please make a video of why Buddhism declined in Central Asia, Afghanistan, Maldives next?
Thanks Lahiru. I might do more videos about this in the future if I can find good scholarship, we’ll see.
Arrival of islam
Its simple. Islamic invasion
Assimilation of Hindu and Buddhist practices and the arrival of Islam lead to Buddhism's decline in India.
These were certainly aspects of it.
Yes the King Dahir of Sindh was Hindu cum Buddhist ruler fought against Arabs. There was many schools of thought in India and there was no struggle. It was the Muslim rule that destroyed peace and the spiritual growth.
You have seen the Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha and the destruction of statues in the Middle East during the last decade. Even today the excavated Buddha statues are being destroyed in Pakistan and Afganistan.
Yes and that is very unfortunate.
Yaa.. recently it happen in Pakistan
Why no mention of Advaita Vedanta? That was one among the reasons why Buddhism faded away from India
Well Advaita Vedanta was one aspect of the Hinduism that I mentioned in the video.
@@DougsDharmano
You focused just on one thing.
This guy forgot how Buddhist majority Afganistan was destroyed and even many Buddhist guys betrayed Raja Dahir and sided with muslims while fighting against Islam in modern day Pakistan........While Hinduism is still surviving there but Buddhism was completely wiped out and what an irony that is🤣. Muslims were not tolerant of Buddhism they saw that Buddhism was an easy target and Hinduism as difficult to conquer. So, they used Buddhists against Hindus by telling that Buddhism is superior to Hinduism but the irony is that Hinduism survived while Buddhism did not. While most of the Hindus were fighting bloody battles with muslims the Buddhists were busy running away to different countries or converting to Islam😪. Even though I am from the lower caste my mother has always told me from the very beginning that keep ideology of Buddhism in my Brain while keeping Hinduism in the heart so that it will be hard for external forces like Islam and other Abrahamic religions to conquer me.
@@sagar9703 true bro, dharmic religions can co exist and have a lot in common. But islam is real enemy.
Islamic invaders destroyed several viharas in Afghanistan and Pakistan and massacred monks and forcely converted people to islam. While in india, hinduism faced such problems also, conversion did happen but when islamic rule weakened hindu kings started reconversion of converted people. Also hinduism is seen as a safe place from islam as some islamic rulers are oppressors. Also buddhism was already in decline in india, so islamic invasion made an irreversible change in it. While buddhism faced struggle in the west, it thrived in the East. Many non-Buddhist countries were converted to buddhism and it is still a major religion even today.
During my visit to Mumbai India I saw some Buddhist and Hindu caves and the Buddhist caves were well preserved vs the Hindu caves which were said to be destroyed by the Portuguese. I wondered who was preserving these caves if there were no Buddhist around during Portuguese period in the region. Consider how small the Portuguese colonies were it is hard to believe that they did not discover these caves.
Bhuddhism is wrogly interpreted that it is thrown away from India by Brahmins & Muslims....but the truth is it is taken away from India by more sophisticated countries. as taken away of software CEOs, Best Engineers, best doctors, eminent business men and Kohinur. Bhuddism is like ENERGY, it can never be destroyed but only can modify without changing its core principles.
*PEOPLE COOLLY HAVE FORGOTTEN BUDDHA AND HOLDING ONTO AN "ISM" BY THE NAME BUDDHISM. SO IT'S NOT WORKING. PEOPLE WANT TO BE 100% WORLDLY BUT STILL WANT TO BECOME A GODMAN LIKE BUDDHA. EVERY RELIGION HAS THIS PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS-CONFLICT; PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN A RELIGIOUS GROUP BUT DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR MASTERS' VOICE.*
I would echo Ambedkar here and say Islam has something akin to a caste system baked into it. You have the religious authority and rulers on top, the believers below that, then the people of the book (flowery as that sounds, they're second-class citizens at best), and the people who don't fall into any of the above are outcasts and enemies by default.
Well Islam was opposed to the caste system. Unfortunately most any belief system (including Buddhism) tends to produce in many people a sense of insiders and outsiders. For example we have the monastics, the lay followers, and the non followers. Even the Buddha made these sorts of distinctions.
@@DougsDharma You cannot really call the monks a caste because it's not something you are born into and anyone can become a monk and any monk can simply leave the order.
Anyone in the lay community can, likewise, remain a lay person, become a monk or leave the community of their own volition.
@Michal Nazareth Some may condemn the Hindu caste system while knowing Islam has something baked into it which is akin to it, but arguably even worse. I'd suggest reading 'Pakistan, or, The Partition of India', by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar which can be found on the Internet Archive.
@@HariOm-ri8hw I'm not on Twitter. What is her @ though so I can see for myself?
islam has hierarchy they show brotherhood for the survival of their religion@@DougsDharma
Thank you for taking a balanced approach to the topic. I'll be checking out the rest of your videos!
Glad you enjoyed it Altair, my pleasure! 🙏
@@DougsDharma Actually I happen to be Muslim but I love learning about Eastern religions. Unfortunately there is usually a lot of vitriol when Islam's impact is bought up on those religions.
The area of today's Taliban was the area of Gandharan Buddhism. Kumarjiva, Ashvaghosa, Dignaga, Kanishka etc were active in that area. Its unbelievable seeing the today's violence and fanaticism in that area.
Yes it's very sad to see.
My understanding is a bit different. While I agree that decentralised nature of Hinduism ensured it survived in the rural parts of India and also assimilated Buddhist laity which lost touch with the Sangha especially after collapse of monasteries post Islamic invasion, what I do not understand is why Buddhism got completely wiped out of Afghanistan where there were very few Hindus, if we do not ascribe destruction of Buddhism to Islamic invasion.
What I have been able to understand out of my reading is that under Buddhist dynasties, Sangha gained a lot of influence and power. This led to many people of questionable morals to join the Sangha. Infact, in the third (?) Buddhist council to debate over vices affecting the monasteries such as drunkenness amongst monks and a debate on whether to ban wine. No reason to believe such issues got sorted out post collapse of Buddhist dynasties as royal patronage of the Sangha continued even under Hindu dynasties.
Once Islamic invasions happened and destroyed monasteries as well as stopped royal patronage, there was no incentive in people joining Sangha. Laity had as you said, already been assimilated amongst Hindus in rural areas. Also, with the Central Asians adopting Islam, silk route trade which was controlled by Buddhist traders fell into the hands of Muslims, thus decreasing patronage from the urban rich.
Yes, this is a very high overview, there likely were different causes in different places.
You didn't mention anything about how A.D Shankaracharya Clobbered Buddhism in the 8th century to the point of oblivion. Now that's really fascinating. I just got done reading this 71 page essay by some one named Kencho Tenzin, Shankar Shankara: A Hindu Re a: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto-Buddhist? I'm curious if you have done any video's on Shankara and the debates between him and various buddhist in his day. ?
Most of what I do is on early Buddhism. Shankara is much later, and his role is wrapped in polemics, so to do a reasonable history of him one would have to get underneath the myth. If I can find anything useful I might do something on him eventually.
@@DougsDharma yeah I got you , well thanks for the reply. It says you said there's so much that went on prior to shankara in 700 something and the destruction of Nalanda in the 12th century. Thanks for sharing that and helping us tune into those earlier days of Buddhism.
No
There were already multiple philosophies followed by people in India before Buddhism AND also much after those.
Study Bhagavad Gita and many other philosophical texts.
There were Charvaks too(who didn’t believe in reincarnation,moksha and were atheists).
Thank you for this very informative video, my friend. Be well, and stay healthy!
You're very welcome heathenwizard, you too!
Sir, Buddhism became half when Sankara defeated them philosophically. It became a quarter when split within itself. It became one eighth when the money and precious metals hoarded by Buddhists affected the country’s economy and the kings seized them. The last nail on its coffin was self inflicted when the Buddhists betrayed Hindus and joined Islamists.
There is no mention of any such debate.. adi Sankar is known for his debate with Mandan Misra..
I don’t get why zealots of Islam always gets a pass . I had commented earlier that we cannot understate the wholesale destruction of great institutions like Nalanda and Vikramshila. In Nalanda alone nine million books were burnt and it took nine months for the embers to die out. This is narrated by the Upadhaya (Head) of Nalanda who fled to Tibet after the destruction he witnessed. In today’s equivalency it is like destroying all the great universities of the world and incinerating every research on science and scientific achievements and then ascribing the decline of science on peripheral reasons. You just have to follow the patterns of systematic destruction of Buddhism and Hinduism unleashed in South East Asian countries where Islam is the majority religion today. History must endeavour to reflect the facts with sincerity however unpleasant they may appear today.
I certainly wouldn't give zealots of any religion a pass, though neither would I strive to foment hatred among people. "Hatreds never cease through hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law." Dhp. 5.
Agree, people so easily give pass to Islamic oppression, it was not just universities, they also burned down cities in similar manner, brutally tortured and raped people as they came, yet people overlook them so easily.
Like the saying goes, "People will only see/hear what they wanna see/hear".
The chachnama which chronicled Arab invasion of Sindh mentions a significant number of Buddhists living in North West India (including some parts of Afghanistan) and their relation with the invaders & local rulers?
Interesting, thanks.
Thank you for this very helpful video. It gives a sufficiently broad sweep to help the average person understand yet provides the necessary nuances so that we don't see history in simple terms of black and white. This gives me a building block and a launchpad to read up and study further and to understand different areas in the history and development of Buddhism. I really appreciate this.
You're very welcome! Glad to help. 🙏
One of the main thing is Hinduism or sanatan dharm is way before buddhism where hermits were roamed in India with various upanishads as base. Hinduism is way before buddhism except there may be tantra ways, and buddha also practiced the yoga way before so technically originated from sanatan dharm. Get ur things from both point of view, not only from ur own kind..
The oldest Upanishad is Brahdryanka which is around 500 BC..so it is not older than Sharman Religion and it was added to Vedas later
Buddhism is pretty helpful in understanding your nature and tendencies, but it gives me a kind of vertigo if I mess with it for too long. That feeling of groundlessness is unnerving and scary. It has an appeal to me, nonetheless. In some way, it makes me sorry I ever started.
Interesting thoughts Allen, yes I guess there is an element of groundlessness to it. Still, maybe without the ground we can fly.
It’s like the scene in Close Encounters withal the Third Kind when Richard Dreyfus boards the alien craft. How many of us can renounce the past and wrong thinking fully? This world feels like Hell sometimes but it’s a familiar Hell. We get homesick for the suffering. It just feels like that, that’s all.
I am sick of this topic of 'decline' of Buddhism. It never declined. Both Hindu practices and Buddhism merged and influenced each other to a point indistinguishable. Many of the hindu concepts around karma and karuna, daya etc were heavily shaped by buddhist philosophy. Mahayana buddhism became very similar to hinduism. The destruction of Nalanda was however, a major blow to the identity of Buddhism as a separate philosophy. Having visited Nalanda, I was astonished that both vedic and buddhist philosophy were taught with equal importance.
I am born where Pala (Bengal) kingdom ruled. My ancestors were likely Buddhist but later we became Muslim. I agree with you Buddhism is more compatible with the Islamic religion rather than Hinduism. Buddhism did decline in Eastern Indian Buddhist dynasty area due to South Indian Hindu dynasty weaking the Pala dynasty. Though the remaining Buddhism
In the area started accepting non Buddhist teachings and practices. Hence why new Theravada Nikayas came back to the area recently to go back and remove non Buddhist sources and practices to practice closer to the Buddha's teachings
The Vendata teachers mixed and down played the Buddha's teachings. Calling Buddhism and Jainism as Hindusim but as a Nastik (Hetrodox) sects. Which makes no sense when they their own unique beliefs and practices separate from the Vedic or Hindu religion
Thanks for your input ShrimpPaste. To be fair, I think Buddhism can be compatible with many religions or belief systems.
@@shrimppaste1692 Vedanta started from Upanishads(800BCE). It isn't mix of Buddhism and Jainism.
@@shrimppaste1692 Buddhism remained in Eastern India till 13th century while Cola empire was in decline from 12th century only.
@@knowledgedesk1653 Cola empire..? Which provinces or country does that fall under. I never heard or read any historical accounts on that. Buddhism remained in India till the 15th century but it was already in decline but was growing else where mainly East and Southeast Asia.
Buddhism had dealt a heavy blow to Brahminical faith. Threatened with extinction, Hinduism started to re-organize itself. Attempts were now made to give up the complex system of rites and rituals and make Hinduism simple and attractive. The Hindus even came to accept the Buddha as a Hindu incarnation and accepted the principle of non-violence. This helped revive Hinduism and made it popular again. This took away the fragrance out of the flower of Buddhism. The decline of Buddhism became inevitable
Only Reason was Adi Shankaracharya and His Vedanta Philosophy. Even today Shankars Advait Vedanta is studied and discussed among universities all over the world especially West
Lol vaishnavi school called adi sankacharya .buddhist in disguise
@@groundzero5708first learn spellings😂
Buddhism in India has advised elimination of untouchables which was not supported by the Hindu kings and Brahmins. I believe it is the main reason for disappearing Buddhism in India.
Islamic Invaders played no part Buddhism's demise according to you I guess...Forced Islamization of Sindh,Eastern India and also Burning of Takshashila at the hands of Bakhtiar Khilji was a Probably a Trivial Matter Too right? Just Put the Blame on Hindu, Caste and Brahmins for the Wrongdoings of Buddhist Communities who joined hands with Islamic Invaders and Welcomed their Own Demise which opened the door for Tyrannical Islamic Rule over India for 800 Years which was Suffered by Everyone in India Irrespective of Caste and Religion.
II think you hit it when you mentioned the syncretic nature of ‘religion’ in ancient India. The idea of a singular religion of “Hinduism” did not exist and this could be true with early Buddhism as well. A person could follow elements of one philosophy while worshipping a local god and having a Brahmin priest initiate a wedding ceremony. Even Shankaracharya, who is mentioned by others here was not defending Hinduism in debates but rather the validity of the Vedas and accumulated written knowledge in general. So he may have been looking for Buddhist ideas in the ancient texts which made Buddhism redundant. But I would not discount Islamic invaders as there is quite a lot of documentation on the history of Afghanistan being a predominantly Buddhist country that was invaded.
Yes, agreed. And the history of Afghanistan is different, at least to my knowledge!
FYI - "Hinduism", a wrong term to use - you should use the correct term "Sanatan Dharma, a way of life, and it's not a religion in the same sense as the "Abrahamic" religion is. Initial decline started from the last Gupta dynasty. Real decline of Buddhism started from 7the centrury when "Adi Shankaracharya" came into the picture. Destruction of the Nalanda University was the last nail to the coffin of Buddhism.
A key historic point that must not be missed is the occurrence of the "Golden Age of India" under the (Hindu) Gupta empire which existed from the early 4th century CE to late 6th century CE. The region flourished with remarkable advances in newer dynamic schools of thought, such as in the intellectual spheres of mathematics, astronomy, science, medicine, philosophy, literature, art and architecture as well as various religions. Some of these were, in fact, taught at Nalanda University. In other words, there was a rich variety of intellectual pursuits that peaked at the time in India, and naturally, Buddhism had also to compete with those currents. (As a fun analogy, Silicon Valley is among the least religious regions of the US, according to the Pew Research Center.)
Yes it's a fascinating time in history, that's for sure. Thanks Ekam.
Gupta was not hindu empire. Don't read just your ncert books
Hello Doug ! I made a few comments in this very comment section and will make some more later.
Right now, I would just like you to know that one of the sources in your description was 'Audrey Trushcke', who really comes across as anti Hindu and very much like an apologist for people like Aurangzeb. A lot of what she has said has been refuted by many people/groups, such as True Indology on Twitter and she tries to block anyone who tries to point out the factual errors. Regardless of what she wrote in the book about Islam and Buddhism that u cited here, I just want you to know that relying on such a person can be very dangerous, when she clearly seems like one of those people that try to whitewash mughal history, just like the marxists, communists, neo-orientalists etc ever since India's independence, with the aim of destroying India's unity today, which is what the several 'Breaking India Forces' are doing.
I know that what I just said has practically nothing to do with Buddhism, but I wanted to say it anyway, becoz several western indologists/historians/scholars are either very biased about India, Sanskrit and Sanskriti or they unintentionally mistranslate texts, thereby causing huge unrest in Indian society, becoz they always view from a very western lens, which is a very big problem. I believe that you should look into it. I would love to share some highly important info on multiple topics related to India, Dharma, Buddhism, Hinduism, Indology and so on, if you are interested ...
I wasn't relying on a book of Trushke's, only a paper, and that only for a very small section of the video where I mention her name. The material presented is really not controversial academically.
A video comparing buddhism to advaita vedanta would be good.
Yes this is a very complex topic, but one that's been on my mind.
it was just like decline of Christianity in Jerusalem
1. one of the prominent reasons would have been the Huns who were recent converts to hinduism and were strictly monotheist in a sense they only worshipped Shiva
2. And brahmins too discriminated against their own children who became buddhists
3. the non violent nature of buddhism may have been a reason for people opting for a more violent hinduism to safeguard themselves from turkic raiders
@@HariOm-ri8hw yes she is complete moron and Bigotted
Aurangazeb was most cruel human but we cannot blame him
He followed his book of terrorism (quran) line by line
His sky god requires to kill non believers apostates and idolators
But one great thing happend all native hindus got fed up of him and started to revolt which led to birth of ahoms sikhs and marathas who finished the mughal rule
kon hai ye log
Audrey Truskhey is one of the worst historian I ever read. She is preety much aurangzeb lover I guess. Nd twist history in her flavor.
Perhaps Vikash, but very little of this video depended upon her scholarship.
@@DougsDharma she is the worst historian. She even blocks people who present facts and debunked her book. You should never trust her.
If Buddhism had not taken concepts like karma and rebirth from Vedic religion and Mahayana/Vajrayana had not corrupted Buddhism, the teachings of Buddhism would have made a lot of sense for the modern world we live in as compared to any other religion. I guess even the Buddha was limited by his times in being unable to totally reject some of those unverifiable Vedic concepts.
oh, this was very comprehensive, useful and clear information, like in other of your videos (I should add); thank you for your generosity in making your knowledge available;
Glad it was helpful Alessandro!
@@DougsDharma Not even a single mention of Adi Shankaracharya who walked lengths and breadths of india debated great buddhist converts into sanatana dharma school of purva mimamsa called mandana mishra?
1) Buddha spent years studying all Sanatan philosophies before he launched out. So the influence was on Buddha rather than vice versa.
2) There were no isms in India. And certainly there was no Hinduism at the time. Brahmins were scholars and certainly didn't subscribe to any one ism either. Religions came & died in Bharat like flavours of the season. E.G Ajivika, bigger than Baudha at one time. Baudha just died a natural death too. It is just that the Western world finds this approach very hard to swallow given their approach of either you are with me or against me...leading to their destruction of paganism & later their fight with Islam, protestanism etc. Main thing is Buddha was always revered by all Sanatanis. He even has a presence in several temples in Bharat to this day. And in most homes.
3) it is said that Buddha didn't believe in the authorities.of.the Vedas. However, most of Buddhism is Upanishadic. It is a package from different Sanatan philosophies n practices. Includes Tantra ofc.
4) Buddha was from the Ikshvaku dynasty same as Ram & it is said he saw himself as avatar of Ram. Sanatan saw him as an avatar of Vishnu who Ram was an avatar of as well.
5) I am close to Tibetans & go to their settlements often. I find all their visible symbolism n practices same as those practiced by Hindus/sanatanis today.
6) Check out Sanatan temples in Andhra. You will find Buddhist monasteries are just the same. This is because Nagarjuna, Nalanda scholar, was from Andhra.
Thank you Dough for doing this video. You point out an important fact in 10:25. That is the adaption of Sanskrit in to Buddhist literature, something Buddha prohibited to do (see advice to Yamelu & Thekalu in Vinaya Pitaka). You have also pointed out the influence of other belief systems on Buddhism. This is the reason why Thrilakshana (Anichcha, Dukkha, Anaththa) has the meaning of [impermanent], [suffering] and [non-self]. According to Pali script this is incorrect and should be corrected as [Insatiable], [suffering] and [no essence]. Concept of self and non-self is part of brahmin veda teaching and something Buddha excluded in his teachings. I understand Buddhist scholars like yourself (specially in western countries) had to accept what was given to you in translation and make sense of it, therefore this is not a criticism of your great work here or anyone else for that matter. I am only asking you to draw your attention in this direction as well. It will give you goosebumps if you see some of the actual meanings of dhamma. Do you know that actual Buddhist breath meditation has nothing to do with breathing air in and out?
Here’s a brief explanation of Thrilakshana according to Pali script.
[Anichcha(Pali)] = Insatiable = five aggregates of each sensory faculty (30 altogether, AKA world) are not the way we want, we have no control over and has zero gratification.
Example (for Eye): take two people called A and B, one loves Buddhism (A) and other hates Buddhism(B). Let’s say we place A and B in front of a statue of lord Buddha. Both have the picture of lord Buddha statue in front of them now. BUT,
Person ‘A’ feels happy and thinks statue of Buddha gave him/her happiness
Person ‘B’ feels unhappy and thinks statue of Buddha gave him/her unhappiness
you see, this proves that statue of Buddha did not have happiness or unhappiness, but ‘A’ felt happy and ‘B’ felt unhappy related to their attachment. This is the issue with all of us and we think outside world give us happiness or unhappiness, but it is ALWAYS not the case, this mental fabrication of ours using attachment (or Thanha) give us those feelings. This zero gratification called Anichcha or Insatiable (shunyatha) and it is not impermanent.
[Dukkha(Pali)] = Suffering = Not fulfilling - you try to fulfill your six sensory faculties with gratification from five aggregates that has zero gratification - this will never happen therefore it is dukkha.
[Anaththa(Pali)] = no essence = Because of above, five aggregates (or world) has no essence, it gives you suffering.
You can apply above to anything in your life and you see this is the cause of each and every problem in the world. Also, if you take this meaning you will see it will fit with all suttas like piece of a puzzle.
Thanks for your input Nuwan.
@@DougsDharma My pleasure, hope this helps someone.
@@julianoaraujo8155 Thank you Juliano for your question. My English is not good enough to explain this properly. This is always the case with Buddhism, everything in it including nirvana is an understanding rather than a knowledge so it is difficult to explain. Nevertheless, I will try my best.
My main source for this is Ānāpānasati sutta. But this understanding should also tally with other definitions that buddha gave us in other suttas, because dhamma should never contradict. You will see that dhamma never contradicts one sutta to other when you know the correct meaning of Thrilakshana (the drawback of gratification of five aggregates).
In Pali Ānāpānasati sutta there are two important words, one is “assa” and the other is “passa” these two words are homonyms in Pali, they have meanings of breathing in and out as well as take something in to mind (adopt) and put something out from mind (let go). But in translation to Sanskrit these words translated as “Ashwaasa” and “Prashwasa” that has the exact meaning of breathing in and out. The reason for this is because the lay people who did this translation thought that buddha meant breathing in and out because the sutta has the name Ānāpānasati which is the breath meditation described in brahmin meditation practices. They never bothered to consider two important things. First is that why buddha introduce same breath meditation brahmins had after he explored these teachings for years and found out that was not the way to nibbana. Second, they totally disregarded Ven. Saariputta’s very detailed explanation of “assa” and “passa” in Seela sutta. So, what do we have to adopt and let go from our mind to attain nibbana according to Ven. Saariputta? He explains how to [adopt] non-lustful, non-hateful and non-delusional (alobha, adwesha, amoha) thoughts according to Thrilakshana and how to [let go] lustful, hateful and delusional (lobha, dwesha, moha) thoughts according to Thrilakshana by developing four Dhyana in detail. I can’t imagine why someone disregard such profound and technical explanation. There are number of dhamma contradictions if we take this as breath in and out as well, but I am not going to write them here.
“Breathing in long he knows ‘I am breathing in long.’ Breathing in short he knows ‘I am breathing in short.’ [1] Breathing out long he knows ‘I am breathing out long.’ Breathing out short he knows ‘I am breathing in short.’ [2]. You might wonder how to explain this according to Ven. Saariputta’s explanation. I will leave this for you to research because it’s difficult to write here :). Think along the lines of things hard to adopt and things hard to let go (and vice versa).
This very high level and incomplete answer to your question, and apologies for any language issues. If you are really interested in this, I can point you towards someone who can give you more in-depth answer in English.
I respect every religion but It's time for Buddhists worldwide to take responsibility for collecting accurate information about Buddhism from its origins through historical and archaeological research. We shouldn't rely on resources from other religious groups, especially Indian/Nepali Hindus, who have distorted our religious texts with their own beliefs. Beware of false information spread by Hindus, particularly on platforms like UA-cam.
Your religion budha was hindu 😂😂😂 you bheemta
Wait your name is Abhijit? Are you not a HIndu yourself?
@@SATWIKRAJ-x3babe Buddha shraman the kuch bhi gapodo ge kya science journey se debate kar
@@Sheshnāga-x1kgawar bhimta😂
@@Eternal00211 Abe eureshiyan Brahmin bhimta matlab jijaji hota hai Marathi me aur pehle Batao panchgawya khaya ki nahi
Rise my Dalit people. Revive the great faith of Lord Buddha
🙏
@Voices. Why convert to Buddhism? Should they not convert to Jesu? At least, the missionaries would bring money and milk powder with them, in return for vote against Hinduism and India.
Rise my dalit people? And how can you be follower of Buddha?
Buddhism is not hate mongering religion or anti brahmin one in fact Buddha first disciples and ones who wrote down Buddha's teachings are brahmins.
This new bhim navya Buddhism is not buddhism at all rather is hate against others in the name of Buddhism which was totally against of Buddha's teachings
@@Anshulhe you don't know the reality. Buddhism founded by Buddha was almost against superstitions prevailing in Vedic cult.
Even Vedic cult is the reason for the decline of Buddhism in India.
Love and compassion can only be showered on the people who respects it,and not on those who will back stab you. First know the history of Buddhism and then pass on your illogical comments.
Indian Buddhism is the purest Buddhism which is present till date. All other sects are mere diluted one.
@@NativeIndian1310 There's no religion which doesn't have superstitions, over time every religion acquire them but vedic Hinduism reformed later with many philosophers and same is case for many religions they start, acquire superstitions and reform and as per scholars main reason for Buddhist decline in India is same that Buddhist monasteries became too superstitions, disconnected from people etc..
Anyways as vedas say if we're getting good from any direction we must humbly accept so should be character of every religion
Reform is sign of religion being touch with ordinary people
Serious question, should Buddhists be involved in politics? For example, should most Buddhists automatically support India against China in a war or something like that??
This is a very contentious question. I have a playlist on Buddhism and politics that might give some answers: ua-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRhRTFjzEz5i7G8XoNhORcDs.html
Very good and explanation on decline of Buddhism in India. Could have touched upon the role of Shankaracharya the vedic scholar of 8th century who travelled the length and breadth of India debating with Buddhist scholars and converting them to Sanatana Dharma. His efforts are also said to have played a great role in the decline of Buddhism.
Shankaracharya's Advaita is called as "Buddhism in disguise" by other Vaishnava schools.
@@girishm5880 cuz shankara copy pasted aspects of Buddhism
@@ashilyjustin4748 OK.
We have an entire text on Shankar Acharya ( something they don’t teach you in India ) Although Shankar Acharya did defeat Buddhist Monks ( plain monks ). Shankar Acharya himself was defeated by Dharma Kriti. Dharma Kriti asked Shankar Archarya to follow Buddhism but the humiliation of defeat made Shankar Acharya to commit suicide in Ganges.
@@acho5424what a load of bull. Can you give me the link to that text lmao
ฉันเป็ยคนพุทธจากประเทศไทย คำสอนของพระพุทธเจ้าใจกว้างเกินไปเลยทำให้อ่อนแอและโดนข่มเหงเสมอ
Cause Buddhist is just generous side of Hinduism they never taught about projection of Dharma that is war
Hi doug. It's really sad MAHATMA(Great soul) BUDDHA spent so much time in India fighting Brahminsim But Buddhist are only 1%population in india. It's half true..The government sensus records 1% Buddhist monk in india there are more people like you and me who follows practice but aren't monk .
People from scheduled caste (UNTOUCHABLES before independence) shows their interest in bauddh dhamma
After Dr.Ambedkar left hinduim and become follower of buddha.
Millions of people use bauddh as there sirname but few state government count them in hindu when cencus is done.
1% is estimate its actually around 3-5% of the total population.
Sorry if you find any grammatical errors in my comment 😊
Yes, thanks for the comment MS.
Idc what someone thinking South asian real culture is hindusium and we are following since 10 thousand years and second thing buddha never left hindusium his followers created own religion
Yeah
Do you think S.N. Goenka was a factor in the resurgence of Buddhism in India?
I'm not sure Aron. He might have had at least a small effect, though Dr. Ambedkar's work was much broader based and earlier.
I am not great authority on this topic but I am an Indian and follower of Buddha.
So I think I can tell my observation on this.
You know India is divided in castes. Babasaheb Ambedkar's movement converted a large population to Buddhism but most of the newly converted Buddhists were illiterate and unknown towards buddhism. Then some of them studied Buddhism is neighbouring countries and come back but they bought only the pariyatti part, the Tipitaka but Goenka Ji's work was broad, what I think, he worked in those newly converted Buddhists and simultaneously he taught Buddha's message in the so called upper caste Hindus in a very secular way so they also accepted Buddha wholeheartedly. And VRI has been doing tremendous work to transliteration the Tipitaka in indian scripts.
Yes, Goenka Ji's work is broad but Babasaheb's work was pioneering so I think we can not compare both the great personalities.
Thanks Ravindra.
if as u said the Buddha was not against accumulating wealth and many urban merchants at the time were fond of this idea then what was the point of even having monastics in the beginning
Well monastics were the true keepers of the dharma and the "professionals" along the path. They were the renunciants. The Buddha saw there was nothing ethically wrong with accumulating wealth justly though it was productive of dukkha.
@@DougsDharma thanks for the response
Most all of the buddhist scriptures, literature, symbols, methodology of worships, food & dress habits, are stolen by Brahmin ism, even stupas are converted into shiva linga. All buddhist vihara are converted into big temples, even mythological stories also are stolen, cut&paste. Very sad sir
Well it's good to keep in mind that there was plenty of sharing on all sides. Many of the Buddha's early ideas came from Jainism and Brahminism, although of course he had his own take on them and disagreed with much that he found there.
ha ha ha
buddhism came after hinduism
@@johnjacobastoriv688 No. Buddhism came after Brahmanism. Hinduism has evolved over a very long time ...
Buddhism, Hinduism , Jainism, Sikhism they look different but core is same that is dharma and moksha.
Great video and much-needed clarification. And lovely shade of yellow! (T-shirt.)
Thanks Vampire, I was concerned it might be a bit too bright but hey at least it might help keep the viewers awake! 😄
@@DougsDharma hah the brighter the better! :) Thanks for sharing your knowledge, btw
Until very recently everything was under royal control all over the world, not just Nalanda or India. How did the Angela church came into existence because of royal authority?
Several weeks ago, when you focused on the direction of this channel, I noted that historical context is one of the (virtually) unique aspects and attractions of ''Doug's Dharma''. In the vastness of UA-cam, to own a niche is precious indeed. At the time, I failed to qualify what (for me) is the qualifier of perfect ''length and depth''. There are other sources on UA-cam for this material, but it is invariably just recorded university lectures, running in excess of an hour. You have a gift of covering as much ground (with MORE outside scholarship), in far less time. This is gold. Usually, your videos get placed in my bursting ''favorites'' cache. The essential doctrinal material is not going to be worked through in even a lifetime, at the rate I'm going. Allow me to remark that it is VERY satisfying to watch a video once, and trusting the viewpoint, feel like, ''Awesome! Got it.'' Now I don't really believe I've ''got it'' (I'm sure one could make a career out of specializing in Buddhist historiography). But, of course, while I'm very interested in the subject and it's very important, my concern is mostly soteriological (oh my, UA-cam spellchecker giving me the angry, wiggly red line!). To get this kind of ancillary material in a positively ''entertaining'' 37 minute format, and on a channel that occurs automatically in my ''up next'' is priceless and much appreciated. Metta.
That's great Smitty. Yes, there's no way to be comprehensive with this kind of very complicated historical period, but I've tried at least to sketch an outline.
I think the decline and disapperance of Buddhism in India is a complex phenomena that happened over the course of many centuries. However, at some levels, it is also quite simple. All countries in existence have experienced and endured a number of calamities. In countries that Buddhism has became a part of its ethnic identity (such as Sri Lanka, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc) or state identity (Thailand, Burma, Tibet), Buddhism has survived because there are political and popular support for Buddhism. Buddhism has almost disappeared from Sri Lanka many times due to the same reasons that you have listed for India, and yet Sri Lanka court and people continued to bring back Buddhist order from Burma and Thailand, which is a geographically challenging endeavor. And Buddhism took roots in Sri Lanka again, to the point where Sri Lanka became known as a bastion of Theravada Buddhism. For some reasons Buddhism never achieved this level of cultural identification in India. Like Jainism, Himalayan Buddhism continues to survive in Nepal, due to strong community support of Newari, Bhutanese and different Himalayan people.
On the other hand, the destructive power of organized Islamic violence is quite real and cannot be understated. As Islam arose, the ancient religions of the Middle East simply moved out or disappeared, like Zoroastrianism.
Very briefly explained, main reasons of decline but missed or wrongly interpreted Dr Ambedkar’s views on this that is...
1) the philosophical conflict that took place ( within the various kingdoms ) btw Buddhism (Sangha) versus Brahmanism. There were philosophical debates happening btw various Buddhist scholars and Brahmins in universities like Nalanda. Also the sects developed with Buddhism (Mahayana sect played larger role here bcz sanskritization of Buddha teaching took place by this sect, later tantric or vajrayana sect emerges) This was first and foremost reason for declining Buddhism at philosophical level
2) Later the structural damage came from invasion of Islam in india which was quiet easy ( this is only reason been told in Indian history)
Also invasion of Islam is very aptly explained by Babasaheb. With invasion why only Buddhism destroyed and not Brahmanism ?? In order for survivals, the Brahmins facilitate & supported the foreign invaders and gain their confidence whereas the Buddhist Sangha monks fled to northern part of india many to Tibet.
Thanks for your thoughts Arvind.
So was Buddha a pre-Hindu… what spiritual roots does he arise out of?
His dharma was his own, though he was influenced by Vedic Brahmanism, Jainism, and the Upaniṣadic seers of his day, among others.
@@DougsDharma thank you 😊
@@DougsDharmathough 😂😂😂 he was hindu born from hindu parents follow hinduism all his life and you guys make separate new religion for him 🤡
The Western scholar ignorantly called Tibetan Buddhism/Vajrayana a Lamaism in 20th and before out of sheer ignorance and most of these proponents were Christian missionaries who failed to convert Tibetan to Christian in 17-20AD.
The best way to understand why Buddhism declined in India is to investigate why Buddhism in countries like Sri Lanka is in decline. Buddha himself predicted how Buddhism decline eventually in the Ani Sutta: The Peg.Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. Amdikar or Secular Buddhism fits with the new peg in this Sutta.
Well, that's one way to look at it. Others say that Mahāyāna was one such peg, or pick your school. Even Theravāda is a peg. So ... the only constant is change.
*PEOPLE COOLLY HAVE FORGOTTEN BUDDHA AND HOLDING ONTO AN "ISM" BY THE NAME BUDDHISM. LIKEWISE EVERY RELIGION HAS BECOME LIKE A POLITICAL PARTY ! SO NO RELIGION IS WORKING PRODUCTIVELY. PEOPLE WANT TO BE 100% WORLDLY BUT STILL WANT TO BECOME A GODMAN LIKE BUDDHA. EVERY RELIGION HAS THIS PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS-CONFLICT; PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN A RELIGIOUS GROUP BUT DON'T LISTEN TO THEIR MASTERS' VOICE.*
@@radhakrishnanv2286 agree
Hello sir! I have been watching you for the past year! I love your videos they are so informative! By the way I’m also from the USA 🇺🇸
Hey great, thanks for watching and commenting!
History evidence vividly tells that brahminical hatred towards buddhism was very extreme.
The Brahmins kings like pushmitra sungha, Sasanka, Mihir Kula etc persecuted Buddhist and temples were adopted.
Simple Answer - Pushyamitra Shunga. Made Brahminism Great Again.
Not as simple as you think
@@rajabhaysingh Lol, that's why I used the word 'simple' . There are multiple factors which leads to the decline of Buddhism in India.
Really Pushyamitra whose empire himself was confined to the Bihar and bengal wiped out Buddhism from india.
Gotta say great joke👍👍👍👍
@@Sahil-dz5ur Gain your knowledge from history books not from WhatsApp forwards.
@@mr.profundis3804 then tell me how Pushyamitra wiped out Buddhism from all over the india as his own empire covered just 2-3 states of India 🙄🙄🙄
When Jesus was in India, it was the Brahmins who tried to eliminate him because he was teaching that all people are created equal. Jesus' teachings are more akin to Buddhism than to Judaism.
Buddhism was a direct threat to the Brahmin religion's stratified class structure (Varna system). It is said that Brahmins were openly or clandestinely responsible for most of the misfortunes that befell Buddhism, such as losing patronage and protection from kings & rulers, internal corruption and splitting up into different sects & ideologies.
There were many known cases of Brahmins who infiltrated Buddhist institutions and sabotaged them from inside by misleading and corruption. There are also examples of Brahmins like Nagarjuna who originally infiltrated Nalanda to sabotage it, but later changed his mind and turned out to become a famous Buddhist teacher-monk.
You should have read 'Revolution and Counter Revolution in Ancient India' by Dr Ambedkar, there he has mentioned the reason of Decline of Buddhism which was ignored by Many Historians. I can provide you online link of writing of Dr Ambedkar, if you want to read them, or you can buy it from Amazon.
@@HariOm-ri8hw be careful he also mentioned a Brhamin as his source, Brhamins have appropriated Buddhism in Indian Institutions and are working for the Hindu Nationalists/Brahmincal goals.
@@HariOm-ri8hw Hari om you seem like an Islamophobic Hindu nationalist , I don't know if in reality you're or not
@@semlhagyatsovlogs Ambedkar was not a historian
First of all Buddhism is not a religion..not for popularity.
Secondly, Buddha's teachings are for each individual to practise for their ownself to get out of samsara (suffering). I would say you need to have affinity to receive the teachings of the Buddha.
Firstly and lastly Hinduism is not a religion it's just a bunch of dumb fictional stories with dumb fictional characters (bhagwan) that's it
Would it be fair to say that the Buddha intended Buddhism to be a sort of elite teaching, for true seekers, similar to how certain gnostics saw themselves in relation to other Christians?
Well he saw the dharma as for everyone, though he did understand that most people wouldn't be interested in becoming monastics. So to that extent, the monastic path is presented as "elite".
Buddhism is part of Hinduism. It lives on within Hinduism. Gautama Siddhartha was the greatest Indian.
Hinduism is Copy paste of Vajrayana Buddhism. Hindu Converted Buddhist Vihar to Hindu mandir and Buddhisatva toa Hindu kalpnik Devi and Devta.
I found this comment on my Facebook what are your thoughts on it
' I took a look at the UA-cam video referenced above, and here's my response. It reiterates well-known facts about the history of Buddhism in India, so it isn't particularly controversial. Moving forward from that discussion, I would add that a key point is that for Buddhism to exist as an institution it relied on monasteries of celibate monks, which were in turn dependent on elite patronage. So Buddhism had that vulnerability all along because it needed a source of patronage. By contrast, Brahmanical priests can and do marry, and thus live as householders, so Hindu worshippers at the common level don't rely on institutions in the same way, although there are big temple complexes too. The other issue is that, as noted, Buddhism arose within the cultural milieu of proto-Hinduism (as Hinduism wasn't really defined as a separate, inclusive religion at that point), and so it was in a sense always a kind of add-on, supplementing the normal cultural stratum of Indian Hindu practice. India has had countless gurus over the centuries, and most remain little known to the outer world, and not even known within India. But some, like the Buddha, gained renown because they may have had a more coherent set of teachings, which were further developed, and their followers later got royal patronage (such as King Ashoka), which ensured their survival. So when monasteries were subsequently destroyed by various invaders from the northwest of India, starting even before the advent of Islam, and continuing to later Islamic warriors from Afghanistan, and non-supportive Hindu and Islamic rulers commanded the situation, people in villages and towns just continued on with their normal lives but without any further thought to supporting the now-ruined monasteries. If the monasteries hadn't been destroyed, Buddhism would have continued to merge with Hindu practice anyway, the same as we see in Jainism, which had emerged at the same time as Buddhism and is still around today. Jains now maintain their distinctive scriptures and some practices, but on the whole, they behave very much in line with the everyday Hindu Indian cultural setting. Likewise, in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal, the Newars famously follow both "Hindu" and "Buddhist" holidays and practices as two ends of a single comprehensive cultural practice. A lot of Westerners taking an interest in the philosophical teachings of Buddhism miss Buddhism's cultural context because they approach it as an intellectual framework of self-improvement in the Western model of individualistic inquiry. And so they may too easily forget that Buddhism in India was always just one dimension of Indian cultural performance. Likewise, when it came to places like China and Thailand and so on, it was sustained not as a standalone religion but as part of encompassing cultural practice.'
Thanks utkarsh, I think this is a very perceptive comment, and I'd agree. One point though is that I don't think the monastics needed to rely on "elite" patronage, at least not to the degree they ended up doing. Had they remained closer to their lay adherents they would have been in a better cultural place to resist invasion.
Buddhism was never dominant religion in India even during ashoka is was flourishing in the sense of getting state patronage and development of philosophy but never in Indian history it was dominant religion.
I think it's like second biggest religion after Hinduism but never exceeded 25% of population ratio if I'm not wrong
Shiva lingam is not a phallus, much less a "male penis". There is no mention of any phallic association in any Hindu scriptures, the first time anyone wrote the Lingam was a phallus was western anthropologists who would much rather make assumptions about Hinduism than consult the locals. The British colonialist could not conceive of a column (in a "primitive" culture)that did not represent a penis. But no one ever thought the Lingam was a phallus before colonialism, and no Hindus do today either.
Doug, this video was well researched, but you have to be sceptical or what Indologists from western academia say. The remnants of cultural evolutionist theory still exists in these myths of what things "really" mean. Lingam is only a phallus to Indologists, Hindus and their ancestors saw it as something else.
Here is one of the earliest dated examples of a Shiva lingam, with several photos: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudimallam
@@DougsDharma
Answer by Swami Vivekananda(at PARIS CONGRESS OF THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS):
The Swami said that the worship of the Shiva-Linga originated from the famous hymn in the Atharva-Veda Samhitâ sung in praise of the Yupa-Stambha, the sacrificial post. In that hymn a description is found of the beginningless and endless Stambha or Skambha, and it is shown that the said Skambha is put in place of the eternal Brahman. As afterwards the Yajna (sacrificial) fire, its smoke, ashes, and flames, the Soma plant, and the ox that used to carry on its back the wood for the Vedic sacrifice gave place to the conceptions of the brightness of Shiva's body, his tawny matted-hair, his blue throat, and the riding on the bull of the Shiva, and so on - just so, the Yupa-Skambha gave place in time to the Shiva-Linga, and was deified to the high Devahood of Shri Shankara. In the Atharva-Veda Samhita, the sacrificial cakes are also extolled along with the attributes of the Brahman.
In the Linga Purâna, the same hymn is expanded in the shape of stories, meant to establish the glory of the great Stambha and the superiority of Mahâdeva.
Again, there is another fact to be considered. The Buddhists used to erect memorial topes consecrated to the memory of Buddha; and the very poor, who were unable to build big monuments, used to express their devotion to him by dedicating miniature substitutes for them. Similar instances are still seen in the case of Hindu temples in Varanasi and other sacred places of India where those, who cannot afford to build temples, dedicate very small temple-like constructions instead. So it might be quite probable that during the period of Buddhistic ascendancy, the rich Hindus, in imitation of the Buddhists, used to erect something as a memorial resembling their Skambha, and the poor in a similar manner copied them on a reduced scale, and afterwards the miniature memorials of the poor Hindus became a new addition to the Skambha.
One of the names of the Buddhist Stupas (memorial topes) is Dhâtu-garbha, that is, "metal-wombed". Within the Dhatu-garbha, in small cases made of stone, shaped like the present Shalagrama, used to be preserved the ashes, bones, and other remains of the distinguished Buddhist Bhikshus, along with gold, silver, and other metals. The Shalagrama-Shilas are natural stones resembling in form these artificially-cut stone-cases of the Buddhist Dhatu-garbha, and thus being first worshipped by the Buddhists, gradually got into Vaishnavism, like many other forms of Buddhistic worship that found their way into Hinduism. On the banks of the Narmadâ and in Nepal, the Buddhistic influence lasted longer than in other parts of India; and the remarkable coincidence that the Narmadeshvara Shiva-Linga, found on the banks of the Narmadâ and hence so called, and the Shalagrama-Shilas of Nepal are given preference to by the Hindus to those found elsewhere in India is a fact that ought to be considered with respect to this point of contention.
@@DougsDharma if you check the sources there, it is a book that is 104 years old,written at the hight of colonialism. If you check the Shiva Purana it mentions that Shiva first appeared as a beam of ligth. Seems clear to me that the lingam is a reference to the Shiva Purana, and even though it ends up looking like a phallus in some few cases, the lingam is not primarily a phallus.
Linga literally means genitals and the lingam has been inspired by the phallus or penis. However people who worship it don't regard it as worshipping someone's phallus but more of as a symbol of shiva.
@@opanpro9772 lingam means symbol......
One could mention the surge of great Acharyas, like Shankaracharya, who were followers of the Vedantic schools like Sankhya, Nyaya, Mimansa, Yoga, Vedanta.. Their scholarly interpretation AND debates on the concept of Brahman and Atman were impressive.. The were masters of the Vedic knowledge.. Perhaps the Buddhist Monks (trained in the "Vitanda" model of negation debates to prove Shunyata, could not sustain their arguments.. Other countries did not have this incredible intellectual eco-system of divergent perspectives, so it thrived there..
It could also be that in a naturally blessed, diverse country like Bharata, "Celebration" is the basic DNA of life.. So a faith (not belief) system based on austerity and negation, could not gain traction amongst the masses..
I think you should read what the Vaishnav saints talked about Adi Sankar... they called him a preacher of Buddhism under Vedic Umbrella
Very interesting topic 🙂👌🏻 Thank you so much 🙏
My pleasure Polinab! 😊
The raids by the Turks in the thirteenth century devastated Pataliputra university.
Excellent, thanks! The big question I have is why the human being chose the “easy” way first... why sangha retreat themselves and “leave” the lay people out. Doesn’t that be the reason why Buddha criated the Sangha?
In other words... was the growing of buddhism a goal? Or is just free to happen whatever it happens... thanks Doug!
Well my sense is that it was easier to grow the sangha in power and prestige by allying with powerful lords rather than with the local people. There is a delicate balance here that got a bit out of whack over time. But yes, one of the Buddha's goals was to grow the sangha around the world.
The reasons are different in different regions. For instance, in Sindh, Buddhist practitioners allied with Muhammad Bin Qasim, the Arab invader, whereas the Hindus resisted. Buddhism disappeared from Sindh in less than 2 centuries after the Arab occupation, whereas Hinduism survived longer, although Jaziya compelled the vast majority of Hindus to convert.
Each region has its own history.
Thanks for that, it's impossible to adequately cover each bit in a short video, unfortunately.
Good joke 🤣🤣🤣 Muslim allow other religions....what about afganistan, Iran, Pakistan...they once belongs to other religions.stop fake showoff 🙏
The muslim religion has had a long history, and has always allowed those of other religions to practice (I believe it is even in the Koran).
@@DougsDharma ha ha ha
@@DougsDharma Are you born mad
It is interesting because in Southeast Asia the result was the opposite. Hinduism was supplanted by Buddhism.
Interesting to hear Tiago, I wonder about the history there.
@@DougsDharma Angkor Wat is a good example. It was a major Hindu temple and it became a Buddhist one.
I am a hindu , I always feels that buddha is also my god and everyone in the world should 🙏 follow his teachings , my mother go on fast during buddh purnima , but you guys wants to separate Hinduism from Buddhism. Their may be differences but buddha himself follows a type of Hinduism , budhha never claim himself as God instead he said that he spread the teachings of Buddhism becouse hindu lord bharma told him to that . I am feeling so sad and depressed after seeing no comments of indian buddhist against this propoganda. In india every hindu is a Buddhist and love buddha as his own 🙏.
Thanks for your thoughts, Sanjay. 🙏
There is two Buddhas one is adi Buddha ( lord Vishnu 9th avatar) and Gautama Buddha ( human Buddha)
buddism was and always will be a different religion we buddhist dont want to associate with you so i dont know why dont stop your propaganda though we respect you religion and beliefs
@@marshmellow1162 yeah Buddhism is a different religion it can't become part of Hinduism because Hinduism is great and your filthy Buddhism can't become a sect or something
And Vishnu's avatar Buddha was different person from your gautam Buddha
@@marshmellow1162 okay but we have thousands of sects in Hinduism which doesn't have caste hierarchy
I'd argue that levying taxes against a religious minority is still intolerant.
Especially when you point out what happens when someone refuses to pay those taxes.
Yes it's certainly not the most tolerant attitude.
Buddha was born in which religion? His parents was sanatan dharma followers. hindu word is not mentioned in any religion books. westners don't understand that 🙄
It's not clear which belief system his parents belonged to; scholarship tells us Vedic Brahmanism (the ancestor to Hinduism) was not particularly common in their area.
@Scepticism Unleashed first check Buddha original name then his wife name and clan ,then his sons name then decide he belongs to which dynasty and culture....
@Scepticism Unleashed oh what you can visit many caves nd temples that are much older than Buddhist texts ..
I'd like to mention here also that Jainism and Buddhism are quite similar in principles and teachings even they share many traditions the key difference would be that Jainism tended towards asceticism more than buddhism did. The similarities are the monk tradition is literally same. Monks relied heavily on richer upper class society in jainsism even today. I once read somewhere that Gautama Buddh/ Siddharth attended one of the lectures by Tirthankar Mahavir and he realised that Jainism is way too harsh way of living( principles that were good in theory , but in practice difficult for lower section of society and only could be practiced by upper class) for laypeople so he created a midway of living applicable for everyone. I can literally see similarities there way too similar. Don't look into modern jainsism it's rapidly declining look for old texts. It's really very similar.
Yes it was very similar indeed, the Buddha learned a lot from the Jainism as well as the Upaniṣadic Brahmanism of his day.