[INDOLOGY @ ] Bhakti movement opposing heterodox religions

[Guest guest]

Your assignment of blame for the decline of Buddhism to the "rich and

institutional" nature of Buddhist viharas may or may not be part of

the truth; but your absolution of Brahminical hostility (which is well

evidenced in several texts) as "of much less consequence" does not

appear to be based on any analysis of the evidence.

 

(On just one note: to say that leaders of Buddhism were mostly Brahmin

-- I don't know if you are correct about that or not -- proves

nothing, since by becoming Buddhists they rejected Brahminism; recall

that the Buddha specifically rejects the Vedas. To try to manufacture

proof of Brahminical friendship towards Buddhism from that is bizarre

and probably more indicative of your intellectual shortcomings than of

anything else.)

 

Regards,

Rohan.

 

>N. Ganesan wrote:

>

>> I came across the interesting article.

>>=20

>> http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15042001/Art06.htm

>

>The article, while it brings out a perspective, is hardly

>fair.

>

>One has to keep in mind that as long as Buddhism flourished

>in India, it leaders were mostly Brahmin, right from

>the agra-shravakas of Gautama Buddha to supporters of the

>last instructor of Nalanda.

>

>There are accounts of occasional repression of Buddhism

>in India, but they were of much less consequence to

>Buddhism compared with Turkish conquest.=20

>

>Buddhism has been in decline long before Sankaracharya=20

>(approx 788-820). By the time of Hs=FCan-tsang c.=20

>605-664 A.D., Buddhism had declined considerably. Buddhism

>in some areas flourished in some pockets long after=20

>Sankaracharya, Nalanda flourishd until Bakhtiar Khilji's

>destruction (1196-1206). Thus Sankaracharya's role in=20

>disappearance of Buddhism must have been minor.

>

>A supposed king Sudhanva of Ujjain is said to have supported=20

>destruction of Buddhist institutions on Sankara's behalf.

>However very close to Ujjain, the Buddhist community of

>Vidisha continued to flourish, and the complex at Sanchi

>(just outside Vidisha) was active until about 12th century.

>

>Buddhism was a victim of its own succcess. The viharas

>had become too rich and institutional.

>

>There is a theory that sectarian militancy in India arose

>in the coastal region as a result of external influence.

>Generally kings in India supported all various sects (and some

>stated that in inscriptions). Many frequently mentioned

>examples of a king favoring or opposing a sect are suspected

>to be exagerations.=20

>

>Yashwant=20

>

>

>

>

>

>

>indology

>

>=20

>

>Your use of is subject to =20

>

>