Talk:Decline of Buddhism in the Indian subcontinent

Controversial

This is a potentially contentious topic, and could turn into a slanging match among various forms of religious fundamentalism in India today. Please take care with the 'facts' being presented in these pages; as religious bigots of various hues are known to be active on the Net, insulting and blaming each other's religion.

Terrible article

This article puts the decline primarily down to two sources; violent Hindu repression and violent Muslim repression. The collapse of Buddhism is in fact due to socioeconomic changes. Buddhism required strong central authorities to collect and channel economic surplus to monasteries. As Brahmins took increasing control over the economic structure of India in expanding the scope of the caste system, power became localized and it was impossible for strong states to form. Buddhism withered inversely with this process. I am added this material, found in The Sociology of Philosophies, by Randall Collins, published by Harvard University Press. Mitsube (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, please feel free to help out in making it a better one.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Removals

I removed those two sentences for a couple of reasons, none of them being because they are inaccurate:

1. The main reason being that the Muhammad bin Qasim section is starting to show signs of dissproportionate importance (WP:Undue) in context of the article title, especially when he only ruled only a couple of years on the fringes, during a period of strong social change in the rest of Indian lands that affected Buddhism rather more severely. Also after him the region reverted to local mostly rulership, minus small runt states, until the arrival of the Ghaznavids. It made little sense to have such a big section devoted him when it can be summarized more concisely.
2. The monk ruler of Nirun being Buddhist does not really forward an argument for Chach being a buddhist, nor is it likely presented as such in the source, but that is the way it appears in the article, WP:OR. The Eliot and Dawson doubt on the situation as quoted in the preceding sentence is enough.
3. Again the Warder quote essentially repeats information already present in the preceding paragraph is being inserted without context of its usage in the source. This section is really longer than its historical impact.

Hope this helps explain it. If you agree with the above we can remove them as well.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not read the part about the monk surrendering as forwarding an argument. I thought it was an interesting fact. I suggest that it remain. I am fine with removing the Warder quote. In discussing the impact on the religious environment of Sind of Qasim's invasion an excerpt from the primary text isn't very encyclopedic. I will read what Warder has to say and also Wink. Also who is Gier exactly? Mitsube (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Gier also believes that Chach of Alor and his kin were regarded as usurpers of the earlier Buddhist Rai Dynasty.[35] It is believed by some scholars that Chach himself may have been a Buddhist.[38][39] Further, after Dahir took control, he allowed for a Buddhist monk to run the city of Nirun in his kingdom. However in the war with Qasim, the monk surrendered to Qasim.[40]" I think the problem is the word further.. it seems to imply that the next sentence is related to the first which is refuting Giers proposition ... otherwise I am not sure what sentence is supposed to be doing where it is especially followed up with the next sentence wit however which again appears to be trying to refute the earlier one. It's all a bit confusing at the least.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't much there in Warder. Have you looked at Wink [1]? He contradicts Gier completely. I think we should remove Gier unless his reliability can be established, as he is contradicted by a variety of reliable sources. Mitsube (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just looked at Wink and it does seem rather plausible but does not necessarily contradict Gier either. Even Wink acknowledges the "popular" Buddhist traitor theory when he disagrees with it. There is a link to the cited Giers article from where the citation is made, where Gier essentially says the same thing about the blurring and diffusion of religious lines while noting that the brahmanical bureaucracy had gained a political foothold. It just used to be the popular explanation which is being queried right now. I don't see an issue with noting both and saying that there exists a difference of opinion on this point.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If the reliability of the webpage has not been established then the claims should not be repeated. Mitsube (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse WP:V must apply. A for on Gier turned this up, so whats your opinion. Seems bonafide and the article appears to be a paper he presented at a conference. I also just noticed that also cited is the preface material to the Chachnama that says the same thing. I think its OK on both counts then, source and not being a strange view. Whats your opinion? On the other item, I think I will take a stab at simplifying the convoluted sentences.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The books of Wink and Appleby seem more authoritative, since they have been published by reputable publishers. I think their view should be given priority and then Gier's mentioned after. Mitsube (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Genocide in India

The genocide is mentioned in one whopping sentence, surely it deserves greater recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.150.25 (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of Modern India

This article needs to also consider the state of Buddhism in modern India. I have checked the other articles such as History of Buddhism in India, and they do not seem to have treated this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.101 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased Western sources used in this articles

I would like to raise my concerns over the reference material used in this article. Writer seldomnly mentiones any Indian sources to outline the causes of decline of Buddhism. Here and there, writer used the Indian reference from B. R. Ambedkar who was severely biased against structure of the Sanatan Dharm. Not sure if this article sheds any insights on causes of decline. Those who point fingures at Brahmins, should know that, Theravada and Vajrayaan branches were established by Brahmins.

Richard Gombrich, Peter Harvey and Randall Collins were frequently used - some of the points that's been excerpted from their work... for instance, "While Shankara is given credit for the defeat of Buddhism in Hindu literature, he was in fact active after Buddhism had faded from prominence in some areas. In particular, he was not a contemporary of the great Indian Buddhist philosopher, Dharmakirti. When Shankara came north to the intellectual centers there, he borrowed many of the ideas that had been formulated by Buddhist philosophers of the past.[55]" are absolutely their own opinion.

By looking at the Adi Shankar's work, Buddhist idea's were predominantly neglected in his approach.

Do not know what message writer wants to convey in this article.- Saarleya141.160.26.251 (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions? There have been about 300 'writers' (we call them editors) of this article. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Seldom mention of "Indian" sources may be due to the fact that such sources might not exist or are not readily available. Just because a researcher is "Western," and might write about historical facts that does not always illuminate the Hindus or the Brahmins in the best of light, doesn't mean the research is biased. Also, Brahmins had nothing to do with the establishment of Theravada and Vajrayana branches; Theravada having emerged from the many Buddhist Councils of debate on monastic Vinaya codes, and Vajrayana emerging from Eastern movements that began to incorporate tantric practices into Buddhism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.133.196 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Did Sri Sankara Destroy buddhism Physically ?

Almost all the works relating to Decline of Buddhism declare unanimously that Sri Sankara was the one who did it. The wikipedia itself has references to refute this. Buddhism was decaying much before Sankara's time due to reasons such as 1. too much dependance on ascetism 2. Tantric interference in Buddhistic thought 3. Lack of enthusiasm of rulers in Buddhism.

According to the current version of history dismantling of Buddhism began in full force in Tamilnadu which was begun by Appar in the fifth century, i.e before Sri Sankara. Appar and Sambandar's ground work almost pushed Bouddha and Jaina sects to the fringe of the society eventually leading to their decline.

Given this all references such as " Buddha's embrace of Buddhism was fatal" are without any ground whatsoever. It is also equally unclear why Sankara will embrace the thoughts of a dying sect.

The only reasonable explanation may be that " Sankara learned Buddhism to negate its philosophy." I think the quoting of many scholars in bits and pieces as confirmed opinion is misleading. Not a single Sankaracharya is quoted nor any Smartha or Advaita practitioner quoted in this subject. The whole article has to be deleted immediately.

Max Weber?

The sentence "By that time, Buddhism had become especially vulnerable to hostile rulers because it lacked strong roots in society as most of its adherents were ascetic communities." is sourced to....Max Weber: an intellectual portrait By Reinhard Bendix??? Seems like a source which is not on the topic of the article. — goethean 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"before it collapsed at the hands of the attacking Sena dynasty."

That is not what Taranath mentions. There is no support whatsoever of Buddhist persecution by the Senas, although it is widely mentioned in textbooks in West Bengal and Bangladesh.

For continuation of Buddhism during Sena period see

• Thai Art with Indian Influences By Promsak Jermsawatdi p. 55-56
• The "Påala-Sena" Schools of Sculpture Susan L. Huntington, Brill Archive, Jan 1, 1984

Malaiya (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How can you use the term Hinduism?

How can you use the term Hinduism since it is a western invention? 'Hindu' is not even an Indian term, but of Persian origin - Hindustani! This shows how problematic Wikipedia is! You do not spread knowledge, but common misconceptions!