Does Buddhism Advocate An Escape From Reality?

[Several]

Its a question of what you believe reality to be. The western ideal, if you're not working 9-5 you're wasting your life, is only only view. American Indians who saw palefaces all arise simultaneously, dress ridiculously, rush off to 'work' for a set amount of hours etc thought we were all insane.

Many people live in the delusion they have a firm grasp of 'reality'. Just as 500 years ago all westerners 'knew' the earth was flat. I garantee you we all still cling to a flat earth theory, we just don't realise what it is.

Buddha encouraged people to verify what he said for themselves and not accept the dogma of any age simply because you are told 'thats the way it is.' Nobody has a monopoly on reality.

[leolibby]

Buddha encouraged people to verify what he said for themselves and not accept the dogma of any age

Did Buddha also encourage us to have our own thoughts about his potential character flaws?

Or is buddha absolutely, self-evidently flawless?

Edited July 29, 2012 by leolibby

[leolibby]

And do you mean the earth is round? It's not.. it is elliptoid.. I commend you for this brilliant analogy though... the flat/round earth analogy had defeated me many times. I salute you Sir.

Edited July 29, 2012 by leolibby

[Several]

Well it would if he'd run off for lesser reasons, but surely his being the Buddha opened the way for many to avoid rebirth. His concern became all sentient beings. Not just family or country or race. When his wife caught up with him she asked to become a nun and their son a monk. So for us average joes, yes its immoral. But because of his teachings we have a shot at the highest realisation. I guess he rebelled against culture and religion and duty, I reckon he did the right thing.

But he did leave in the dark of the night and sneaked out of the palace gates without even bidding adieu to his family members. He didn't consider it important to intimate his own family of his plans to leave, even if we consider it to be a spur-of the moment decision/choice.

Even if he was convinced that his arguements to leave in search for enlightenment would fall on deaf ears, he still should have chosen to atleast inform them with details of his plan rather than leaving them wondering in misery caused by sudden shock about his whereabouts.

Can we consider it as an act of courage & rebellion or should we label it an act of cowardice? His quest for enlightenment as he embarked on this long journey began in this manner; he couldn't even muster enough courage to face his own family? How could he preach the masses when he didn't fulfill his most basic duties & responsibilities?

He left his father too along with his wife & kids, something which surely would have been considered a reprehensible & heartless act at that time as even today's Indian society (though the values are changing fast but we must remember that we are referring to Asian societies here), the love, respect & obligation towards one's parents is same/exceeds that for one's wife and kids among many.

The fact that he left his wife alone with their kid (please note that it was 'their' kid & not 'her' kid alone) for a holy/greater cause (& yes, not for another woman) does lessen the intensity of the wrong deed by only a small measure.

His wife joined him later as his disciple reflects on the magnanimity of her character than on Buddha's greatness & she emerges as a true heroine in my eyes who forgave her husband & embraced him despite his choice to sneak away uninformed leaving her alone with their son.

Moreover, I believe that performing ones' daily duties sincerely & with honesty is one of the greatest prayers and one doesn't need to renounce one's wordly duties/tasks to be devoted to God.

So, if every guy turned into monk in order to achieve absolute wisdom as per the Buddhist philosophy, how would the society progress and the world would come to a halt.

Buddha should have advocated a practical way of life wherein one can balance the two because performing the wordly duties is also of utmost significance.

Roaming around with a begging bowl and expecting to live a life on the mercy of others for something as two basic meals a day, no matter how difficult it may be does strip an individual of self-esteem & dignity. One should be able to 'earn' his own bread & butter because a life of penace & meditation alone isn't enough.

What kind of detachment is this, if every person started following it, then I wonder what would become of this world.

And, there's an event when Buddha says that there is no father/mother/any relation, then why did his followers introduce the concept of filial piety to Buddhism just to make it more appealing to the Asian societies that valued it and spread it's influence. They should have allowed it to remain true to it's original form, the way it was intended to be.

You also say society cannot advance, but how has it advanced? Ipods? Better wespons ? TV? Medical science took a great leap forward once Hitler got his hands on some jews. 99% of your effort at work goes to increasing the wealth of those who already have money. There are almost no industries not geared towards luxury. I fail to see what advancement you allude to. If you read enough history you'll see we're just chasing our tails, not working towards some grand design.

Its not about devotion to god its about seeking realisation and liberation from rebirth.

What if no men became monks? Are you going to live in a world of industry and science? Neither display much wisdom. Industry is killing the only planet we live on. Science is knowledgeable but has no insight. A smart man can build a nuclear weapon, but a wise man would not. Without the possibility of higher things in this universe we have no more reason to be here than bacteria.

Filial piety is good, to a point. It is also often abused. Nothing should be followed blindly. Relatives are human and sometimes therefore wrong. The eldest son can be a moron. The father abuses his children. The mother poisons out of 'love'. Rare cases? Or global.

You have some good points, well put. I maintain my position, it is samsara that is avoiding reality even in this day and age when our actions could push our world into oblivion.

[Several]

And do you mean the earth is round? It's not.. it is elliptoid.. I commend you for this brilliant analogy though... the flat/round earth analogy had defeated me many times. I salute you Sir.

Thanks Brother. I think I meant going round, as in spinning. I like the earth being 'pear shaped'.

I'd say that Gotama seeking enlightenment is a frank admission of imperfection. Some Buddhists do treat him like a god but I'm far more impressed by the man.

You must have been quite a soldier to get into devotional yoga whilst in active service. Did your officers know, or were you a secret practitioner?

[leolibby]

You must have been quite a soldier to get into devotional yoga whilst in active service. Did your officers know, or were you a secret practitioner?

Oh its perfectly ok to practice any religion. I also used to believe in elves and i lent my commander a collection of elf love letters. I also used to bring a little plush toy to work.

[Asianbloke]

Well it would if he'd run off for lesser reasons, but surely his being the Buddha opened the way for many to avoid rebirth. His concern became all sentient beings. Not just family or country or race. When his wife caught up with him she asked to become a nun and their son a monk. So for us average joes, yes its immoral. But because of his teachings we have a shot at the highest realisation. I guess he rebelled against culture and religion and duty, I reckon he did the right thing.

But he did leave in the dark of the night and sneaked out of the palace gates without even bidding adieu to his family members. He didn't consider it important to intimate his own family of his plans to leave, even if we consider it to be a spur-of the moment decision/choice.

Even if he was convinced that his arguements to leave in search for enlightenment would fall on deaf ears, he still should have chosen to atleast inform them with details of his plan rather than leaving them wondering in misery caused by sudden shock about his whereabouts.

Can we consider it as an act of courage & rebellion or should we label it an act of cowardice? His quest for enlightenment as he embarked on this long journey began in this manner; he couldn't even muster enough courage to face his own family? How could he preach the masses when he didn't fulfill his most basic duties & responsibilities?

He left his father too along with his wife & kids, something which surely would have been considered a reprehensible & heartless act at that time as even today's Indian society (though the values are changing fast but we must remember that we are referring to Asian societies here), the love, respect & obligation towards one's parents is same/exceeds that for one's wife and kids among many.

The fact that he left his wife alone with their kid (please note that it was 'their' kid & not 'her' kid alone) for a holy/greater cause (& yes, not for another woman) does lessen the intensity of the wrong deed by only a small measure.

His wife joined him later as his disciple reflects on the magnanimity of her character than on Buddha's greatness & she emerges as a true heroine in my eyes who forgave her husband & embraced him despite his choice to sneak away uninformed leaving her alone with their son.

Moreover, I believe that performing ones' daily duties sincerely & with honesty is one of the greatest prayers and one doesn't need to renounce one's wordly duties/tasks to be devoted to God.

So, if every guy turned into monk in order to achieve absolute wisdom as per the Buddhist philosophy, how would the society progress and the world would come to a halt.

Buddha should have advocated a practical way of life wherein one can balance the two because performing the wordly duties is also of utmost significance.

Roaming around with a begging bowl and expecting to live a life on the mercy of others for something as two basic meals a day, no matter how difficult it may be does strip an individual of self-esteem & dignity. One should be able to 'earn' his own bread & butter because a life of penace & meditation alone isn't enough.

What kind of detachment is this, if every person started following it, then I wonder what would become of this world.

And, there's an event when Buddha says that there is no father/mother/any relation, then why did his followers introduce the concept of filial piety to Buddhism just to make it more appealing to the Asian societies that valued it and spread it's influence. They should have allowed it to remain true to it's original form, the way it was intended to be.

You also say society cannot advance, but how has it advanced? Ipods? Better wespons ? TV? Medical science took a great leap forward once Hitler got his hands on some jews. 99% of your effort at work goes to increasing the wealth of those who already have money. There are almost no industries not geared towards luxury. I fail to see what advancement you allude to. If you read enough history you'll see we're just chasing our tails, not working towards some grand design.

Its not about devotion to god its about seeking realisation and liberation from rebirth.

What if no men became monks? Are you going to live in a world of industry and science? Neither display much wisdom. Industry is killing the only planet we live on. Science is knowledgeable but has no insight. A smart man can build a nuclear weapon, but a wise man would not. Without the possibility of higher things in this universe we have no more reason to be here than bacteria.

Filial piety is good, to a point. It is also often abused. Nothing should be followed blindly. Relatives are human and sometimes therefore wrong. The eldest son can be a moron. The father abuses his children. The mother poisons out of 'love'. Rare cases? Or global.

You have some good points, well put. I maintain my position, it is samsara that is avoiding reality even in this day and age when our actions could push our world into oblivion.

I didn't just talk about the progress of the society in view of the discoveries and inventions (& they are are both highly useful & bad ones too) that are made.

Wouldn't everything come to a standstill if all the daily commerce and other activities are brought to a halt.

The monks are supposed to remain celibate so if all men turned into Buddhist monks (for Buddhism believes that this is the best way to for detachment), would the continuity of life on earth come to a stop?

Well, lets if the virtue of filial piety can lead to abuse, so can the spousal relationship and so on. We can't just isolate the relationship adult 'kids' have with their parents and portray it in poor light.

I was quite surprised that when someone here just remarked that biggest detachment Buddha showed was leaving his wife and kid. And what about his parents?

Is leaving them any easier than leaving ones' wife & kids? Well, we all know about the western ideology (since it natural to leave one's parents behind) & that it is markedly different from the Eastern/Asian values.

Filial piety is not just about the fulfillment of one's responsibilities towards towards parents, it's also about spontaneous love the offspring feel/should feel for their parents. People are supposed to love & respect for their parents and care for them not because it is mentioned in scriptures but because it is the most natural instinct (may be not from the eyes of the westerners).

And, the' eldest son thing' is more prevalent in East Asia; in South Asia, it applies to all the sons.

The Asian family values are very different & so we look down upon 'assisted living' facility among many other concepts which is/are very popular in the west.

I don't want to comment further on East vs. West parenting & values because that will make up for a heated debate.

Rebirth can sound like abstract concept for many people in today's age and it practical to make one's life better on this earth here than to care/worry about after-life which we can't even see. so, its fine to concentrate on one's after-life but with an eye on this life and Buddhism somehow fails to address this issue properly.

[Asianbloke]

well, I can't answer about buddha's life story... all those stories from his early years are probably made-up.

Buddhism is not escape because i think it is generally devoid of beliefs unlike other religions. ie you can practice it and work at the same time. However, it is unfortunate that it is somewhat an organized religion.

the Enlightened state, or nibbana, is devoid of joy, however. When you enter nibbana, you merge with the impersonal brahman effluegence... there is just an absence of sorrow. Your identity will be totally lost.. that's why hindus hate it. You can reach spiritual liberation without udergoing ego death. I have no idea why people want to end suffering... sorrow is what gives joy its meaning. The monks living off alms are supposed to provide advice, counsel and wisdom in return.

Denying ego can be escapism, absolutely.. it can be a way to avoid responsibility.

Within the Hindu faith the state of enlightenment is named "Sahaja Samadhi" and is similar in concept to "Nibbana". Accordingly I believe you are mistaken in your comment regarding loss of identity from a Hindu viewpoint (i.e. Vedanta) From my intellectual understanding both Hinduism and Buddhism have the discipline of transforming the individual Ego (self) to conscious union with the Absolute (Brahman). it is not a matter of denying the ego, but of transformation. As said in the Upanishads, Om Tat Sat - Thou art That.

Hindus don't hate it. Actually Buddhism seems to have taken 'nirvana' from the Hindu concept of 'Moksha' (you can google it and read about it)

[simple1]

well, I can't answer about buddha's life story... all those stories from his early years are probably made-up.

Buddhism is not escape because i think it is generally devoid of beliefs unlike other religions. ie you can practice it and work at the same time. However, it is unfortunate that it is somewhat an organized religion.

the Enlightened state, or nibbana, is devoid of joy, however. When you enter nibbana, you merge with the impersonal brahman effluegence... there is just an absence of sorrow. Your identity will be totally lost.. that's why hindus hate it. You can reach spiritual liberation without udergoing ego death. I have no idea why people want to end suffering... sorrow is what gives joy its meaning. The monks living off alms are supposed to provide advice, counsel and wisdom in return.

Denying ego can be escapism, absolutely.. it can be a way to avoid responsibility.

Within the Hindu faith the state of enlightenment is named "Sahaja Samadhi" and is similar in concept to "Nibbana". Accordingly I believe you are mistaken in your comment regarding loss of identity from a Hindu viewpoint (i.e. Vedanta) From my intellectual understanding both Hinduism and Buddhism have the discipline of transforming the individual Ego (self) to conscious union with the Absolute (Brahman). it is not a matter of denying the ego, but of transformation. As said in the Upanishads, Om Tat Sat - Thou art That.

Hindus don't hate it. Actually Buddhism seems to have taken 'nirvana' from the Hindu concept of 'Moksha' (you can google it and read about it)

Thanks, it's been a long time since I concentrated on this subject. My understanding is Sahaja Samadhi is, let's say, the final passage to Moksha. Wikipedia definition below that my intellect concurs.

"this highest level of samādhi leads to nirvāṇa, which means total unity, the logical end of individual identity and also death of the body. However, it is entirely possible to stay in nirvikalpa samādhi and yet be fully functional in this world'.

[Several]

Ah Lokesh, I am not suggesting that all men should be monks, nor would they choose to. Its not an easy life. Neither does being monk preclude productiveness. We have rice fields and a rubber tree plantation here. More and more monasteries are becoming at least partly self-reliant. We do not go on pintabat either as the local people don't have much money here.

Its generally easy to love your family, but a greater love is that of all. I do not see east vs west, but east and west. Simply different approaches to simmilar situations. I agree though that some discussions can get out of hand.

Rational understanding is not enough to fathom the meaning of Dhamma and the world is an attention-hungry place. Monks and monasteries are necessary to provide the right enviroment for this search. Medieval christian ideals treated most people as peasants and kept them uneducated and pregnant. Accounting your works to god was a major message. That underlying philisophy continues today, and it is still only of major benefit to a tiny section of society. So if monks are escaping reality its because it is a construct that has more in common with 'the matrix' than any real world system.

[fabianfred]

We do not go on pintabat either as the local people don't have much money here.

I would agree that Bindhabaht can be not practiced in a country such as Malaysia....because the population is Moslem ...or England...because they are Christian...the monks wouldn't receive anything and sometimes might be in physical danger.

But in a Buddhist country there is no excuse for not going out. Even if the people are poor...the point is to give them the opportunity to make merit. Once the Buddha accepted a handful of earth from a poor child with nothing to give.

Also it is important that monks are seen out amongst the people....One reason Busdhism disappeared from India is because they stopped going on alms-round...sitting waiting in their temples for offerings...distancing themselves from the lay community...so when Brahminism was making a comeback in popularity the Buddhists felt alone and unsupported.

[leolibby]

There are lots of Hindus, Christians and athiest in Malaysia... i'm not sure about buddhists.

[simple1]

There are lots of Hindus, Christians and athiest in Malaysia... i'm not sure about buddhists.

Google search shows around 20/25% population of Malaysia is Buddhist, second to Islam

[Several]

We do not go on pintabat either as the local people don't have much money here.

I would agree that Bindhabaht can be not practiced in a country such as Malaysia....because the population is Moslem ...or England...because they are Christian...the monks wouldn't receive anything and sometimes might be in physical danger.

But in a Buddhist country there is no excuse for not going out. Even if the people are poor...the point is to give them the opportunity to make merit. Once the Buddha accepted a handful of earth from a poor child with nothing to give.

Also it is important that monks are seen out amongst the people....One reason Busdhism disappeared from India is because they stopped going on alms-round...sitting waiting in their temples for offerings...distancing themselves from the lay community...so when Brahminism was making a comeback in popularity the Buddhists felt alone and unsupported.

Its the way this monastery is run. I've only ever been on pintabat once since becoming a monk. I have been on Tudong though, we still do that even though most monasterys don't. Not a quick stroll down a rose-petal strewn Bankok soi either. Its hard but good. The locals see us working in the fields all day long. Bus loads of school kids too. I've even seen cars stop and back up for a better look. So we're actually more visible than if we appeared once in early morning. Plus people can come and talk to us as its much less formal.

I was in Malaysia for a bit and the Muslims are fine. I'd go out to the shop or internet cafe and never even got so much as a dark look. In fact two Muslim ladies once gave me a lift. I guess they were being naughty, but curiosity got the better of them. I believe the Koran advises showing respect to clergy of any religion. Georgetown in Penang has quite a few temples and centers from a range of Buddhist sects.

[Xangsamhua]

We do not go on pintabat either as the local people don't have much money here.

Once the Buddha accepted a handful of earth from a poor child with nothing to give.

I wonder how many versions of this story there are. In what I have read the Buddha in question was Buddha Kashyapa (Kassapa), the sixth of the six Buddhas prior to Buddha Gautama, and the child who gave him the handful of earth was eventually reborn as the great king Ashoka. The karma was not all good, however. Ashoka was said to have had very rough skin on account of having offered a handful of earth to the Buddha Kashyapa. There is a story that he burned his fully-occupied harem to the ground because his womenfolk didn’t like to caress his rough skin. I assume this happened (it doesn't really sound credible) before he was converted to the Buddhadharma.

[camerata]

Several off-topic posts have been deleted. Please keep it relevant to Buddhism.

See the Buddhism Forum posting guidelines.

Thanks.

[Xangsamhua]

The OP cited the legend of the Buddha Gautama as an example of irresponsibility. Obviously people took issue with that and the thread has meandered since then. However, I've only just seen the thread, so will come in a bit late and go back to the original contention that the story of Gautama's going forth is not edifying and his ignorance of life's realities until adulthood is not credible.

I wouldn't make too much of the story in the first place. It is simply a fairly standard topos (re-working of traditional material) in the Indian and Near Eastern tradition used for emphasising the physical and moral beauty of the religious hero, his self-sacrifice, personal battles with doubt and evil, enlightenment triumph and so on.

Here's the story, very briefly, about an earlier Buddha, Patumattara (no. 13 in the line of 28 including Gautama):

He was born in Hamsavatī, of the khattiya Ananda and his wife Sujātā. At the moments of his birth and his Enlightenment, a shower of lotuses fell in the ten thousand worlds, hence his name. He lived as a householder for ten thousand years in three palaces: Naravāhana, Yassa (or Yasavatī) and Vasavatti. His wife was Vasudattā, by whom he had a son, Uttara (according to SNA.i.341, his son was Uparevata). He left home in his palace (Vasavatti), and practised austerities only for seven days. A maiden of Ujjeni, called Rucinandā, gave him milk rice, and the ājīvaka Sumitta gave him grass for his seat. His bodhi tree was a salala, under which he spent a week, and when he touched the ground with his foot, huge lotus flowers sprang out of the earth, covering his body completely with their pollen. (The Samyuttabhānakas give this as the reason for his name.) His first sermon was preached to his cousins Devala and Sujāta, who later became his chief disciples. http://www.palikanon...padumuttara.htm

You can see the commonalities, even including the maiden giving him rice milk, which occurs in several of these stories. Of course, the names are different, and the earlier the Buddha the taller he was and he longer he lived.

Without checking, I don't think the legend of the Buddha's life prior to his going forth is found in the Pali Canon. It occurs in the Jatakas and in various non-canonical works authored by specific individuals over a period of more than five hundred years from the late 2nd century BCE (when the first reference to Gautama as a prince appeared) to Buddhaghosa in the 5th century CE.

So, no need to get worked up about the story itself. Just try to see what it's getting at - its intended import for its intended audience.

[rockyysdt]

Posted 2012-07-28 15:51:39 lokesh

Buddhism is an integral part of Thai society and one often comes across images from Thailand wherein the monks with bowls in their hands are being treated with great reverence by Thais.

There are a few questions that have been bothering me about Buddhism for quite some time now. These questions might seem controversial but I have no intention of causing any offence.

I do like some Buddhist principles but I find it difficult to fathom that Gautam Buddha ran away from the palace in the middle of the night in search of enlightenment without even informing his parents (which was in strict violation of the Asian filial virtue & could be seen as an act of great disservice to his parents) & his wife.

His aggrieved wife (as per the tale) claimed to have been heart-broken because her husband didn't even the need to inform her before taking such a huge decision of abandoning her though she joined him after many years as his disciple.

Was it proper to leave one's one kith & kin (that too uninformed) in search of the eternal truth? Isn't an individual's first responsibility supposed to be toward's his/her family? Didn't he fail miserably in performing his duties towards his family which also included his son, a young boy at that time?

I don't think it was proper and does appear selfish.

In defence of Buddhism you need to understand that at the time Siddhārtha Gautama abandoned his family he wasn't awakened and Buddhism didn't exist.

He was simply a man who desperately wanted to escape his inevitable role as inheritor to his fathers throne which went against his driving desire to find out the meaning of life.

If he was already "awakened", perhaps he would have given everyone the heads up before taking off.

The practice of being ordained as a monk for a brief time might be a fine practice but spending an entire lifetime receiving charity and living on other people's assistance is certainly questionable (even if bestowers of such acts of kindness indulge in alms-giving out of respect & to make merit). I do know that these monks do life devoid of luxuries but where is the self esteem in such an existence.

Is it a practical way of living or mere escape from the harsh realities of life? (even if we take that their life in monasteries is difficult)

It depends on why you enter such a life.

If you are destitute with no prospects and you've entered Monkhood as a way of material advancement, then this is not Buddhism, and if there is any basis in the teachings, ultimately the person would be cheating themselves.

Regarding those who give, one of the cornerstones of the path is compassion for others. To give alms compassionately to a sincere Monk is to look outwardly, diminishing ones ego.

All those who give alms, give with the knowledge that when and if they choose, they can also be recipients.

Can't one one devote himself to God while discharging his daily worldly duties?

In Buddhism, one doesn't devote themselves to God.

One follows the eightfold path which includes developing "wisdom", "ethical conduct" and "concentration".

One can quite easily practice as a lay person, but Monkhood offers the advantage of full time practice as the ultimate goal of "full awakening" requires dedication and a lot of time.

Having said that, one needn't achieve "full awakening" to improve ones life immeasurably.

More and more in the Western practice as lay people, regularly meeting in Sanghas where they practice together and are taught by teachers and experienced Monks.

Both Monkhood and lay practice have their place.

Edited July 31, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Gaccha]

Weber spends a great deal of his book on the Indian religions on the political economy of alms-giving. There were scores of similar religions at the time. And the various adaptations for all of them were the tactical responses to the point made above: how do you get other people to pay fire you to get enlightened.

From this thread you would think the Buddhist tactical assemblage was fixed from time immemorial. Au contraire, it shifted its position offering rewards of merit to the as-then-regarded irrelevant non-monks.

Weber reminds us of the importance of money in the generation of Buddhism.

[Asianbloke]

We do not go on pintabat either as the local people don't have much money here.

I would agree that Bindhabaht can be not practiced in a country such as Malaysia....because the population is Moslem ...or England...because they are Christian...the monks wouldn't receive anything and sometimes might be in physical danger.

But in a Buddhist country there is no excuse for not going out. Even if the people are poor...the point is to give them the opportunity to make merit. Once the Buddha accepted a handful of earth from a poor child with nothing to give.

Also it is important that monks are seen out amongst the people....One reason Busdhism disappeared from India is because they stopped going on alms-round...sitting waiting in their temples for offerings...distancing themselves from the lay community...so when Brahminism was making a comeback in popularity the Buddhists felt alone and unsupported.

I would like to say that there is a strong assumption that Buddhism disappeared from it's own country of origin ie. India (though there are still many Buddhists in India) due to the overpowering influence of Brahamism/Hinduism.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A false sense of history has been created by many people in power (the Indian congress) in India so as to make use its large Muslim vote bank by favouring them. They accused Hinduism to be the root cause of disappearance of Buddhism but it was the Islamic invaders who came to India from central Asia who used sword for forced conversion to Islam

They even destroyed the great centres of Buddhist learning like the Nalanda University (akin to Oxford university) in India where learned scholars from all around the world used to flock for research & other studies.

The reason Hindus survived their attacks was because of thir spirit to fight back (though hinduism does advocate extreme non-violence & hence even abstinence of meat-eating prevalent among many Hindus today; it does also talk about the fight-back spirit one must possess).

Hindus believed that one who is oppressed (& tolerates it beyond a certain point & does nothing about it) is a greater sinner than the opressor since he is encouraging the opressor & his vice.

In strong contrast, in response to these Islamic conquests, the Buddhist monks & their followers fled to the neighbouring SE Asia & flourished there since they look the ethics of non-violence to great extremes such that they felt it is better to flee defenceless than to fight the marauding Islamic troops.

(& I am saying that with due respect to Buddhism which believes strongly in non-violence & peaceful existence)

Please visit the following website (very informative) to dispel myths about loosening influence of Buddhism in India:

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Islamic_Onslaught6.htm

[Xangsamhua]

I haven't visited the site you recommended yet, and it's getting late, so I won't now, but it seems to me that institutional Buddhism (i.e. monasteries, temples, shrines, etc) were in considerable decline by the time the Chinese pilgrim, Xuan Zang, visited India in the 7th century CE. He reported temples and shrines uncared for and the Sangha held in low regard. Part of the problem was that after Ashoka the wealthy and powerful stopped giving support to the Sangha. Also, there was a lot of dissension among the various Buddhist schools, and that put people off, especially as their rulers were clearly favoring the Brahmins, and Hindu reform was already under way before the 8th century when the reformer Adi Shankara appeared and had so much impact.

However, Nalanda appears to have remained a significant centre of learning right up to the Turkish invasion. The Muslim destruction of this university in 1193 and of any other remaining Buddhist sites finished off, abruptly, an apparently decaying institutional Buddhism, but it seems not to have been the sole cause.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[Asianbloke]

I haven't visited the site you recommended yet, and it's getting late, so I won't now, but it seems to me that institutional Buddhism (i.e. monasteries, temples, shrines, etc) were in considerable decline by the time the Chinese pilgrim, Xuan Zang, visited India in the 7th century CE. He reported temples and shrines uncared for and the Sangha held in low regard. Part of the problem was that after Ashoka the wealthy and powerful stopped giving support to the Sangha. Also, there was a lot of dissension among the various Buddhist schools, and that put people off, especially as their rulers were clearly favoring the Brahmins, and Hindu reform was already under way before the 8th century when the reformer Adi Shankara appeared and had so much impact.

However, Nalanda appears to have remained a significant centre of learning right up to the Turkish invasion. The Muslim destruction of this university in 1193 and of any other remaining Buddhist sites finished off, abruptly, an apparently decaying institutional Buddhism, but it seems not to have been the sole cause.

Please note that destruction of the Nalanda university was just one of the several acts of Buddhism carried out by the Muslim invaders. Other than that, they carried out forced conversions using sword asking the Buddhist followers to either accept Islam or else death.

Hindu rulers did a lot to promote both Hinduism & Buddhism. Please do visit the link because it helps to dispel false history that has been carved out by historians aided by politicans to meet their own selfish ends in India.

My response was in reply to accusation that was heaped on Brahmanism as a sole/main cause for the decline for Buddhism even though it played hardly any role in its decline.

Hinduism/Brahamanism has always believed in pluralistic teachings and has never believed in forced conversions and not even in missionary work.

Sikhism and Jainism have flourished in Indian society for a long time though the founders of both these religions were originally Hindus.

And we all know the destruction of Buddhism statues of Bamiyan (UNESCO world heritage) in Afghanistan by the Islamic Taliban regime in recent times (in the last decade) as Islam is strongly opposed to idol worship.

Hindus themselves were persecuted by Muslim invaders. Please do visit the link (definitely recommended); it serves as an eye opener.

[Jawnie]

According to Buddhists, it is, in fact, infinitely easier to live a daily existence with family, friends, work, etc., that to tame one's own mind. Mind training is the essence of Buddhist practice, introspective mind training of which meditation is only one form of practice. If you think that being busy and occupied with daily life is more important than training your own mind, then you miss the point of Buddhist practice entirely. Now, it may sound selfish to take taming one's mind as the most important thing in one's life, but at the end of your life, of this life, your mind is all you will have. You will not have family, friends, wealth, possessions, anything to take with you....just your own mind. Some schools of Buddhism feel one's entire life should be a preparation for death. This is because the moment of death offers a unique opportunity to attain liberation and Buddhahood if one does not achieve it during one's life.