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

[ronki23]

Historically, did India and China or India and S.E Asia ever change borders? All I know is that Thailand was once Hindu and China ruled Vietnam for a long time. South East Asians are mainly Southern Chinese anyway.

I'm surprised India or China had not had a well known history with one another considering they're on each others' doorsteps and even here in the UK our former enemies (USA, France) became our closest allies after WW1 with the opposite occurring for Germany.

What I don't really understand is why animals are slaughtered in Dharmic religions when texts clearly state that meat eating is only for the household and should not be for ritualistic purposes.

As I know a bit more about Sikhi than Hinduism nowadays, here is animal sacrifice in Sikhi. I assume this is in India

Sikhs provide Guru ka Langar for all religions so no alcohol,meat or eggs. Yet this is 'Maha Prasad'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoP9cKuefRo

Poor goat was scared before it was killed. How can Jhatka meat be any better than Halal if the animal is full of fear before its demise?

And if the Hindu texts state animals shouldn't be sacrificed either, why do they?

Hindu sacrifice of 250,000 animals begins | World news | theguardian.com

Students clash at Indian beef festival - Telegraph

Traditions: The Reality of Animal Sacrifice - Magazine Web Edition > April/May/June 2012 - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine

Phagunadi maintains, "Animal sacrifice is right as per the Vedas. It is discussed in the Mahabharata as well. Orthodox [ancient] Hinduism is completely different than what Hindus practice in India now."

 

[Aupmanyav]

India and China were separated by Himalayas, Tibet and Gobi desert. The contact were few and far between. Depends on what scriptures are you reading, of course, vegetarianism is always respected. And beef is mostly an anathema. Borders, and religious ways always keep on changing. Hinduism is not a fossil, it is a living tradition.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Ronki ji

Did Hinduism absorb Buddhism?

this is a realy interesting question , I have been reading some very interesting things about the period just after the majority of Buddhists seem to have left India , I am reading all this with a very open mind as some accounts given place blame on the invading muslims for driving out the Buddhists in the north , but t is also true that Buddhism declined even in areas where the muslims were not active , ...it seems possible that Shankaracharya had a hand not only phylosopicaly trying to defeat the Buddhists but that there was an attempt to physicaly defeat them too , in which case monestarys were attacked and later became Hindu places of worship , it seams as if this transition may have been gradual , but in which case it may well be that Hinduism absorbed Buddhism in two ways by an attempt at phylosopical defeat and also by physical atack .

Was the reason Hindus don't eat beef because Krishna is GOVINDA and because Hindus believe that each Yuga is a bull's leg and now that we're in Kali Yugu, the bull is only on one leg. It can't only be for cultural reason e.g. milk, gestation period and ploughing fields because i'm sure goats do this too. And obviously Hindus today don't eat it

Aupmanyav ji very corectly stated that ''Hinduism is a living tradition'' in that it is subject to change especialy in the inturpretation of some traditions ,

what may be a reason held highly by one tradition may seem to be contradicted by the reason held by another tradition , but in truth these reasons only inforce the underlaying Dharmic law of Ahimsa . ...I personaly could no more eat a goat than a cow , to me the cow is somewhat symbolic of the relationship between man and all animals , ...and it canot be purely because of Krsna' love of Go mata as yo say the bull also appears everywhere , symbolising Dharma and as Lord Shiva's sacred Nandi Bull

I don't even know when/how I stopped beef. I read in a schoolbook Hindus aren't meant to eat beef though I don't think it's from that! I was eating all meat for a while up to 9-10 years old and went vegetarian for a year. Then I ate meat except beef but I am unsure where I stopped beef.

if you dont mind my asking , What was your families tradition ?

Keeping with the topic of how Hinduism has changed over the years:

http://www.gurmat.info/sms/smspublic...ndHinduism.pdf

[/QUOTE]

that was an interesting thread I had not read it before , ...yes it would seem that Sikhi just like Buddhism has suffered the same fluctuations and outside influences from neiboring religions and from current thought , why should Hinduism be any less affected , ...this is very much the pattern that many traditions follow where upon they go need to go through ocasional reforms to eliminate the human minds occasional tendancy to subvert religion due to their own understanding , their own preference for worship and the inclusion of secular behavior .

Hinduism obviously has changed , and like all religions will continue to go through a process of reveiw and reformation. this was a phenomena that the Buddha himself observed when he spoke of 'all compound things' and their 'Imperminance' yet behind all compound things is an unchanging realty , and it is the purpose of all religions to find and comprehend that reality , therfore change is an inevitable part of that search .

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. as some accounts given place blame on the invading muslims for driving out the Buddhists in the north , but t is also true that Buddhism declined even in areas where the muslims were not active , ...it seems possible that Shankaracharya had a hand not only phylosopicaly trying to defeat the Buddhists but that there was an attempt to physicaly defeat them too , in which case monestarys were attacked and later became Hindu places of worship ..

Proof please. Buddhist accounts cannot be taken as the truth. They are like Christian descriptions of Celts and Druids, biased, trying to explain the decline.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram aupu ji

Proof please. Buddhist accounts cannot be taken as the truth. They are like Christian descriptions of Celts and Druids, biased, trying to explain the decline.

I have been trying to remain imparcial and read differing accounts without relying on any one sided explanation , ...and you ask for proof ???

what possible proof would be conclisive ? if Buddhist accounts canot be trusted then neither can the so called proof from any other single side ?

but if I find anything of interest I may post it at a later date , ...

however you are the history buff around here , what have you read about Shankaracharya and his contemporaries attemplts to defeat Buddhism , ...please note this is not a debate so there is no question of side taking it is just a matter of interest as to what MIGHT have happened

 

[crossfire]

Buddha died after eating pork

Is there a correlation between the two?

Actually, yes. Buddha's last meal was the cause of his death, whatever the "pig-delicacy" might have been. Buddha took some of the pig-delicacy, then directed Cunda to bury the rest of it in a pit, as it was not fit for healthful consumption. After eating it, Buddha got very sick--even passing blood.

I'll hide the gory details of the sutta quote:

Spoiler: Gory details--sutta quote

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.05.than.html
<...>Then the Blessed One, early in the morning, adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes — went together with the community of monks to Cunda's home. On arrival, he sat down on the seat laid out. Seated, he said to Cunda, "Cunda, serve me with the pig-delicacy you have had prepared, and the community of monks with the other staple & non-staple food you have had prepared."

Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Cunda served the Blessed One with the pig-delicacy he had had prepared, and the community of monks with the other staple & non-staple food he had had prepared. Then the Blessed One said to him, "Cunda, bury the remaining pig-delicacy in a pit. I don't see anyone in the world — together with its devas, M&#257;ras, & Brahmas, with its people with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & commonfolk — in whom, when it was ingested, it would go to a healthy change, aside from the Tath&#257;gata."

Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Cunda buried the remaining pig-delicacy in a pit, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, after bowing down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One — after instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging him with Dhamma-talk — got up from his seat and left.

Then in the Blessed One, after he had eaten Cunda's meal, there arose a severe illness accompanied with (the passing of) blood, with intense pains & deadly. But the Blessed One endured it — mindful, alert, & not struck down by it.
<...>

 

[ratikala]

jai jai , it is often translated as pigs delight , in other words truffles

 

[Poeticus]

namaskaram aupu ji



I have been trying to remain imparcial and read differing accounts without relying on any one sided explanation , ...and you ask for proof ???

what possible proof would be conclisive ? if Buddhist accounts canot be trusted then neither can the so called proof from any other single side ?

but if I find anything of interest I may post it at a later date , ...

however you are the history buff around here , what have you read about Shankaracharya and his contemporaries attemplts to defeat Buddhism , ...please note this is not a debate so there is no question of side taking it is just a matter of interest as to what MIGHT have happened

Ratiben, there were two propositions in the old days:

-the loser of the debate comes under the victor's school of thought​

or ...

-the loser immolates himself​

The Buddhists used it; the Jains used it; and the Hindus used it. They all engaged in it. Since when did Shankaracharya-defeated-Buddhists-through-polemics become Shankaracharya-killed-many-Buddhists-and-destroyed-Buddhism?

The "decline of Buddhism" being attributed to Hindus is filled with historical fallacies. How in the world does one, then, explain the disappearance of Buddhism from Afghanistan and modern-day Pakistan? The areas that make up both of these countries were once congested with Buddhists. That's practically where most of them resided. Next, how in the world does one, then, explain the disappearance of Buddhists of eastern India and Nalanda (in modern-day Bihar)?

Any persecution of Buddhists en masse is evident in times much before Shankaracharya, and afterward. Two vivid pre-Shankarachyara examples come down to us: one during Pushyamitra Sunga, and the second one during Mihirakula. And post-Shankaracharya examples include Ghazni and the subsequent Muslim incursions.

If I were to use the same "Hindus destroyed Buddhism" logic, I might as well, then, attribute the "death of Ajivika-s" to Emperor Ashoka. He did, after all, have 18,000 of them decapitated because he didn't like how one of them drew the Buddha.

 

[ronki23]

India and China were separated by Himalayas, Tibet and Gobi desert. The contact were few and far between. Depends on what scriptures are you reading, of course, vegetarianism is always respected. And beef is mostly an anathema. Borders, and religious ways always keep on changing. Hinduism is not a fossil, it is a living tradition.

Tibet is part of China though- yet it is home to modern Buddhism. And the Dalai Lama fled to India.
Did the Kingdom of Ashoka never meet the Chinese or even the Japanese?
Because we know Ashoka was a Buddhist.
Is the India flag with the wheel of Ashoka or the cotton spinner? Because I am wondering why Buddhism disappeared in India in its 'authentic form'

and why didn't it 'mix' with Hinduism in South East Asia?

With regards to animal sacrifice and beef in Sikhism and Hinduism, why is it done if Sikhism and Hinduism state that meat is only for personal consumption and not ritualistic sacrifice?

In Nepal there's a Gadhimai festival every 5 years where 250,000 animals are slaughtered, Bovine too

Hinduism itself forbids animal sacrifice,[11][12][13][14] and indeed any meat processing, based on the doctrine of ahimsa.[13] Although animal sacrifices practices as are still current are mostly associated with either Shaktism or with local tribal traditions.
Mahabharata contains description of an Ashvamedha performed by king Uparichara Vasu, however, no animals were sacrificed.[15] In the Vedas, there are mention of animal sacrifices, such as mantras for the sacrifice of a Goat in the Rig,[16] the Horse sacrifice (Ashvamedha) in the Yajur,[17] whilst in the Jyotistoma sacrifice three animal-sacrifices are performed, namely, Agnisomiya, Savaniya and Anubandhya.[18][19] The Yajurveda is considered the Veda of sacrifices and rituals,[20][21] and consists of a number of animal sacrifices, such as mantras and procedures for the sacrifices of a white goat to Vayu,[22] a calf to Sarasvati, a speckled Ox to Savitr, a Bull to Indra, a castrated Ox to Varuna and so on.[23][24] Although these rituals didn't focused on the killing of animal,[25] and Vedas themselves defined them only for earlier age.[26] Such rituals, including Ashvamedha are one of the prohibited rite for current age.[27]

and the UK Sikh Community complained that there was meat and alcohol served at my local Gurdwara even though it was at a hall owned by the Gurdwara owners and the meat and alcohol was brought from outside- it was a wedding.

How can the Sikh community complain that we had meat if Sikhs do Jhatka meat as Maha Prasad?
And WHY do they do Jhatka meat as other religions can not eat it and Sikhism says everyone deserves to be involved

 

[Aupmanyav]

India has accepted refugees from many places, South Africa, Uganda, Middle-East, Iran. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Fiji, etc.; so Dalai Lama coming from Tibet is not something new. Maharask****a sthavira were sent to China by Ashoka. Indian flag has 'dhamma cakra'. I take it that Buddhism merged into Hinduism with the acceptance of Lord Buddha as the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Sikhs have their own rules. Why should they necessarily follow Hindu rules? I have eaten meat preparations in Gurudwara dining halls which are used during marriage ceremonies in Delhi, though alcoholic drinks were not there. If some Sikhs feel that serving alcoholic drinks is wrong in Gurudwara, I think they are correct. No Sikh guru would have advocated that. Hindus have no problem with 'jhatka' though some may have problems with 'halal'. Halal, I think, means more pain to animals.

Mahaprasad is an exception: "The exception to vegetarian langar is when Nihangs (in India) serve meat on the occasion of Holla Mohalla, and call it Mahaprasad." "On religious Sikh festivals, including Hola Mohalla and Vaisakhi, at the Gurdwara of Hazur Sahib, Fatehgarh Sahib and many other Sikh Gurdwaras, jhatka meat is offered as "mahaprasad" to all visitors in a Gurdwara. This is regarded as food blessed by the Guru and should not be refused." (Wikipedia)

 

[LuisDantas]

and why didn't it 'mix' with Hinduism in South East Asia?

Buddhism and Hinduism are actually fairly different from each other and mutually exclusive, far as their doctrines go.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram poeticus ji

Ratiben, there were two propositions in the old days:

-the loser of the debate comes under the victor's school of thought​

or ...

-the loser immolates himself​

The Buddhists used it; the Jains used it; and the Hindus used it. They all engaged in it. Since when did Shankaracharya-defeated-Buddhists-through-polemics become Shankaracharya-killed-many-Buddhists-and-destroyed-Buddhism?

The "decline of Buddhism" being attributed to Hindus is filled with historical fallacies. How in the world does one, then, explain the disappearance of Buddhism from Afghanistan and modern-day Pakistan? The areas that make up both of these countries were once congested with Buddhists. That's practically where most of them resided. Next, how in the world does one, then, explain the disappearance of Buddhists of eastern India and Nalanda (in modern-day Bihar)?

Any persecution of Buddhists en masse is evident in times much before Shankaracharya, and afterward. Two vivid pre-Shankarachyara examples come down to us: one during Pushyamitra Sunga, and the second one during Mihirakula. And post-Shankaracharya examples include Ghazni and the subsequent Muslim incursions.

If I were to use the same "Hindus destroyed Buddhism" logic, I might as well, then, attribute the "death of Ajivika-s" to Emperor Ashoka. He did, after all, have 18,000 of them decapitated because he didn't like how one of them drew the Buddha.

Dearest brother , please be so kind as to note ....that I said Fifstly '' Defeat'' not destroyed or persecuted ....and secondly that I have read several accounts with an open mind ....there for am not laying any blame or accusing any one side of any kind of foul play ...

in otherwords I am simply observing and weighing up the possibilities in a calm and dignified manner , thus I am not wishing to get into any debate about it

any how what ever the circumstances were which caused the decline of Buddhism in India did not destroy it , ...courtesey of Padmasambhava ...who snuck of to tibet and estabilshed the first monestaries (how ever there are many accounts regarding this also), ...it simply moved camp , as often happens , ...incidentaly Padmasambhava hailed from Swat an had to do a little 'defeating' of obsticals himself in order to defeat the enemys of Buddhism ...in other words Ignorance ! ..so you might note here that we do not nececarily see the word defeat to mean fisticuffs in the litteral sence but as a metaphorical battle of the witts , which Padmasambhava as very mystical figure was particularly good at due to his remarkabble sidhis ....

yes agreed , ...people now take everything too literaly , and also bend actuality to suit their own argument ...thus I am not even attempting to put forward proof as requested , this is something which needs carefull personal consideration as it is more about levels of understanding as you point out ....

of course Buddhism didnt only establish it self in Tibet , it has gradualy excerted its influence in many places symultaniously , ...its decline in many areas of India may have much to do with stagnation , thought is a fluid process which does not stand still , if it does it stagnates and is then easily defeated .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Luis ji

Buddhism and Hinduism are actually fairly different from each other and mutually exclusive, far as their doctrines go.

this is my point , there is more to both Hinduism and Buddhism than Doctrine , if we simply cling to Doctrine alone without contemplating what lays behind and beyond it , ... then stagnation sets in and the practitioners of each see only the differences , thus never ataining and rejoicing in the ultimate truth .

 

[Aupmanyav]

If Buddhist accounts canot be trusted then neither can the so called proof from any other single side? but if I find anything of interest I may post it at a later date, ..

however you are the history buff around here, what have you read about Shankaracharya and his contemporaries attempts to defeat Buddhism, .. please note this is not a debate so there is no question of side taking it is just a matter of interest as to what MIGHT have happened

I wholly agree with you. All so-called proofs should go under scrutiny. You are welcome to provide them whenever you come across them.

Sure, Sankaracharya and Buddhists probably engaged in religious debates. Later, Hindus might have claimed it as 'victory' (probably Buddhists too claimed 'victory' in their circles). What is so strange about that. As I mentioned earlier, Hindus love debates. This is just like the modern debates between Christian and atheists.

Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal George Pell:
[youtube]y8hy8NxZvFY[/youtube]
Debate: Atheist vs Christian (Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal George Pell) - YouTube

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddhism and Hinduism are actually fairly different from each other and mutually exclusive, far as their doctrines go.

I think the reverse happened in South Asia. In India Hinduism absorbed Buddhism and in South Asia Buddhism absorbed Hinduism. This is because except for academics (Sankara-type debates), there is hardly any difference between the two. What is 'dhamma' in Buddhism is exactly the same as what is 'dharma' in Hinduism or even in Jainism and Sikhism. Is there even one word in Eight-fold Noble path that a Hindu/Jain/Sikh will not accept? Sankara was even branded as a Buddhist in disguise. Where you people see differences, I only see similarities.

 

[LuisDantas]

Buddhism and Hinduism both have a hard enough time being similar to themselves internally, so one can frame the matter to reach most any conclusion, it seems to me.

The actual clear disagreements are IMO very significant, but you are correct in that the masses often fail to even notice them, let alone care about them.

 

[Secret Chief]

Buddhism and Hinduism both have a hard enough time being similar to themselves internally, so one can frame the matter to reach most any conclusion, it seems to me.

The actual clear disagreements are IMO very significant, but you are correct in that the masses often fail to even notice them, let alone care about them.

True, true.
:yes:

 

[Aupmanyav]

The actual clear disagreements are IMO very significant, but you are correct in that the masses often fail to even notice them, let alone care about them.

With Advaita and illusion/maya, the differences are less but your later statement is absolutely correct, as Magog said, the masses won't ever notice whatever the differences are. They would just be happy to worship Buddha (Buddham Saranam), and therefore, the ninth avatara. They were not Taxila/Vikramshila/Nalanda trained and did not know Sarvastivada from Prajnaptivada (Bahu&#347;rutiya-Vibhajyav&#257;da).

 

[ronki23]

India has accepted refugees from many places, South Africa, Uganda, Middle-East, Iran. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Fiji, etc.; so Dalai Lama coming from Tibet is not something new. Maharask****a sthavira were sent to China by Ashoka. Indian flag has 'dhamma cakra'. I take it that Buddhism merged into Hinduism with the acceptance of Lord Buddha as the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu. Sikhs have their own rules. Why should they necessarily follow Hindu rules? I have eaten meat preparations in Gurudwara dining halls which are used during marriage ceremonies in Delhi, though alcoholic drinks were not there. If some Sikhs feel that serving alcoholic drinks is wrong in Gurudwara, I think they are correct. No Sikh guru would have advocated that. Hindus have no problem with 'jhatka' though some may have problems with 'halal'. Halal, I think, means more pain to animals.

Mahaprasad is an exception: "The exception to vegetarian langar is when Nihangs (in India) serve meat on the occasion of Holla Mohalla, and call it Mahaprasad." "On religious Sikh festivals, including Hola Mohalla and Vaisakhi, at the Gurdwara of Hazur Sahib, Fatehgarh Sahib and many other Sikh Gurdwaras, jhatka meat is offered as "mahaprasad" to all visitors in a Gurdwara. This is regarded as food blessed by the Guru and should not be refused." (Wikipedia)

What I meant was that Hindus and Sikhs both sacrifice animals so I do not know where and why the sacrifices were introduced/stopped. In particular, I do not know why cows,oxen and buffalos were sacrificed if they are sacred animals in Hinduism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quvkfkU-KZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdM_1NM1iMc

As for Sikhs, I do not know why they sacrifice animals and offer 'mahaprasad' if Sikhs complain a Gurdwara owned building serves meat at a private function.Hindus,Buddhists and Jains can't eat meat prasad

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think 'Mahaprasad' question should be addressed to Sikhs. Of course, Hindus sacrifice and eat though there are many voices against that. The traditional sacrifice during the Kulu Dussehra festival did not take place this year. Some Gods accepted to go without it and there was a court injunction also.