I started by reading a paper by Audre Truschke, “The Power of the Islamic Sword in Narrating the Death of Indian Buddhism.” She says that her intent is to critique the notion that the invasion of the Islamic Turks and their attack of Buddhist monasteries led to the decline of Buddhism in India. She argues that there is no evidence of this; but she is not trying to explain why Buddhism died out in India, just that Islam was not the cause.
Truschke claims there are other historians who have better explanations, and lists a couple:
For recent attempts to answer this question, see D. C. Ahir, Buddhism Declined in India: How and Why? (Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 2005); Gail Omvedt, Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2003), 149–85; K. T. S. Sarao, The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2012); Giovanni Verardi, Hardships and Downfall of Buddhism in India (Delhi: Manohar, 2011).
So that led me to find out who has published on the decline of Indian Buddhism, which led me to an excellent paper by K.T.S. Sarao, Head of the Department of Buddhist Studies at the University of Delhi: “The Decline of Buddhism in India: A Fresh Perspective.”
Sarao also claims that Islam was not the primary cause of the decline of Buddhism in India, at least, not it’s militaristic invasive form. He argues instead that Buddhism was quietly coopted by Sufism, its gentler, more poetic and mystical form, and by similar movements in Bhrahmanical Hinduism, namely tantric Saivism and the Bhakti movement. These movements within the Brahmanical tradition also quietly subsumed Buddhism into its place within the doctrinal and deistic systems of Brhamanical Hinduism, assigning Buddha a place as an avatar of Vishnu. Other historians have argued that Advaita Vedanta, as a corollary of the Mahayana doctrine of emptiness, helped to merge Buddhism into Vedanta rather than destroy it. All of these movements absorbed Indian Buddhism rather than oppressing and annihilating it.
My theory on the decline of Buddhism in India is that the religion was already critically weakened for the reasons expounded below, and the invasion of marauding tribes, who made direct attacks on Buddhist monasteries, was the final blow that wiped out Buddhism in India.
But what’s more interesting to me is the primacy that Sarao gives to certain sociological features that caused both the rise and fall of Buddhism in India, primarily, urbanization.
Sarao: A Model for Decline:
- Urban Character, Lack of Mass-base, and Anti-Buddhist Brahmana-Peasant Alliance
- Inalienable Affiliation with and Dependence upon Mercantile Communities for Material Support
- Intellectual Snobbery, Social Aloofness, and Lack of Interest in Cultivating Loyal Supporters
- Death-wish Mentality
- Overwhelming Presence of Brahmanical Elements in the Sangha and Unwittingly Playing Second Fiddle to Brahmanical-Hinduism
I see Sarao’s historical analysis as providing both a window into the way Buddhism functioned in ancient and medieval India, how and why it has grown in the West at this time of global urbanization. And how and why it could continue to thrive in the future.
The first two theses are critical to my argument, ‘urban character’ and ‘affiliation with mercantile communities’ or trading networks. The third, ‘intellectual snobbery, social aloofness…’ are a byproduct of the first two, which could also hinder the growth of Buddhism in the global era.
As regards ‘urban character’, the Buddha preached in cities, and drafted monks in cities. Sarao argues that Buddhism grew in the urban areas of northern India, but was not popular in the rural agricultural areas, where Brahmanical Hinduism prevailed. I have seen this argument several times in Buddhist histories but failed to see the importance of it.
Was there something in Buddha’s teaching that was ‘cosmopolitan’? Was there some way that the dharma adopted an openness to people of many cultures and beliefs, as Sarao suggests?
As for Sarao’s second thesis, that Buddhism thrived among commercial trading networks but not amongst settled agricultural communities, this certainly dovetails with the first, that Buddhism thrived in growing urban centers. Sarao argues that Buddhist monasteries were almost entirely dependent on donations from the enterprises of banking, finance, production and trade in goods, i.e. commercial enterprises.
Furthermore, Sarao argues that Buddhism thrived amongst the intelligentsia, including educated Brahmans, who became the leaders of the sangha and thereby continued to bring Vedic influences into its teachings, which led to its eventual absorption into Hinduism (thesis #5). Moreover, Sarao states that those monasteries that survived into medieval India were those that secularized, that became centers of secular as well as religious learning. Thus, Nalanda ‘university,’ with its ‘five fields of knowledge’, was a Mahavihara that provided general knowledge as well as teaching and innovating Buddhist doctrine.
The secularization of Buddhist monasteries into universities of general knowledge ties into thesis #4 ‘Intellectual Snobbery’ and ‘social aloofness’. Sarao argues that Buddhists in India did not cultivate a lay following, and was almost entirely founded on monastics who took vows. Monastics were not encouraged to provide ritualistic services for the laity, such as for births, deaths and marriages. Sarao argues that Buddhist monastics and monasteries, while becoming quite politically powerful within various kingdoms, did not cultivate a lay following or provide a role for the laity, the mass of commoners. This lack of support amongst the mass of commoners meant that, when threatened by changes in political fortunes, the Buddhists had an insufficient base of support to maintain their institutions.
Sarao maintains that Brahmanical Hinduism was closely tied to the agricultural areas where the masses of population lived, and provided excellent management of agricultural zones as well as religious rituals that tied the cycles of life in the villages to Brahmanical deities and doctrines. Sarao claims that Buddhism rose with the rise of urbanization, commerce, distant trade and intellectual cultivation in the universities. Thus during the Indian medieval period, when trade and urbanization declined, and populations retreated to agricultural areas, Buddhism also declined, while Brahmanical Hinduism thrived.
Even today, it’s become a truism that Buddhism thrives in the West amongst the upper middle class, the college educated, scholars and professionals with advanced degrees, wealthy capitalists and entrepreneurs—in other words, the bourgeoisie. But if we look back at its long history in India, from its ancient roots right up to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the lawyer-politician with two doctorate degrees, it always has thrived amongst the middle class. The bankers, financiers, traders, and entrepreneurs that supported the Buddhist monasteries in the ancient and medieval periods, were, so to speak, proto-capitalists.
That Buddhism was a religion of ‘truth’, teaching abstract philosophical concepts such as ‘dependent origination,’ using sophisticated language and carefully reasoned argument, meant that it favored an intellectual class of scholars, more so than deistic devotees. Unlike ancient and medieval Buddhism, modern Buddhism has taken a decided turn towards development of the laity, to authorizing lay teachers, and legitimizing self-organized lay Buddhist groups. Buddhism of the 21st century must take the trend of laicization even further, deposing ordination as a ‘highest goal’, flattening hiearchies and educating every member to the level of a Buddhist ‘teacher’.
That Buddhism thrived amongst commercial traders, including sea-bound traders of the South Asian maritimes, meant that it could spread rapidly along the trade routes of Asia, whereas the ritualistic religion of Brahmanical Hinduism was rooted in its agricultural setting and never spread beyond India (except through Buddhism). Furthermore, Buddhism, being a text-based religion with no dependence on situated rituals, meant that it could travel rapidly along trade networks in the form of scriptures and verbal teachings, communications, rather than requiring temples and place of elaborate ritual performance.
That Buddhism is growing rapidly and thriving today in the urban commercial West faster than in South Asia where it developed, and amongst the intelligentsia, is just a continuation of how Buddhism developed and the role that it has always played in society: it has always been urban, global and intellectual, following global trade routes.
Thus it is also no surprise that Buddhism is spreading rapidly and globally through the Internet, through networks of scholars and learned practitioners, supported in localized settings by wealthy capitalists and entrepreneurs. It is also no surprise that as populations continue to aggregate by the billions into a global nexus of mega-cities, that Buddhism has thrived in this global-urban nexus.
So, while Buddhism may have died out in India, and has stagnated in some places in Southeast Asia, it is possible that Buddhism has yet to see its greatest global extant and influence.
My hunch has always been that though Buddhism will always be small in number, it could end up having an influence far beyond the size of its membership, by exerting enormous influence through social networks, publishing and media, and especially the internet. Because it is text-based and not ritualistic, it can spread as far as digital bits and bytes can carry it. (Sorry David Chapman, text beats tantric ritual in the internet.)
But here’s my critique of the situation: in order for Buddhism to thrive in the 21st century, it must continue a few critical trends: (1) it must continue to secularize, so that it reaches the broadest audience of people around the globe, yet also allow for local adaptation of ritual within settled communities as they see fit, to build cohesive communities; (2) it must continue, per Buddhist modernism, to become the handmaiden of science, but it must allow science to lead the way, rather than dictating to science what it will accept or reject. The Dalai Lama and others have argued that where science becomes more true than dharma, science must prevail. Moreover, Buddhism must be modernized even further by letting go of orthodoxy, fundamentalism, traditionalism, ‘originalism’; it other words, it must become even more modern than Buddhist Modernism has made it so far.
To that end, I argue that (3) Buddhism must embrace empirical materialism. This I believe is the pivotal decision, the make-it-or-break-it moment. If Buddhism continues to reject empirical materialism, it will become just an updated version of an ancient worldview that has little relevance to the challenging technological, scientific and socio-environmental conditions of the 21st century. It will continue to be just a psychological balm for soothing stressed out upper-middle class professionals and entrepreneurs, STEM geeks and the like, just as Zizek and other social critics have argued incessantly, and it’s a well-deserved critique.
And then Buddhism will decline, because there will always be places and periods where urbanization declines, universities disappear, trade dies out, and localities become less connected to the global whole (e.g. North Korea). But moreover, it ill decline because other systems of adaptation (which is what Buddhism is, basically, as a religion) will prove to be more robust and attuned to the material conditions of the 21st century.
As Sarao argued, this is why Brahmanical Hinduism proved to be more adaptive to settled agrarian economies than Buddhism, and why uneducated peasants who migrated to new areas chose Islam, which is why they both prevailed when urbanization declined. In those conditions, they were more effective as systems of adaptation to life conditions, which is the essential function that all religions provide.
The mutually constructive relationship between Buddhism and neuroscience is promising, but Buddhism must also tackle sciences beyond those that illuminate individual consciousness. It must branch out to the social sciences, to technology, biology and physical sciences, cosmology and the environment.
Buddhism must continue to distribute its programs (see N. Luhmann) through a global network, by removing all barriers to participation, reducing costs and eliminating elitist tribalism, thus avoiding the ‘intellectual snobbishness’ and ‘social isolation’ of the past. It must be presented as a modern spirituality that can be adopted by people of all ethnicities and belief systems, languages and cultures.
Peoples of the 21st century—at least those that thrive and don’t become the new slave labour of the ruling class—will be the most educated, informed and networked species of humans thus far, Homo sapiens sapiens. Buddhism, urbanized, globalized, and scientifically adept, could help this newly emerging form of humanity adapt to the extreme conditions of the climate-challenged 21st century.
Buddhism must be innovative enough to embrace the post-capitalist economy, which is surely developing now, known as ‘the sharing economy,’ or The Commons. Can we find ways that Buddhism can assist in the transition to the post-capitalist economy? Or is it limited to capitalist commerce? If Buddhism can prove to be the leading religion for adaptation to and development of The Commons, Buddhism has it in the bag for the rest of the 21st century; indeed, Buddhism might thereby become the apotheosis of futuristic spiritualities.
To conclude, Buddhism has always been, urban, global, intellectual and connected to globally extensive social networks. In the early modern era, Buddhist modernism began the process of secularizing and laicizing the practice, and wedding it to empirical science. Buddhist modernism was a beginning, but the Buddhism of the 21st century, if it is to thrive in the 21st century, must become ultra-modern.
[P.S. I have no comment on thesis #4, the ‘death wish’ of Buddhism, except that limiting Buddhism to the weekend leisure activities of the upper-middle class is tantamount to a ‘death wish.’]
