Home > History, India, Politics, Religion > The enigma of Buddhism

The enigma of Buddhism


2000 years later, other religions have not been able to match the Buddhist spread! And remember all this without the sword!

Confucius, Lao tzu and Buddhist Arhat by Ding Yunpeng (ca. 1547-1628) a Ming dynasty painter, painting at the Palace Museum, Beijing

Confucius, Lao tzu and Buddhist Arhat by Ding Yunpeng (ca. 1547-1628) a Ming dynasty painter, painting at the Palace Museum, Beijing

Power Play By Buddhism Monks

In a 1000 years. By 500 AD Buddhism had spread to Britain, China, Central Asia. We can look at a popular medium like cinema to gauge the power of Buddhism.

For instance in Enter the Dragon, Bruce Lee undertakes the mission given to him by the Government Intelligence Department after it meets the approval of the Buddhist monk. In Tom Yum Goong, only after seeking advice from the Buddhist teacher does Kham (essayed  by Tony Jaa) go on a rampage in Australia. The Buddhist teacher cautions Kham about playing with ‘fire’.

Chants and Idols?

Trite messages like follow-the-path-of-ahimsa, life-is-full-of-misery, respect-life, could not have gained Buddha so may followers. Esoteric ideas like Nirvana, dukkha, et al, could not have been the reason. People don’t change so much for so little! Or resist change so much when confronted by the sword!

This was obviously not because Buddha’s statues were prettier than the statues of previous deities. Or because Buddhist chants sounded better. If that, anyway, was the reason, the statues of previous divinities could have been prettified.

In the meantime, in India

Viktoria Lyssenko, a Russian Indologist, makes an interesting linkage – a linkage that is lost to India, forgotten and dismissed as ‘ancient’ and irrelevant (interview extracted below).

Buddhism for long disappeared from the Indian scene, but the fundamentals of its philosophy were formulated as part of Indian philosophical thought with its traditional polemics and constant exchange of ideas between different schools. This deep familial link of Buddhism with the Indian philosophical soil that engendered it is being missed by both Buddhist and Hindu philosophy studies. Buddhists study six Hindu darshans, but in a rather formal way as if these were dogmatic systems. Specialists on darshanas also formally study Buddhism. In my opinion, the important aspect missing is the mutual enrichment of both traditions, their constructive impact on each other. (via ‘Branches of Indology like religion flourishing in Russia’ – The Times of India).

So, what made Buddhism so attractive?

The axis of Confucian-Platonic authoritarian, ‘wise’ rulers, who were not accountable, was (and remains) the overwhelming model for the world. Property rights remained with less than o.1% of the people. Under the CRER principle, (cuius regio, eius religio, meaning whose land, his religion; CRER) even the most personal religious beliefs of the individual were subject to State approval, as per law.

Analects of Confucius - book written by Confucius (551 - 473 BC) before Socrates and Plato with Zhu Xi's commentary. A pre-Meiji Restoration Japanese edition. (Picture courtesy - iastate.edu).

Analects of Confucius - book written by Confucius (551 - 473 BC) before Socrates and Plato with Zhu Xi's commentary. A pre-Meiji Restoration Japanese edition. (Picture courtesy - iastate.edu).

The only exception to this was the Indic system of polity – where property rights were vested with the user, justice was decentralized (did any Indic king dispense justice?), religion was maya and dharma was supreme. The modern Indian State has acquired the Desert-Bloc-Platonic-Confucian authoritarian principles of the State as parens patriae. So, the power of the Indic ideas is something that India seems to have forgotten, missed and lost!

Compare and Contrast

Contrast the faith that the Chinese have in Buddhist teachers with the negative representation of Church and priests in Hollywood. One set has been able to maintain trust and faith for more than 2000 years – and the other set seems to have lost it in less than a 1000 years.

Is it any surprise that the common Chinese loves and venerates the Buddha – and the Chinese Government lays so much emphasis on Confucianism?

How Buddhism became a religion?

Indian religion and culture shapes half the world even today. China (Buddhism), Indonesia (considering that Mahabharata is their national epic and their use of Sanskritic names), entire South East Asia (except Philippines) and of course, India. What makes the Indian success remarkable is that this status has been acquired without significant military cost or economic expenditure.

After the destruction of Takshashila, in 499 AD(?), without access to the ‘Indian thought factory’, Buddhism soon became a religion outside India. Buddha in India, was another, in a long line of teachers. Not so in the rest of the world. Cut off from Indian philosophy, Buddhism soon stopped growing.

Remember all this without the sword! 2000 years later, other religions have not been able to match this spread!

About these ads
  1. July 25, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Hi, as a former Hindu, who rediscovered Lord Buddha’s lovely teachings in the U. S., I really am not surprised that the Dharma disappeared from mainland India.

    The spread of the Dharma was both a blessing and a curse as foreigners took to Buddhism, Indians probably felt more and more that Buddhism is for foreigners, as they saw monastic institutions being overrun with foreigners. Indians could no longer find their own countrymen in the Dharma…Not only were the foreigners overtaking the Dharma, but Indians found themselves patronizing foreign monks such as Hsuan Tsang, who pretty much defeated Indian Buddhist and Hindu priests…

    Hindus had the advantage, since the Hun Rajputs and other foreign invaders converted and intermarried locals and spread their barbaric understanding which eventually became known as Hinduism.

    The blessing? I found the Lord in a foreign land with the Dharma Veda (Tipitaka is called the Dhamma Veda in suttas) translated in english.

  2. July 26, 2010 at 6:53 am

    I am very happy if you have found happiness – and if you see to it that you don’t become the cause of someone’s unhappiness. To me that is simplified Dharma.

  3. Ekalavyan Acharayan
    July 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Dear saddha,
    I’m not fully convinced about your arguments about the cause disappearance of Budhhism from India. You seem to completely miss the works of Adi Shankara and other saints who worked actively against Buddhism. Mind you, not by means of sword but by having “tarkas” (discussions). Adi Shankara also modelled his mutt set-up along lines of Buddhism, and also made Budhha as one of the avatars of Lord Vishnu. So, all in all, there were many sages who worked to absorb the teaching of Buddha into Hinduism. The islamic invasion just drove the final nail into the Buddhism in India.

    saddha :

    Hi, as a former Hindu, who rediscovered Lord Buddha’s lovely teachings in the U. S., I really am not surprised that the Dharma disappeared from mainland India.
    The spread of the Dharma was both a blessing and a curse as foreigners took to Buddhism, Indians probably felt more and more that Buddhism is for foreigners, as they saw monastic institutions being overrun with foreigners. Indians could no longer find their own countrymen in the Dharma…Not only were the foreigners overtaking the Dharma, but Indians found themselves patronizing foreign monks such as Hsuan Tsang, who pretty much defeated Indian Buddhist and Hindu priests…
    Hindus had the advantage, since the Hun Rajputs and other foreign invaders converted and intermarried locals and spread their barbaric understanding which eventually became known as Hinduism.
    The blessing? I found the Lord in a foreign land with the Dharma Veda (Tipitaka is called the Dhamma Veda in suttas) translated in english.

  4. A Fan of your blog
    July 26, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    If you look at Vedic way of life from a historical perspective, there have been many schools of thought and teachings (sometimes competing with each other), and Buddhism (teachings of Gautam Buddha) are but one of the schools of thought. What Adi Shankarachya did was draw upon many of these schools of thought and package and brand it as Hinduism of today.

    What is lost in Buddhism is that it is still like most of the other major religions which proscribe to only one way of salvation (reaching God, being one with Universe or whatever else you want to call it). Pluralism is a great asset of the Vedic way of life, however, it is not recognized as an asset in today’s world.

    I appreciate Anuraag’s take on why Buddhism spread so quickly, esp to the East. However, it still does not completely explain why only one stream of teaching got adapted so quickly, whereas others did not. I believe the answer is the championing of this religion by none other than Emperor Ashok, who was an all conquering and mighty king. With “State sponsorship”, it got the impetus and resources much needed to take the religion far and wide.

    One thing I personally hate is the hijacking of Hinduism by Gandhi and gang. Hinduism was never a religion of non-violence. It was a religion of Dharma, which is right versus wrong, at any cost. With Gandhi, Hindus have been depicted as a group of teethless and spineless people, and our state policy has become the same. I despise this caricature immensely.

  5. Galeo Rhinus
    July 27, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    Saddha/Ekalavyan Acharayan,

    This divergence arises from misunderstanding how Indians viewed Buddha, a thought leader who is one amongst several that India has created. Buddha’s discourses were consistent with all “Hindu” thought from earlier. Buddha’s background was in Sankhya – which was an important stream of Hindu thought. In fact he argued against those who were attempting to entrench themselves and challenging Indic ideas. He never spoke against the Vedas. He he did argue against those who where challenging the basic framework of Hindu thought. Buddha represented “Hinduism” within India. However, when his teachings left India and were promoted in places outside of India – his discourses developed a separate identity. Outside India, it became “buddhism.”

    Buddha’s thoughts were one amongst the several schools of thoughts persistent during that period and later. Nyaya (logic), Mimansa (debate), Sankhya (analytics) were other streams that attempted to analyze the self and the whole. There was no reference to God – but none of these streams were “atheistic” per se.

    Consistent with the nature of Indic thought these streams gave way to another thought that emphasized knowledge over actions. Shankaracharya was one such thought leader. He destressed these several streams (nyaya, sankhya, mimansa, bouddhha) and suggested that there was synthesis withing the self and the whole. There was no radical change in anything. In fact, both Buddha and Shankaracharya were against ritualized practices. Shankaracharya, was described by Yamunacharya as “concealed Buddha.”

    What amplified these differences made it look dramatic were 19th century historians and priests, who anachronistically packaged Shankaracharya against Buddhism. Later, the politics of 20th century India made this distinction sharper.

    Buddha’s ideas which always formed the core of Indic thought as did Shankaracharya’s ideas. However, historians and priests packaged them as opposing ideologies… While Buddhism had a distinct identity outside of India – India itself – never saw a dichotomy.

    However, if you are looking for a specific time-frame when active practitioners of Buddhism were attacked – you have look at 1193 CE, when Bakhtiar Khilji killed thousands of monks and students of Nalanda University. The library was burnt and apparently it was burning for several months. Some Sanskrit Buddhist texts were rescued and taken to Tibet.

  6. samadhyayi
    September 29, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    buddha was the fulfillment of the vedas. buddha said to those four quarrelling guys who asked him whose religion was right.
    he said all your religions say that god is kind and fearless. be fearless and kind so that you may know god. instead if you set up a system and call it buddhism and start contrasting it with hinduism. that above message of buddha would be meaningless.
    the way in which buddha reacted to those questions is the same way in which any enlightened hindu master would reply. to say that hinduism took some elements from buddhism is simply meaningless. there is nothing in buddhism that is not already present in hinduism. it sounds really ridiculous that these people limit dharma to a religion and talk that dharma disappeared from india. or that we took some good things from buddhism. tell me what was new in buddhism that isnt there in the vedas. all these stupid conclusions arise because of looking at indian systems relgions like desert bloc religions. that above answer of buddha suggests that he didnt care much about setting up institutions and religions. he was simply radiating truth like any enlightened being. institutions happen by themselves around such great men.

  7. March 28, 2011 at 12:37 am

    Buddhism refers to a repeating universe which scientifically today is referred to as Oscillating Universe See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU5eDypcP90&feature=channel_video_title Video title is Buddhism: Amazing Facts

    Buddhism preaches most ideas found in Hinduism – but is a simplified version of the important aspects of Hinduism: meditation, reincarnation, dharma (one’s work & actions in life carry consequences into next one), and the result of one’s dharma is suffering. Hinduism also emphasizes selflessness & achieving a state where one does not return to earth.

    Gautham Siddhartha Buddha was born to Hindu parents. His name is Hindu derived! To the commenter on top, you do not know chronology, Hinduism predates Buddhism by many centuries. You can watch the video on YT Timeless India which proves a city & temples existed in Hinduism from 1000 BC at minimum. Try to visit http://www.gosai.com as well for important information on our history.

    This is very much proven, the Gita, Vedas are dated 2800 BC, Krishna’s city Dwaaraka has been uncovered by archaeologists to atleast 1500 BC. You can watch the video on line titled Krishna city Dwaaraka uncovered, these are not phony archaelogists! The cities of Harappa and Mojendaro where bronze statues of our Gods and Goddesses were found in Indus Valley Civilization which existed in 2800 Bc. The Mahabharat was written in Sindh in that same time. The Vedas are proven to this time period! The conqestadors from the east have wanted nothing more in recent centuries to demean Hinduism not only for Indians, but for the world. Our architecture was the inspiration for the churches you see today & scholars today are proving the Tajh Mahal was nothing but a Shiv Hindu temple!

    Go to this website for proof: http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/ > The Magnitude of Muslim Atrocities > Islamic Ages > Taj Mahal and the Great British Conspirancy.

    It is also well known that some Greek Goddesses & Gods mimic our Hindu stories, which are again more ancient. It is documented that the first Greek literature arrived in 700 BC yet the story of Hercules is oddly similar to the story of Krishna (how attempts were made to poison when he was young). Many more similarities if you take the time to review both, and I doubt this is coincidental.

    It is also not coincidental that names of states and countries surrounding India to west have Sanskrit derived or Hindi origins in their name. It is not just East our influence existed – Afghanistan was once Up Ghana Stan, Persia was once Parsus (a tribe in the Vedas), Sahaara (desert) in Hindi refers to caring for someone, Pharoah: going around, Aankhon: eye (same as Egyptian symbol). It is not a coincidence that you can research the history of cotton being used for clothing & it was found that emerged in Indus Valley Civilization, so the “saris” of the Egyptians were very Hindu derived perhaps!

    Temple building in Hinduism was an exact science just as Sanskrit was an exact language (every consonant and vowel being pronounced exactly as it is written): See this article from http://www.gosai.com > Science> Vedic Age> Vastu Shastra and Sacred Architecture> from http://gosai.com/writings/vedic-age

  8. June 2, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Main reason for Buddhism being sidelined is that Hinduism absorbed Buddhism.
    Hinduism is flexible. personal and a way of life. You need not renounce the world to attain Godhood.
    Vedic system has Polytheism,Henotheism,Monotheism, Dualism and Monism.
    Host of Gods were worshipped, each symbolizing an aspect of Nature.As people evolved they began to understand the real meaning of the Vedas in its entirety and graduated into Henotheism,Monotheism. Still later as human thought evolved further, they have found Monism- Advaita-Non-dualism as the core.
    Buddhism came into being when Karmakanda or Ritualistic approach to religion had become intolerable with no attention paid to Gnana -Kanda-Path of knowledge.
    There was confusion galore in the method of worship and internecine feuds were not uncommon based on Religious beliefs.
    Gnana kanda was completely forgotten and Mimamsa which speaks of only karma with out Eswara aggravated the situation further.
    People lost hope in Hinduism.
    Then came the Buddha.
    His philosophy of Nihilism brought in a whiff of fresh air to people who were suffocating under the burden of numerous Gods and Religious sacrifices.
    His total negation of Vedas brought in many a convert and his system was simple to understand.
    Adi Shankaracharya diagnosed the problem correctly and immediately organized the Shanmathas-Six Deity Worship Ganapathya,-Saurya,Kaumaara,Saiva,Saaktha and Vaishnava.
    He preached the Vedic thoughts in a simple language that could be understood by all thus removing the shackles of the Scholarly approach to the Vedas.
    He denounced sacrifices ;at the same time he spread the message that the sacrifices were symbolic and the Real Godhood can be obtained by Discipline,Love,Prayer,Knowledge.
    He gave the Karma Kanda a secondary place to Gnana Kanda.
    He laid emphasis on Bhakti,Devotion.
    Theory of karma of Buddha was nothing new.It is nothing but what has been stated in the Vedas.Shankaracharya brought this fact into the fore.
    He won over Kumarila Bhatta and Mandana Misra from their Mimamsic ways.
    People were fed up with many Gods,so they switched over to Nihilism of the Buddha.
    To win those back Shankarachaya explained the Monism-Non-Dualism of Vedanta.
    To believe in a Reality that is ‘Nothing’ is difficult to grasp as it is difficult to grasp too many Realities.
    Shankara’s Advaita struck a middle path and he was able to win back the converts.
    The main reasons for Buddhism not flourishing in India are-
    -Believing Nil as a Reality is difficult for the Mind.
    -Though Buddha’s preaching was simple in Theory,it became very difficult for the followers to follow(because of incorrect interpretation)
    -Buddhism negated idol worship-His followers worship his statues. This move by Buddhists was seen as double standards /hypocrisy
    -Buddhism,over a period of time, developed rituals(which it vehemently condemned in the Vedas) .
    -Though Buddhism started as one school of thought,it branched of into Mahayana,Hinayana and various other Sects. This ate away its strength.
    As people started coming back into Hinduism,Rulers started promoting Hinduism.

  9. November 28, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    saddha :

    Hi, as a former Hindu, who rediscovered Lord Buddha’s lovely teachings in the U. S., I really am not surprised that the Dharma disappeared from mainland India.

    this resembles more of christian converts finding the message of jesus.. so what anurag said has been true.. budhism became religion outside, and even indians going from here become prey to it.

  10. November 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Why Budhism disappeared in India.. because, it existed mostly in monasteries commanding kings and interfering with politics, while the ordinary people continued with the traditional life style.

    The darga in which adi sankara defeated budhist enabled the vaidiha people to win over the kings.. when budhist monks lost state patronage, they disappeared within short time..

    On the other hand, the vaidiha brahmins, had a sustainable system, and dispersed among people.. They integrated with the society, in each and every village, and they married and hence created progenies..

    Budhist monks did not marry, and how come they sustain after their life time? They have to get monks from society.. but when a bulk of society also took to sanyasa, from where will they get people for nirvana?

    Budhism is impractical, and defeatist religion..

  11. November 28, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    Senthil –

    My understanding of Buddhism is different.

    One – Buddhism was always about implementing Bharattantra - known as Dharma at that time. Grateful people responded to Buddha’s (and the monks) efforts by worshipping them.

    When a Buddhist monk immolated himself, France lost Vietnam.

    When this actions are repeated in Tibet, the Chinese Empire quakes in its boots.

    When Buddhism became more of a religion, it lost its capacity to expand its footprint. In India, of course, it never took root as a religion – but again in the vanguard of reinforcing Bharattantra.

    Desert Bloc would like us to forget the true role of Buddhism, the nature of Bharattantra - and just dismiss Buddhism as a religion, which even now it is not – at least not as much as Desert Bloc religions are.

  12. Gaurav Sharma
    December 6, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Hinduism has seen several streams conjoining to make a powerful oceanic wave called Dharma. There have been debates between Vaishnava and Shaiva follower and such sects have competed with each other. No wonder if buddha propounded some principles that were debated in Hindu society and it brought Bhagwatpad Sankracharya to have a debate with a bauddha monk. We should not forget that Adi Sankaracharya debated with Mandan Mishra as well who was a renowned tantrik and disciple of Abhinava Gupt.

    But such debates do not invalidate buddha sutra and I think this is what I would say is the true spirit of Hinduism. i do not feel comfortable adding “ism” to Hindu because its an ever evolving knowledge stream. Its not restricted in any sense like Abrahminic religions.

    But looking at the present Hindu dharma , I would say all theories are at work in practice be it dvaitvaad , advaitvaad, uttara-mimamsa , poorva-mimamsa , vedic sacrifice , mantrik ritualistic practices or any other. In all its about freedom , there has not been any imposition on any body.

    No grdges with buddhism as well ( I am quite comfortable adding “ism” to buddha because at least present day buddha dharma has restrictions in thoughts) but the word of caution is that it is a political religion of the day and has similar goals like christian or islam.

    Overall I am seeing that religion with pluralism ( hindu , old roman )are being discouraged as of the day and religion with restrictions are being promoted for wicked political goals and with cunning political tricks.

    I dont know if Gautam Buddha ever meant his teachings to be followed as a religion but present day buddhism looks only an offshoot cult of Grand Hindu religion.

    BTW does any body know why hindu Brahmins called buddha a nastika?

  13. December 7, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    All the comments so far are all on predictable lines and missing the point. Buddha was one among numerous shramana traditions in ancient India. There were many other shramana traditions in India like Jaina tradition. Rishi Dattatreya was also a shramana. They lived on a principle of Minimalism. Bauddhas rose in popularity owing to a simple message and numerous patrons. But Shramanas were never mainstream traditions in India and so it easily lost hold of people. It was not Shankaracharya who was responsible but the Purva mimamsis like Kumarila Bhatta who debated vigorously with Bauddhas.

    @gauravsharma Buddha is called naastika because nastika means na+asti (does not exist). Bauddhas did not recognize a “beyond” other than what we percieve.

  14. December 8, 2011 at 3:16 am

  15. x
    December 8, 2011 at 8:25 am

    If Buddhism was such a threat to Confucian-Plato authoritarian rulers, they wud have done something against Buddhism’s spread. Instead rulers actively promoted this ‘ism’, sending out people to india to learn and spread this ‘ism’.

    Precisely because, it converted ppl into sheep, who will maximum burn themselves in extreme distress. and therefore easy to control.

    Buddhism spread due to state patronage and collapsed when monotheistic cultist rulers did not give it support. By making ppl passive, it allowed those monotheistic cultists to gain control over society.

    Anurag, u r trying to see beautiful clothes on an emperor who is not wearing any.

  16. December 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    burn themselves in extreme distress

    The role of Buddhism in Vietnam War (and other Asian Wars) is underestimated – and similarly also how Vietnam defeated America. Your portrayal and understanding of events in Vietnam has significant gaps. I suggest you fill them up.

    On the other hand, the way populations in the Islamic Middle East quietly succumbed to imposition of Puppet Dictators by the Christian West is closer to your representation.

  17. December 8, 2011 at 7:03 pm
    Sunil :

    All the comments so far are all on predictable lines and missing the point.

    To my mind, there are always a million ‘explanations’ for failure – but usually a few reasons for success.

    Such is the case with Buddhism, too. I think it is irrelevant to discuss about Buddhism’s relative lack of success in the last 500 years.

    On the other hand, it is important to understand how and why Buddhism spread from Europe to Siberia and Japan to Sri Lanka. The world has never seen such a success – that too without the use of sword.

    And I believe it had nothing to do with pretty statues, sonorous chants or trite aphorisms.

    All this – pretty statues, sonorous chants & trite aphorisms, came later.

  18. February 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    “2000 years later, other religions have not been able to match the Buddhist spread! And remember all this without the sword!”……………..so you admit Buddhism is a religion….and so is hinduism???

  19. February 20, 2012 at 10:01 pm
    Religion is marked by: –

    1. One book (Bible, Koran, Torah). A ready reckoner.
    2. One God.
    3. One worship system (place – Church, facing Mecca, time (Sabbath, 5-times-aaaaa-day), frequency (every week; every 3 hours).

    Is this how you see ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Hinduism’?

  20. February 20, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    Anuraag, with this statement, “2000 years later, other religions have not been able to match the Buddhist spread! And remember all this without the sword!”………….you are the one who is referring to Buddhism as a religion.

    Anuraag Sanghi :

    Religion is marked by: –
    1. One book (Bible, Koran, Torah). A ready reckoner.
    2. One God.
    3. One worship system (place – Church, facing Mecca, time (Sabbath, 5-times-aaaaa-day), frequency (every week; every 3 hours).
    Is this how you see ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Hinduism’?

    Of course, I do not see buddhism or hinduism as this. For me, both are indigenous cultures of India.

  21. February 9, 2013 at 4:49 pm

    You constructed a number of terrific ideas throughout ur article,
    “The enigma of Buddhism Quick Take – As It Happens”.

    I may possibly be coming back to ur web-site soon.
    Many thanks -Guillermo

  22. March 14, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    Friend, the reason for the Disappearance of the Blessed one’s teaching from India is very simple. The Tathahatha taught a very subtle doctrine that is easy to misunderstand and misrepresent. Such things are lost easily and are very fragile in this age of man. Also India faced several tragedies in the form of invasions. Constant fighting coarsens the mind and subtleties are lost. It is not very surprising Friend, that the Blessed One’s teachings were lost. However some remnants of His teachings did survive. The Observation of Breath, Anapana-Sati as the Perfect One taught made it’s way into the Yoga tradition. However the more subtle teachings such as Kayagati-Sati, Cittanupassana and Dhammanupassana disappeared and were practiced by very few even in staunchly Buddhist countries.

    In this age of man, such subtle teachings are very fragile. Thus it is with Joy that I note that the Magnificent One’s teachings are once again re-appearing in India in all their glory. This is very Good news for India and indeed the world.

  1. June 2, 2011 at 11:50 am
  2. September 5, 2011 at 1:39 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,016 other followers

%d bloggers like this: