Buddhism, which originated in India, gradually dwindled in that region starting in the 4th–6th century CE, and was largely ousted by Hinduism approximately by the 12th century, in a centuries-long process. Lack of appeal among the rural masses, who instead embraced religious rituals and beliefs developed during the Hindu synthesis, as well as Turkic invasions and dwindling financial support from trading communities and royal elites, were major factors in the decline of Buddhism in its Indian homeland. Across many centuries, Buddhism largely spread to other regions of Asia.
The total Buddhist population in 2010 in South Asia – excluding that of Sri Lanka, Bhutan (both Buddhist majority states), and Nepal – was about 10 million, of which about 92.5% in India, 7.2% lived in Bangladesh and 0.2% in Pakistan.Religion population totals in 2010 by Country Pew Research, Washington DC (2012)
Growth of Buddhism
Buddhism expanded in the Indian subcontinent in the centuries after the death of the Buddha, particularly after receiving the endorsement and royal support of the Maurya Empire under Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE. It spread even beyond the Indian subcontinent to Central Asia and China.
The Buddha's period saw not only urbanisation, but also the beginnings of centralised states.Richard Gombrich, A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Harvard University Press, 2000, p. 205. The successful expansion of Buddhism depended on the growing economy of the time, together with an increase in the number of centralised political organisations capable of change.Richard Gombrich, A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Harvard University Press, 2000, p. 184.
Buddhism spread across ancient India and state support by various regional regimes continued through the 1st millennium BCE. The consolidation of monastic organisations made Buddhism the centre of religious and intellectual life in India. The succeeding Kanva dynasty had four Buddhist Kanva Kings.
Gupta Empire (4th–6th century)
Religious developments During the Gupta Empire (4th to 6th century), Vaishnavism, Shaivism and other Hindu sects became increasingly popular, while Brahmins developed a new relationship with the state. The differences between Buddhism and Hinduism blurred, as Mahayana Buddhism adopted more ritualistic practices, while Buddhist ideas were adopted into Vedic schools. As the system grew, Buddhist monasteries gradually lost control of land revenue. In parallel, the Gupta emperors built Buddhist temples such as the one at Kushinagara, and monastic universities such as those at Nalanda, as evidenced by records left by three Chinese visitors to India.
Hun invasions (6th century) Chinese scholars travelling through the region between the 5th and 8th centuries, such as Faxian, Xuanzang, Yijing, Huisheng, and Song Yun, began to speak of a decline of the Buddhist sangha in the northwestern parts of the Indian subcontinent, especially in the wake of the Hun invasion from Central Asia in the 6th century CE. Xuanzang wrote that numerous monasteries in northwestern India had been reduced to ruins by the Huns.
Mihirakula, the Alchon Hun ruler who ruled in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent, from 515–540 CE, was known for his persecution of Buddhists. He ordered the expulsion of monks and the destruction of many Buddhist monasteries throughout Gandhara, and even as far away as modern-day Prayagraj. Between 525 and 532 CE, Yashodharman (ruler of the Malava Empire) and rulers of the Gupta Empire reversed Mihirakula's campaign and ended the Mihirakula era.Foreign Influence on Ancient India by Krishna Chandra Sagar p. 216
The religion recovered slowly from these invasions during the 7th century, with the "Buddhism of Punjab and Sindh remaining strong". The reign of the Pala dynasty (8th to 12th century) saw Buddhism in North India recover due to royal support from the Palas, who supported various Buddhist centers like Nalanda. However, by the eleventh century, Pala rule had weakened.
Socio-political change and religious competition
The regionalisation of India after the end of the Gupta Empire (c. 320–579 CE) led to the loss of patronage and donations. The prevailing view of decline of Buddhism in India is summed by A. L. Basham's classic study which argues that the main cause was the rise of an ancient Hindu religion again, "Hinduism", which focused on the worship of deities like Shiva and Vishnu and became more popular among the common people while Buddhism, being focused on monastery life, had become disconnected from public life and its life rituals, which were all left to Hindu Brahmins.
Religious competition
The growth of new forms of Hinduism (and to a lesser extent Jainism) was a key element in the decline in Buddhism in India, particularly in terms of diminishing financial support to Buddhist monasteries from laity and royalty and also not having any support of kings . According to Kanai Hazra, Buddhism declined in part because of the rise of the Brahmins and their influence in socio-political process. According to Randall Collins, Richard Gombrich and other scholars, Buddhism's rise or decline is not linked to Brahmins or the caste system, since Buddhism was "not a reaction to the caste system", but aimed at the salvation of those who joined its monastic order.
The disintegration of central power also led to regionalisation of religiosity, and religious rivalry. Rural and devotional movements arose within Hinduism, along with Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Bhakti and Tantra, that competed with each other, as well as with numerous sects of Buddhism and Jainism. This fragmentation of power into feudal kingdoms was detrimental for Buddhism, as royal support shifted towards other communities and Brahmins developed a strong relationship with Indian states.
Over time the new Indian dynasties which arose after the 7th and 8th centuries tended to support Hinduism, and this conversion proved decisive. These new dynasties, all of which supported Hinduism, include "the Karkotas and Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty of the north, the Rashtrakutas of the Deccan, and the Pandyas and Pallavas of the south" (the Pala dynasty is one sole exception to these). One of the reasons of this conversion was that the Brahmins were willing and able to aid in local administration, and they provided councillors, administrators and clerical staff. Moreover, Brahmins had clear ideas about society, law and statecraft (and studied texts such as the Arthashastra and the Manusmriti) and could be more pragmatic than the Buddhists, whose religion was based on monastic renunciation and did not recognise that there was a special warrior class that was divinely ordained to use violence justly. As Johannes Bronkhorst notes, Buddhists could give "very little" practical advice in response to that of the Brahmins, and Buddhist texts often speak ill of kings and royalty.
Bronkhorst notes that some of the influence of the Brahmins derived from the fact that they were seen as powerful, because of their use of incantations and spells (mantras) as well as other sciences like astronomy, astrology, calendrics and divination. Many Buddhists refused to use such "sciences" and left them to Brahmins, who also performed most of the rituals of the Indian states (as well as in places like Cambodia and Myanmar).
Lars Fogelin argues that the concentration of the sangha into large monastic complexes like Nalanda was one of the contributing causes for the decline. He states that the Buddhists of these large monastic institutions became "largely divorced from day-to-day interaction with the laity, except as landlords over increasingly large monastic properties". Padmanabh Jaini also notes that Buddhist laypersons are relatively neglected in the Buddhist literature, which produced only one text on lay life and not until the 11th century, while Jains produced around fifty texts on the life and conduct of a Jaina layperson.Jaini, Padmanabh S. (1980): "The disappearance of Buddhism and the survival of Jainism: a study in contrast". Studies in History of Buddhism. Ed. A. K. Narain. Delhi: B. R. Publishing. pp. 81–91. Reprint: Jaini, 2001: 139–153.
These factors all slowly led to the replacement of Buddhism in the South and West of India by Hinduism and Jainism. Fogelin states that:
Buddhist sources also mention violence against Buddhists by Hindu Brahmins and kings. Hazra mentions that the eighth and ninth centuries saw "Brahminical hostilities towards Buddhism in South India".Kanai Lal Hazra (1995). The Rise And Decline of Buddhism in India. Munshiram Manoharlal. p. 356. .
Religious convergence and absorption
Buddhism's distinctiveness also diminished with the rise of Hindu sects. Though Mahayana writers were quite critical of Hinduism, the devotional cults of Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism likely seemed quite similar to laity, and the developing Tantrism of both religions were also similar. Also, "the increasingly esoteric nature" of both Hindu and Buddhist tantrism made it "incomprehensible to India's masses", for whom Hindu devotionalism and the worldly power-oriented Nath Siddhas became a far better alternative. Buddhist ideas, and even the Buddha himself, were absorbed and adapted into orthodox Hindu thought,Govind Chandra Pande (1994). Life and thought of Śaṅkarācārya. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. , . Source: (accessed: Friday, 19 March 2010), p.255; "The relationship of Śaṅkara to Buddhism has been the subject of considerable debate since ancient times. He has been hailed as the arch critic of Buddhism and the principal architect of its downfall in India. At the same time, he has been described as a Buddhist in disguise. Both these opinions have been expressed by ancient as well as modern authors—scholars, philosophers, historians, and sectaries." while the differences between the two systems of thought were emphasised.KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, , pp. 246–249, from note 385 onwardsSteven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, , p. 64; Quote: "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence."Katie Javanaud (2013), "Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?" , Philosophy NowJohn C. Plott et al. (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, , p. 63. "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism".
Elements which medieval Hinduism adopted during this time included vegetarianism, a critique of animal sacrifices, a strong tradition of monasticism (founded by figures such as Shankara) and the adoption of the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. On the other end of the spectrum, Buddhism slowly became more and more "Brahmanized", initially beginning with the adoption of Sanskrit as a means to defend their interests in royal courts. According to Bronkhorst, this move to the Sanskrit cultural world also brought with it numerous Brahmanical norms which now were adopted by the Sanskrit Buddhist culture (one example is the idea present in some Buddhist texts that the Buddha was a Brahmin who knew the Vedas). Bronkhorst notes that with time, even the caste system eventually became widely accepted for "all practical purposes" by Indian Buddhists (this survives among the Newar Buddhists of Nepal). Bronkhorst notes that eventually, a tendency developed in India to see Buddhism's past as having been dependent on Brahmanism and secondary to it. This idea, according to Bronkhorst, "may have acted like a Trojan horse, weakening this religion from within".