On Friday, 5 January 2018 at 12:34:48 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Buddhism was the main internal cause that led to the downfall of India. The people became apathetic and lazy, self-centred and cowardly. To counter Buddhism, Hinduism morphed to peaceful Vaishnavism in many places. The few remaining Saivites could not

save the land from foreign invasion. There was no fighting spirit left. They all collapsed in a heap, once thrashed, and later resistance was only sporadic for the people had become spineless. Hindus had thrown out Macedonians, Scythians, Huns and Arabs -
but finally they succumbed to the powerfully monotheistic Islamists.

Worse, the chalta-hai attitude was fostered in the negative rejectionism characterising Buddhism. Everything goes - so there is no need for further research and development. Be satisfied with what you have got, for that is the outcome of giving up on

desire. No progress whatsover is possible.

Its atheistic nature naturally leads to laziness, parasitism and corruption as there are no divine figures to guide and inspire. There is no scripture to compare with Hindu scriptures, no great literature, no wonderful ritual, no elevating music, no

identification of Nature with divinity for Nature's protection, no passion, only dull materialism based upon clinging upon the memory of one inddividual who undoubtedly existed.

On the other hand, its attractions are apparent peace and tranquillity as opposed to violence and warfare. Its simplicity is also very attractive to the common people, and thus its popularity.

Buddhism thrived when there is too much warfare around; but once in power there was degeneracy. Without desire, there can be no progress.

Most Bengalis used to be Buddhists, just as the Burmese now are. But the negative qualities of Buddhims turned them towards the strongly monotheistic Islam, spread by Arab traders. And later, quite a few turned to Christianity, then Brahmo.

A few Hindus were left among the Bengalis. Under the leadership of Pandit Vidyasagar they thrived in the British Raj. The great Bengal renaissance took place as an integration of the best in India and the UK. Indians led by Hindus were doing well!

And that, in turn, created hostility among the anti-Hindus. Marxism was one way to attack Hinduism. Secularism was another method, more subtle. In the West, the elites have always ignored Hinduism, or defined it in the most negative ways possible. For

them, Buddhism is the only real religion in India.

It is thus natural for some among the Indian elite influenced by the anti-Hindus in the West to preach Buddhism.

There is another angle in Buddhism, that is local. While most Kshatriya classes sided with the Brahmins in adoring the Gods and Goddesses, a minority among the Kshatriyas hated the Brahmins for the reverence in which they were held by the masses.

Buddhism was one way of getting even, as by denying the Gods and Goddesses the Brahmins would be made irrelevant.

This angle did not work too well for the Buddhists in India, so Buddhism no longer exists as a major force in India. It is true that a secular Govt. has adopted Buddhist symbology for national expression, but this is merely political.

Back to Bengal, now. The BJP is making inroads, the Marxists have no relevance, and Mamata is wooing the Muslims while retaining her Brahmin credentials for the Hindu vote. I don't see what scope Buddhism can have in Bengal, but who knows. The Brahmin-

Islam tie-up is an old one, as Didi knows very well for that is what keeps her in power!

In this context it is relevant to note how mightily Nirad C Chaudhuri, one Bengali proud of his Kshatriya background, has blasted Buddhism in his book "The Continent of Circe". As I remember, he wrote that with its negative approach to life, it is

difficult to beat as an intellectual failure.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

One of the pleasures of writing for its own sake is reading what one has written, a fair while ago.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)