Yesterday (10th March 2022), India’s 5 state elections result was released. Without any surprise, BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) wins 4 out of 5. Most importantly, wins in Uttar Pradesh(UP), a state which holds the most number of parliamentary seats. It concretes Modi’s next term as the prime minister of India. Also firms Ajay Singh Bisht, aka Yogi Adityanath’s pitch as the future of the BJP or future prime ministerial candidate of BJP.

Though UP is not a front-runner state on social welfare development as Niti Aayog index 2021 lists UP at the bottom, the election results show otherwise. Yogi wins comprehensively. Why the people of UP do not consider the state’s administrative skills as a voting consideration? Moreover, the second COVID-19 wave wrecked the state, many lost lives and crematoriums ran out of their capacity. Many dead bodies flew over the Ganges, and its shores became a massive burial ground.

The anti-conversion law is active in UP. Who does it benefit? Clearly, the upper caste Hindus and the BJP party are the ones. But how did the people react to it? Presumably positive. In 2002, J. Jayalalithaa, the former chief minister of Tamilnadu brought anti-conversion law. But it did not go well in the next election. Her party did not win a single seat in the 2004 union poll. The result made her repeal the law of anti-conversion. So the recent state-level election in UP has shown that people accept BJP’s agenda ‘Anti-conversion Law’.

Muslims, Christians, Dalits and Tribals are the main victims of this bill. They are the targets this anti-conversion law affects mostly. Their loyalty has been questioned? Many converts to Islam and Christianity are from the Dalits and Adivasis. And Muslims and Christians have their faith rooted in the Middle East unlike Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism emerged from the Indian sub-continent.

OpenDoors watchlist ranks India ten in the world among persecuted Christians. It is not an assumption but on facts. The Christian population is only less than three per cent of the Indian population of 1.4 billion. Hindus occupy more than 80%. However, projecting minority Christians as a threat to majority Hindus is a conspiracy rather than a reality. But people are facing a dilemma to discern what is real and what is not real? UP election is an example of how people are confused and believe Hindus are in danger under minorities, especially under Muslims.

Not only is anti-conversion law against the Indian Constitution, but it is also against Muslims, Christians, Untouchables and Adivasis. The anti-conversion bill is the anti-minority.

An unofficial report shows India has a Christian population has around less than 5%. Why of suddenly did Christians become a threat and target to the majority Hindu right-wing regime? or it is just a political game to corner Christians so that gain ruling power? What is a real threat from minority religion Christianity from the Indian subcontinent?

After all, it is all worrying factors for Indian Christians to live in fear. What did we do wrong against the constitution? We follow it so far, find no reason to rebel against it. And the constitution gives every citizen to follow and practise any faith they want. It is not discrimination against constitutional laws. However, there is a pattern in which Christian communities are attacked mostly. They are Dalit and Tribal Christians who possess low socio-economic background.

The rise of right-wing Hindutva party BJP through Modi as the Prime Minister did boost hatred toward minorities Muslims, Christians, Dalits and Adivasis. There are many countless incidents happening every day, which are mostly omitted by many major national media and brought to attention by many small internet media.

Jesus did warn his disciples, not a peaceful life being a Christian but he did the opposite by giving a warning that there will be persecutions as His followers (John 15:19–20). Does this mean Christians have to accept reality and make no complaints? But the Indian Constitution affirms free speech and freedom to practice any belief system its citizens prefer. When Christian stand at the receiving end of persecution just accept it by following Scriptures or fighting by the privilege given by the Constitution? I don’t think here we cannot confuse it with Scriptures vs Constitution. But the Constitution gives us human dignity and respect, and a way to oppose the denied privilege to practise a religion. It could be any faith, in this case, Christianity. Facing the violence with non-violence, a Biblical path, a path of Jesus laid before us and helping the vulnerable to stand and fight and fight with them.

[1] Open Doors USA, 2019 World Watch List, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvgFJRCl2kc.

BUDDHISM

“‘Are you God?’ they asked. ‘No.’ ‘An angel?’ ‘No.’ ‘A saint?’ ‘No.’ ‘Then what are you?’ Buddha (c.560–480 BCE) answered, ‘I am awake.’”[6] His name ‘Buddha’ retrieves its meaning from his answer using the Sanskrit origin budh denotes ‘wake up and to know’. Thus, Buddha means the “Enlightened One,” or the “Awakened One.”[7]

In Buddha’s time, the dominant religion was Brahminism now known as Hinduism and he tutored in the areas of the Ganges basin, north-east India.[8] Brahmanism administered by people called Brahmins who arrived the north-west of South Asia by around 1500 BCE.[9] The religion of Aryans or Brahmins was based on four Vedas( “a body of revealed oral teachings and hymns” ) and later compositions called Brahmanas or Upanishads.[10] Generally, some of them offer large, expensive and bloody sacrifices to their thirty-three gods known as devas.[11]

While social conditions were changing during the time of the Buddha, the Samanas who were the wandering philosophers rejected the Vedic tradition, cut off their family ties to think and debate.[12] Some say Buddhism was a part of Samana-movement.[13] One of his teachings, Buddha called Hindu Vedic scripts as ‘a foolish talk’, ‘a waterless desert’, ‘a pathless jungle’ and ‘perdition’.[14]

Huston Smith says, “authority, ritual, speculation, tradition, grace, and mystery – contributes importantly to religion, but equally each can clog its works.”[15] On the one hand, all these factors were dominated by the Brahmins and for others, Hinduism became irrelevant and felt they were in a trap.[16] On the other hand, Buddha preached against authority, ritual, skirted speculation, tradition, non-intense self-effort and supernatural.[17] He taught the fundamentals of the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Noble path.[18]

ADVAITA

Shankara was a Malabar Brahmin who broke a Hindu tradition moving from brahmacharya to sannyasa and introduced celibacy pattern within Hinduism which was undoubtedly borrowed from Buddhism.[19] A firm defender of jnana (knowledge) as the only way for liberation, his form of commentary on the Vedantha Sutras known Advaita (non-dualism).[20] So far, his interpretation is the most accurate and earliest one and assumed to be the Vedanta.[21]

The Vedantins agreed that the world is the manifestation of Brahman, that knowledge of Brahman is the marga which leads to liberation, and that Brahman can be known only through the Shruti teachings of the Upanishads. They differed regarding the nature of Brahman, how Brahman causes the world to be, the nature of the world, the relation of the individual self to Brahman, and condition of the self in the liberated state.[22]

As Paul Gwynne describes, “Brahman is the one ultimate source of all truth and goodness, one fundamental ground of all existence, the origin and end of all things. It is even beyond personification and is better understood as an impersonal Absolute rather than a personal God as Christians presume.”[23] The essence of Advaita Vedanta, which is the famous saying of Adi Shankara: “Brahma satyam jagan-mithya; jivo brahmaiva naparah: Brahman is Real; the world is not Real; the individual soul is nondifferent from Brahman.”[24]

Shankara’s purpose was to express the truth, to furnish expression to ultimate reality.[25] There is an authentic line of spiritual descent from the original Shankaracharya down to the present day.[26] All five holders of these offices bear the title of Shankaracharya, and these Shankaracharyas have their official seats respectively at Badrinath (in the north), Puri (in the east), Dwarka (in the west), Kanchipuram (in the south), and Sringeri (also in the south). Each Shankaracharya also has the title of Jagadguru or “universal teacher” (jagad literally signifying “world”).[27] In India, two of the most widespread paths that lead to God: 1. “devotion” (bhakti) 2. the original Shankaracharya traditionally and symbolically represent the uncoloured light of knowledge or gnosis (jnana).[28]

On the one hand, through religious or moral merits and performing rituals or worship someone cannot be directed to the understanding of Brahman.[29] On the other hand, through intellectual effort someone cannot hope to reach the destiny, that is, through the collection of many intellectual data.[30] In Shankaracharya’s words, “with the realization of non-dual atman… having been devoid of the objects, as well as of the subject who could use them, the means of valid knowledge cannot exist either.” [31] In other words, “the higher Brahman in Advaita can be defined both cataphatically as a positive liberation (moksa) and apophatically through a negation of the false, illusory world of avidya.”[32]

REASONS FOR BUDDHISM’S DECLINE

Though Buddhism as a religion has a strong world presence, most importantly, originated from India, it has no effective presence in India.[33] Daniel Ingalls claims that there are clear anti-Buddhists arguments by Shankara’s commentary on Brahma-sutra or Vedanta-sutra.[34] The Brahma-sutra’s anti-Buddhism section comprises of fifteen sentences (Shankara enumerates it from II.ii.18 to II.ii.32).[35] Mainly, five well-known doctrines of Buddhism were attacked by Shankara: “the doctrine of the aggregates, the chain of causation, the doctrine of momentariness, the Buddhist definition of space (akasa), and the theory that origin comes only from destruction.” [36]

Regarding the doctrine of the aggregates, in Buddhist realism, atomic particles are placed side by side within all entities.[37] There are numerous number of sorts on these particles and classified in either two or five aggregates (samudaya or skandha).[38] These aggregates classified into two: material and mental.[39] However, Shankara argued against it by stating that “aggregates are impossible, for there is no conscious agent to cause their aggregation. Or, supposing that they did exist, being wholly independent, there would be no reason for them ever to cease.”[40]

Though Buddha is a heretic religion founder for Hindus, in some Hindu sacred texts such as Dashavataracarita of Kshemendra (eleventh century CE ) and Gitagovinda of Jayadeva (twelfth century CE), Buddha is portrayed as an avatar of Vishnu.[41] But this idea was to begin to spread during the middle of sixth century CE.[42] Somehow, Hinduism started to accommodate or engulf other religions through their ancient stories or puranas.[43] According to Basham, the different avatars of Vishnu absorbed regional gods and converted them into objects of ardent piety.[44]

The second President of India S. Radhakrishnan insists that Buddhism only presents a new viewpoint, but it is not an original doctrine.[45] Also, he points out a common theme in Buddhism and Hinduism such as caste-rejection and anatma-vada to support his claim.[46] He further argues that Buddha attempted to reduce the gap between theory and practice present in the corrupted version of the Upanishads and Brahminism which angered Hindus.[47] Though he was making this statement on behalf of Hindus, unlike Radhakrishnan, Ambedkar bolstered the radical difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.[48] Raghuramaraju presumes that “Shankaracharya who came after the seventh century can be ‘credited only with having emphasized this idea and thereby led to the fusion of the two Philosophies or Religions.’”[49]

According to D.D. Kosambi, at the end of the seventh century, the doctrine of Ahimsa universally accepted and abandoned Vedic sacrifices.[50] However, when it comes to farmers Buddhism as a religion cannot accept everything associated with their life.[51] For instance, Brahmin had a good working calendar which could stimulate the production by predicting the times of ploughing, sowing and harvesting.[52] Cultivators, tribesmen and peasants heavily relied on rituals but unlike Brahmins, Buddhist Monks were forbidden to practice.[53]

Gail Omvedt points out that the Muslim invasion sacked many great Buddhist institutions such as Nalanda’s university monasteries.[54] Ambedkar accepted the ‘Sword of Islam’ thesis and says, “Brahminism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders could look to the rulers for support and sustenance and get it. Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders had no such hope… The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.”[55]

CONCLUSION

Buddhism was originated in India, but its once-mighty presence is missing in the sub-continent. Though it rose to provide justice to release people of Indian Sub-Continent from Brahminism or Brahmins and spiritual liberation. In one stage, the goal was attained by Buddhists, at the same moment, it started to slide from the doctrines of Shankara and his lineage of disciples, its unadaptable nature to a multi-cultural society and political changes such as Moghul dynasty. Thus, Buddhism’s decline not caused by only Advaita. In a Christian perspective, religion often forgets its purpose to serve people instead of serving themselves as we can link ourselves with a story such as Protestant Reformation. I recall Joseph’s story from Genesis, it is not about happy or sad circumstances, but it is about keeping the integrity.

[1] Arundhati Roy, The Doctor and the Saint: The Ambedkar–Gandhi Debate: Caste, Race, and Annihilation of Caste, 1 edition (Penguin, 2019), 52.

[2] Roy, The Doctor and the Saint, 139.

[3] “Census of India: Religion,” accessed July 24, 2019, http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/religion.aspx; Krishna Murthy Ponnapalli and Faujdar Ram, “Religious Taxonomy of States and Districts in India: An Analysis Using a Standardized Index of Diversity (SID) of Religion,” n.d., 26.

[4] Paul Gwynne, World Religions in Practice: A Comparative Introduction, 2 edition (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2017), 307.

[5] Gail Omvedt, Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste, 1 edition (Sage India, 2013), 160.

[6] Huston Smith, The World’s Religions, Anniversary edition (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2009), 82; Gwynne, World Religions in Practice, 6.

[7] Huston Smith, The World’s Religions, Anniversary edition (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2009), 82.

[8] Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, 1 edition edition (Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 9.

[9] Harvey, 10.

[10] Harvey, 10.

[11] Harvey, 10.

[12] Harvey, 12.

[13] Harvey, 13.

[14] D.N. Jha, “Brahmanical Intolerance in Early India,” Social Scientist 44, no. 5/6 (2016), 7.

[15] Smith, The World’s Religions, 93.

[16] Smith, 93.

[17] Smith, 94-97.

[18] Troy Wilson Organ, Hinduism: Its Historical Developments (Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 1974), 142.

[19] Organ, 242.

[20] Organ, 242.

[21] Organ, 242.

[22] Organ, 242.

[23] Gwynne, World Religions in Practice, 30.

[24] Harry Oldmeadow, ed., Crossing Religious Frontiers: Studies in Comparative Religion (Bloomington, Ind: World Wisdom, 2010), 132.

[25] Oldmeadow, 194.

[26] Oldmeadow, 194.

[27] Oldmeadow, 194.

[28] Oldmeadow, 194.

[29] Natalia Isayeva, Shankara and Indian Philosophy, First Paperback Edition edition (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1992), 115.

[30] Isayeva, 115.

[31] Isayeva, 115.

[32] Isayeva, 64.

[33] Gail Omvedt, Ambedkar: Towards an Enlightened India (Penguin Random House India, 2017), 146.

[34] Daniel H. H. Ingalls, “Śaṁkara’s Arguments against the Buddhists,” Philosophy East and West 3, no. 4 (1954): 295, https://doi.org/10.2307/1397287.

[35] Ingalls, 295.

[36] Ingalls, 295.

[37] Ingalls, 295.

[38] Ingalls, 295.

[39] Ingalls, 295.

[40] Ingalls, 295.

[41] D.N. Jha, “Brahmanical Intolerance in Early India,” Social Scientist 44, no. 5/6 (2016): 3.

[42] Jha, 3.

[43] A. L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India (Grove Press, 1959), 334.

[44] Basham, The Wonder That Was India, 334.

[45] A. RAGHURAMARAJU, “BUDDHISM IN INDIAN PHILOSOPHY,” India International Centre Quarterly 40, no. 3/4 (2013): 72.

[46] RAGHURAMARAJU, 72.

[47] RAGHURAMARAJU, 72.

[48] RAGHURAMARAJU, 72.

[49] RAGHURAMARAJU, 72.

[50] Omvedt, Buddhism in India, 161.

[51] Omvedt, 161.

[52] Omvedt, 161.

[53] Omvedt, 161.

[54] Omvedt, 162.

[55] Omvedt, 162.