Buddhism emerged in India two-and-a-half millennia ago and thrived during its first thousand years. Its growth and development were influenced by a range of internal and external factors. Within the developing tradition, the compelling personality of the Buddha, the charisma and missionary enthusiasm of his disciples, the unprecedented organization of the sangha, and Buddhism’s coalescing teachings (particularly those that challenged certain ideas within the broader tradition of Brahmanism) played crucial roles in the consolidation of Buddhism as a distinct movement. Notably, Buddhism’s advocacy for a casteless society, its ideological affinity to the wealthy and mobile merchant class, and the elevation of the social status of women (at least until the onset of the medieval period) set it apart.

Institutionally, the construction of Buddhist monasteries, the circulation of Buddhist texts, and the financial support of monks by powerful laypeople was critical. Primarily, the three treasures enjoyed the patronage of a constellation of Indic and Indo-Greek rulers and the aforementioned wealthy merchants that dominated the north of the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, and the overland “silk routes.” Buddhism especially flourished during the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the third century BCE. Historians and devotees alike ascribe the age of the Mauryan dynasty to India taking Buddhism across Asia, including to the bastion of Sri Lanka, to Southeast Asia, and eastward to China.

However, having studied and taught Buddhism for many years, I believe that the decline of Buddhism in India began long before its purported fall in the 13th century. The much-discussed near extinction, which has vexed and preoccupied Buddhists and academics alike, was attributable to several circumstances.

As early as the 4th–5th century BCE, Buddhism was under constant pressure in northern India, despite its success in Central Asia and along the Silk Road extending to China. In India, Buddhism encountered significant ideological resistance to its monastic system. As state patronage ebbed and flowed, it faced mounting challenges from non-Buddhist forces. The Shunga dynasty (187–75 BCE) was established by Pushyamitra Shunga (r. c. 185–c. 149 BCE), who was a general of the last Mauryan emperor, Brihadratha (r. c. 187–c. 185 BCE). Pushyamitra committed treason and regicide, killing Brihadratha, and then moved to marginalize the Buddhist institutions that had been established during the reign of his forebear, Ashoka.

The Buddhist monasteries were located near the borders of, and sometimes financially supported by the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (256–c. 120 BCE) that was allied to the Mauryan dynasty. Several Mauryan leaders had married Greek princesses. Many Indo-Greek kings were patrons of Buddhist sanghas and Buddhist art. The moves by Pushyamitra to overthrow the Mauryas and marginalize the religious communities that the Indo-Greeks supported led to an invasion of northwestern India by Greek leader Demetrius I “the Unconquered.” This resulted in a period of war between the Indo-Greeks and the Shungas. It also meant an extension of support for Buddhism from not only the Indo-Greeks but also from their Hellenized successors in the Kushan Empire. (30–375 CE)

Buddhism also experienced a temporary resurgence during the Gupta period (c. 240–c. 579 CE). Afterwards, in the seventh century, the pilgrim-monk Xuanzang (602–64 CE) documented the strong presence of Buddhism in the Andhra, Dhanyakataka, and Dravida kingdoms (roughly present-day Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu). But all was not well; Xuanzang documented the existence of multiple ruined stupas in various regions of India, declining monastic communities, and the persecution of Buddhists. He noted that another contributing factor to the decline of Buddhism in its homeland was division within the monastic sangha and intense sectarian conflicts. (Watters 1904, 162–63)

Between the seventh and 12th centuries, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism did flourish in Bengal and expanded beyond its borders, particularly into the Himalayas, during the rule of the Pala Empire (750–1161 CE). But Buddhism suffered a renewed decline due to ideological capitulation to the unexpectedly swift post-Pala Hindu renaissance, whose philosophers began to overtake the Buddhist logicians in influence and intellectual vigor.

The Sena dynasty (1070–1230) had helped to fortify the mahavihara or “super-monasteries” (often erroneously called universities) such as Vikramashila, turning them into what were effectively “tantric fortresses.” But the Sena rulers were still defeated in 1200 by Muhammad Khilji (d. 1206), a general of the sultan of Delhi, Qutb ud-Din Aibak (1150–1210). Notoriously, Khilji also plundered the super-monastery of Nalanda. The model of the super-monasteries, which had been an attempt by medieval Indian Buddhist leaders to consolidate centralized but diminished monastic power and military and economic leverage, was obliterated.

Khilji’s invasion across northern India marked a major turning point in the decline of Indian Buddhism, as he crushed the final remnants of Buddhist political power by destroying their fortified mahaviharas, precipitating Buddhism’s retreat. Warder explains the devastation wrought by the Islamic conquests as follows:

The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and levelled with the ground’ . . . ‘Islam or death was the alternative that Mahmud placed before the people.’ ‘Muhammad Bakhtiyar with great vigour and audacity rushed in at the gate of the fort. . . and gained possession of the place. Great plunder fell into the hands of the victors.  Most of the inhabitants of the place were Brahmans with shaven heads (i.e., Buddhist monks). They were put to death. (Warder 1970, 478)

Contemporary scholars’ perspectives

The causes of Buddhism’s decline in India have long been a subject of scholarly debate. Dilip Kumar Barua (Barua 1999, 13) categorizes the factors contributing to the fall of Buddhism in India into eight distinct categories:

1) Tantrism
2) Hostility of non-Buddhist rulers
3) Loss of royal patronage
4) Philosophical opposition
5) Foundation of the Bhikkhuni Sangha
6) Internal conflict in Sangha
7) Lack of social impact, and
8) Internal decay

Due to the scarcity of evidence and other methodological problems, many initial arguments are no longer considered valid. The scholarly community no longer regards tantric Buddhism as a “degenerate form” of Buddhism that led to its decline or demise.

The Hindu-Buddhist differential: hearth, home, and family

Another significant question is why Hinduism did not decline like Buddhism, despite the likelihood that Islamic conquerors should have also destroyed numerous Brahmanical sites. In my analysis, Hinduism exhibited a more stringent perspective on societal order. One aspect of Hinduism that endured during the Islamic invasions was the caste system, which allowed for the existence of the “family” alongside the Brahmin caste. This emphasized the notion of community alongside spiritual advancement. Hinduism demands that a person maintain their place in society alongside their religious practices, such as following rites and rituals. It is a communal religion with a theory of society that is ingrained in the community’s thoughts and actions.

Hinduism addresses critical milestones in an individual’s life, including birth, puberty, marriage, and death. It offers a cadre of full-time or part-time priests engaged in rituals and consecrations for these life milestones. Furthermore, Hinduism sees itself as a community religion rather than as an individualistic one. Hindus are born into a community and become a full member of society by following specific prescribed rites and ceremonies. Individuals who neglect religious practices may face ostracization for contravening established religious norms. This is spelled out in the Brahmanical laws found in the Dharma-sastra, and millions of Hindus are united by the rituals they perform together. This example elucidates the primary purpose of communal religion: the systematic perpetuation of a certain vision of society.

Conversely, after the Buddha’s passing, early Buddhist doctrines evolved regarding “soteriology,” emphasizing individual salvation, helping individuals move toward liberation, which is defined as getting rid of the three poisons of greed (Pali: lobha), hatred (Pali: dosa), and delusion (Pali: moha). In elucidating early Buddhist doctrine, the Pali Canon had less interest in promoting the Buddha’s teachings as a social religion. Monks that traveled across India, spreading the Dharma, were more concerned with establishing the three treasures in the royal courts and noble households rather than reshaping Brahmanical society.

It could be argued that, despite early advantages on Buddhism’s part, Brahmanism eventually exhibited greater flexibility than Buddhism. In many regions of India, the successor philosophies of Vedic culture won out over Buddhism. Subsequently, during the Islamo-Turkish conquest of India, Brahmanism endured while the Buddhist community declined. This led to an eventual dominance of Vaishnavism and Saivism, two of Hinduism’s most powerful expressions, over Buddhism.

The insufficient development of Buddhism’s communal culture and an excessive focus on soteriology, as well as an ideological capitulation of Buddhist logicians and Tantric figures to Hindus, led to a cultural amalgamation with Brahmanism. Therefore, Buddhists themselves bear a major degree of responsibility for the decline of Buddhism in India.

The communal dimension of Buddhism is essential for its survival, let alone expansion. Modern Buddhists in the 19th and 20th centuries realized this, and contemporary engaged Buddhist and Humanistic Buddhist movements are partially achieving this vision worldwide. Much more, however, remains to be done, including the forming of cohesive and consistent strategies that fearlessly and honestly confront the global situation that Buddhism faces.

These inexorable macro-forces include a collapse of faith in faith itself among Generation Z and younger, a catastrophic demographic decline of Buddhist devotees in East Asia, the ambivalent dialogue and co-dependence between “traditional Asian Buddhism” and the “Western Buddhism” that has to various degrees allied with science (in an eerie echo of Buddhist ideological alignment with the dominant Brahmanical worldview of late medieval India). Finally, the continuing atomization and alienation of the individual in a post-industrialized world dominated by social media and big tech (especially AI) will reshape the relationship of sentient beings to the three treasures, for good or ill.

See more

ARMY i. Pre-Islamic Iran (Encyclopaedia Iranica)

References

Barua, Dilip Kumar. 1999. “The Causes of Decline of Buddhism in Indo-Bangladesh Sub-
continent” in Journal of Society for the Study of Pali and Buddhist Studies Vol. 13: 13–31.

Warder, A. K. 1970. Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Watters, Thomas. 1904. On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India (629–645 A.D.). London: Royal Asiatic Society. 

Related features from BDG

The Future of Buddhism
Why Buddhism Is Essential for Modern People
Reviving the Dhamma: Ambedkar’s Impact on Empowering the Marginalized through Buddhism
Buddhistdoor View: European Decline – Why is Buddhism the Continent’s Fastest-Shrinking Faith?
Buddhistdoor View: Envisioning the Future of Localized Buddhism in Africa