Regarding the history of Buddhism in India, there are two common fallacies often committed by people. First, there is disproportionate focus on the Buddhist monasticism at the cost of lay followers of Buddhism known as 'उपासक'. Buddhism had significant householder converts too.
This also results in incorrect analysis of the social class in which Buddhism had found its root. For example, if one looks at the Kuda Cave inscriptions from Maharashtra, we find gardeners, physicians, ironmongers etc. donating to Buddhist monasteries.
The second fallacy is projecting the sharp arguments between Astika Acharya-s and Buddhists in philosophical domain on the social plane. The philosophical conflict was often bitter and very strong words were used by both the sides without any restraint.
To illustrate, the great Vachaspati Mishra in his text 'तात्पर्यटीका' wrote that Buddhism was followed by barbarians (मलेच्छ), vilest amongst men and people who were like animals (2.1.68). But from history, we know that there were exemplary Brahmins amongst Buddhist converts.
We can contrast this approach in philosophical texts with that of in a literary text 'हर्षचरित' of Banabhatta. Bana was also an orthodox Brahmin par excellence as he has given details his own family tradition in the text.
His description of Buddhist monk Diwakarmitra is extremely positive and he considers Diwakarmitra possessing all the right qualities which we expect from a Muni in general. At the same time, we know from historical records the prevailing corruption in Buddhist monasteries.
The purpose of taking extreme cases as examples was to showcase that in actual practice, the relationship between Hindus and Buddhists in social domain remained more or less amicable. This also meant people in general showing reverence for learned men of either faith.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...