Decline of Buddhism from India. An Indian no-nonsense history.

(CAUTION: This will offend every one because it is politically incorrect and fac
tual history)
Buddha: Actual human philosopher
Modern Buddhism (all of it): A bunch of lies to keep other people under a hierar
chical control. Like every other religion in the world.
Incidentally the Buddha himself was opposed to the idea of institutionalizing hi
s teachings. But some of his closest and earliest disciples, feared that the Bra
haminists would leave no stone unturned to wipe out the Buddha's anti-Vedic Shra
man teachings. After much deliberation a few years before his death the former t
ribal Prince from the central Terai of the Himalayas reluctantly agreed to it. T
hen he died at the age of 80.
Most likely the Buddha was Indo-European (as evidenced by the fact that his clan
Shakya traced their roots from Ikshavaku Clan). He most probably wasn't TibetoBurmese as some Nepalis will have you believe. Because Tibeto-Burmese people mov
ed into modern Nepal much later in Nepalese history, were largely Hill People (a
nd still are), whereas those closer to India in Terai are racially quite "Indian
". This would also explain his affinity to Indo-European folk religion and philo
sophy of India (later Hinduism), instead of the Tibeto-Burmese practices.
Buddhism was indeed wiped out from India later on. This happened due to a variet
y of reasons. In its purest form Buddhism had vehemently suggested a lifelong co
mmitment to asceticism - a life of a wandering sage/monk. Although much less sev
ere than the practice of self-penance in Jainism, it was still pretty extreme wh
en compared to the immensely ambiguous Hinduism (which didn't even have a name t
hen and was a collection of various Indic folk practices and demanded submission
to the authority of Vedas and nothing else). Later Adi Shankaracharya played a
major role in reviving Hinduism against the rise of Buddhism all across the Subc
ontinent (thus validating the fears of a Brahminist counter of the first discipl
es of the Buddha).
Largest, most powerful Indian Empires after the Mauryas were the Shungas (Brahmi
ns) and the Guptas. Shungas reversed nearly all of Buddhist achievements, and Gu
ptas who took over were Hindus themselves. Though they did give patronage to Bud
dhism, it wasn't the same as the favours shown to Hinduism. Although the decline
in India was largely non-violent there were places where it did get particularl
y violent. Specifically in Western part of India namely, Sindh, Gujarat, Norther
n Maharashtra and Western Madhya Pradesh. Why? Because Indo-Scythians (Shakas) w
ere invading. Popularly known as White Huns in Indian context they were barbaric
hordes to the Indian dwellers. Another invasion from a predominantly Indo-Europ
ean and mixed horde happened from the North (i.e. Modern Punjab). These were the
Indo-Bactrians or Kushans.
So question arises that who were Scythians and Bactrians? Scythians were essenti
ally an East Iranic people who are now largely considered to be great-predecesso
rs of Zoroastrian faith. At its height Zoroastrianism would civilize all of Iran
, giving it some of its greatest Emperors. But at its nascent and pre-civilizati
onal stage a branch of the people from that region would violently invade India.
In addition to the Gurjars and Rajputs of modern Gujarat and Rajasthan (who are
predominantly found to be of Scythian heritage when genetically analyzed), they
later settled into India over generations homogenized themselves with Indians a
nd started practicing Hinduism. Western India, particularly Gujarat and Maharash
tra were great centres of Buddhism since Mauryan Age. Being Hindu put them at lo
ggerheads with Buddhists and there may have been violent repercussions in the re
gion. Some of it is evidenced in the Pratihara Kingdom's disgruntlement against
Buddhists.

Further Scythians were at constant loggerheads with the Bactrians or Kushans who
were a relic Indo-European (White) people from Tibet (as evidenced by their lan
guage - Tochari which was Indo-European). But long since they had moved westward
s from Tibet towards Tarim Basin and then Northern India, racially intermixing a
long the way, becoming trusted by the Greek Generals that Alexander had left beh
ind, getting into the good books of the Mauryas and most importantly accepting B
uddhism as their Religion. During the Gupta Era they invaded India from the Nort
h from Kashmir through Punjab. This almost coincided with the East Iranian Scyth
ians. Religious differences became the premise for warring among many other fact
ors, such as control of the rich fertile plain land of modern North West India a
nd Pakistan.
So in an ironic turn of events in Indian history, invaders from abroad would bec
ome involved in the fate of Hinduism and Buddhism in India. As the many battles
ensued over centuries, both Bactrians and Scythians would become Indo-Bactrian a
nd Indo-Scythian becoming more and more Indianized as time passed. By 3rd Centur
y AD both Indo-Bactrians and Indo-Scythians claiming an Indian heritage would go
to all out Wars. Later the Indo-Bactrians (Kushans - insulated white people) wo
uld be defeated on three fronts. From the west, Persia was expanding under the S
assanid dynasty. On the South Indo-Scythian [Indianized East Iranic people] woul
d be ruthlessly fighting against them, and towards the East the increasingly irr
itated Magadh Empire under the Guptas would attack the "outsiders". Eventually B
actrians would be absorbed by both Indians, Persians and Scythians.
Indo-Scythians however would continue to hold western India, right till the Musl
im Turk invaders would arrive during the pre-Delhi Sultanate Era. The Scythians
had now transformed and were absorbed into several other ethnic identities such
as Pratihar (Gurjars), Kushan (remnants of Kushans and intermixed with Scythians
), Parmar, Chauhan, Tomar and Chap. Once again the once-outsiders found themselv
es at the turning point in History. Largely Hindu, now they stood against the in
vading Muslim Turks from modern Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and South eastern Afgha
nistan. Once defeated the Turks could now completely ransack mainland India. Ghu
lam (Slave/Mamluk) dynasty took over after Muhammad of Ghori defeated Prithviraj
Chauhan by 13th Century. Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji, a servant and a militar
y General of Qutb-ud-din Aybak (founder of Ghulam dynasty) would hammer in the f
inal nails on the coffin of Buddhism. Khilji ransacked all of north India, invad
ing Awadh, Bihar and Bengal.
On his way he destroyed last great learning centres of Buddhist learning - the N
alanda and Vikramshila Universities.
However this was not the end of Buddhism. Ever since the Buddha's death and cent
uries past there were several splits over Buddhist ideology within Buddhism. Ins
titutionalization and organization like Abrahamic faiths bred a lot of dogma wit
hin Buddhism. Dogma bred violence (even for a faith like Buddhism). But almost n
one of that Buddhist violence would manifest in India. India had become increasi
ngly hostile for Buddhism.
While all the above cited developments were taking place in India, Buddhism move
d towards South East Asia and northwards towards China and eventually Japan and
Korea. It morphed into the very thing it was foundationally opposed to. The reli
gious control that Hinduism had exercised on Indian society. Institutionalizatio
n meant a lot of nonsensical stories were added into Buddhism, completely changi
ng its nature. And Kings and Queens and their armies justifying many bloody wars
in East Asia, in the name of Buddhism. To the extent that it commanded far more
control on the societies of China, Japan and Korea than what Hinduism ever coul
d in India. For these reasons the religion is damn near hated today in these cou
ntries. Most people recognize themselves as atheists in this part of the world.
Buddhism however, still exercises almost complete control in South East Asia, ju
st like Hinduism did for the longest time.

The Buddha, once a human philosopher, is now a lot of things in a large spectrum
. He can be anything from a God to a mystical being with supernatural powers, go
ing back to 29 to a million generations of Buddhas before him. It all depends on
what part of the world you are in and whom you ask. All this is nonsense of cou
rse. People just added whatever the hell they felt like. All in various attempts
to exercise rigid social control and retain social and political hierarchy and
hegemony. Hell there are sects of "Buddhism" in the world that don't even mentio
n the Buddha. I call them "Buddhaless Buddhisms".
This only goes on to show what a load of crap religion is and how any attempt to
bind human beings on made-up "truths" will only result in conflict and bloosdsh
ed. These days Islamist Muslims feel like they have all figured out. That their
version of "truth" is right and everyone else is wrong. A relatively new religio
n it is no wonder why it is so overexcited. We have all been there. All of us th
ought that we have it all figured out and entrusted our faith in religion. It al
ways backfires. The sad and scary thing is, by the time Islam may realize it, it
may be too late.?