hajimesaito

It is a standard habit of the brahmins to put the blame of their misfortunes o evil actions on either the british, muslims or the untouchables. Why blame the british for caste system, dowry sati devdasi etc? In fact most of the reformist hindu movements like brahmo, arya, vivekananda etc arose during british rule due to their influence. It was british raj which first banned sati, which qas immensely protested by hindus. And by the way, it is common knowledge that most rapes in india go unreported because of the sham2 involved. Even many educated indians, including lawyers blame the girls for getting raped. A rape victim can even be otcasted by society, so it is very rare for them to report. It used to be common traditionof the bhumihar brahmins in bihar to rape women of dalits and tribes to assert their power. You just cannot compare the American society with a conservative third world society like india. Shankara plagiarized much more than buddhist scriptures to create advaita and modern hiduism. The advaita systemof mutts andmonasticism is a direct rip off of buddhist sangha and vihara. Even the dres and shaved headss come from there!

I am recently being gripped more and more by the influence and attachment of lust. Consciously I always realize it strongly within my mind that imagining the girl sitting on the bench in a park is with me on bed and doing "weird" things is not only useless and fruitless, but also detrimental for my mental and emotional health as well as an obstruction on the way to Tao. So please suggest me some techniques, practices, meditations, methods or whatever that will allow me to either eliminate or reduce the growing force of lust in my mind. I want to go back to the days when I wouldn't be lusty after checking out random chicks or would be watching porn so often. Frankly speaking, I may be more lusty now, but really even if I were to really have sex with some Hot chick I wouldn't feel as much pleasure as when I was a more "decent" and balanced individual who was not easily influenced by sensual desires. Its just somehow my mind is hungry for sex, but never satisfied even when "fed" with that. Well, frankly speaking my condition is not as bad as it may sound from my post; in fact, I think I am still not in the situation where I masturbate everyday watching porn or so conditioned sexually by porn that I wouldn't get any pleasure when I have to really act that. But still, I am concerned because I know that the compartment of lust grows by reducing that of love (and in fact lust reduces real pleasure as well; think about it). I do not want to be glued to the computer just because I happened to have ended up at a site with an Ad of a semi-naked girl making sensual moves and then moved on to browse more and more (perhaps its curiosity as well). I know I was better before. Even if I ended up in a porn site, I would really get filled with desires (in other words, get an erection). Now I dont really feel as much bodily pleasure and desire after coming across anything sensual in nature, yet my "hunger" to look at it more and more has increased much than before. Anyway, my history aside, I would really like some suggestions on how to reduce the influence of lust. I have actually decided to walk the path of celibacy for at least quite some time (may be half a year or one year) so as to again "purify" my mind that is conditioned so much with all the past experiences (of watching porn and fantasizing about sex with strangers). I am sure some kind of meditation would help. But my experience is that if not done in regularity, even meditation actually acts as a catalyst to make my mind more vulnerable to the magnet pull of sexual objects. This if from experience. Often when I have meditated after a long period, I end up getting aroused more easily. But when I have practiced it for quite some time regularly, then it indeed leads to a stronger mind that is not easily influenced by sense and desires. Lately, due to job change and hectic schedule, I have been skipping not only meditation, but also my physical exercises. I am sure this is a major reason for the shift in the strength of my mind in getting enslaved by attachment and desire.

I remember starting exactly the same thread (http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/16350-practices-to-reduce-or-eliminate-the-influence-of-lust/) about a month ago because I was also looking to get rid of all the conditioning of mind by pornographic influences. There were various opinions provided by many bums there. But personally, what worked the best for me was the to increase my physical activity. As such I had always been of a more athletic nature, and regularly run/jog and practice martial arts. But the period when that activity had reduced for me, lust seems to have gained greater influence in my mind. However, after again reverting to my routine physical exercises, I could once again defeat lust. Not to say that now I don't get aroused by looking at something sensual, but that my mind is strong enough for me to not look at it at the first place! Seating meditation never worked for me; on the contrary, if I sit in meditation for some time, I tend to get spontaneous erections! So I guess everyone will have to find their own way of controlling their desires. Defeating desires/attachments is all Buddhism/Taoism is about after all.

I had researched about this style a few years ago because I was quite interested in it. Basically, the style emphasizes natural reflexes and high level qing gong (light skill) along with other usual methods involving Qi gong. Du Xinwu, the teacher of Wan Lai Sheng, was very famous in Japan for his fighting ability. His qing gong was of such high level that once he could leap from a ship to a boat following it at some distance. THis is definitely a style I would have preferred if available. Wan Lai Sheng looks thin but he was known to be an incredible fighter. I think there is a European called Serge Augier who was his student and probably a disciple too.

I would like to add that what I am feeling right now could be summarized by the analogous saying "the more your un after women, the more they run away from"; only in my case "women" could be substituted for "sexual pleasure". There was a time when if I looked at a hot girl, I would instantly be excited. But at the same time, I my mind was strong enough that despite getting excited I wouldn't be compelled to masturbate or fantasize. I would just forget it and move on. Nowadays if I were to look even at a girl doing pole dance and trying to seduce me, my body wouldn't be excited (and even my mind wouldn't be too desirous). Yet it is in my current state the I tend to pursue anything that should excite me. Getting excited through sexual stimulus is fine for me, but not getting excited by sexual stimulus, and yet more glued to it, is not fine (and this is how I would define being lusty). I don't know what I did in the past couple of months that brought such change in me. Perhaps it might have to do with the facts that I had a gf back then and I am single now. Or that I began smoking (although limited to 2-3 cigs a day) and reduced my physical exercises to a great extent. Also, I used to respect women at that time. For example, if I were to meet a prostitute, instead of getting the feeling to take her to bed desperately (though without any actual arousal)which I would get now, I would actually feel sympathy for her to be reduced to trading sex for money. And seriously, I am not liking all this change. I have observed that when you have a strong mind that is not easily moved by lust, your body would be highly integrated with your mind; and it will react instantly to you mind's desires. However, when you are too lusty, the disconnects grows a lot. I know subconsciously that once I revert back to my previous schedules and habits, my mind might perhaps become the same as it was before - that is strongly immune to sexual influences; and my body and mind would have great integrity. That is why I wanted to ask you bums to suggest me a way that would help me with my celibacy plan, which is to further purify myself of previous bad experiences that have conditioned my mind in a bad way. Of course, you all know how programmable our mind is!

Thanks for all those replies and taking the discussion further. But unfortunately, most of you misunderstood me. I will attempt to explain it more articulately this time. This is my belief - correct me if I am wrong as it this belief is supported by my intuition and instinct - that lust alone is not bad at all. Buddha has himself said that sexual misconduct is demerit and right sex is merit. That means sex when done under the base of love and trust is actually a merit and brings good karma. Lust comes when you randomly develop a great urge - mostly habitually - to look at porn and sexual material to stimulate you sexually. Sex is natural when you get stimulated and then act. But lust is when you try to stimulate yourself even when your body may not want it - lust is more like a urge to feel pleasure. When you get aroused with your partner and have sex, then it is actually a good thing. I do not want to loose this. What I want to loose is the urge to get aroused. This is a state that shows great disconnect between your body and mind. And contrary to popular belief, a lusty person may want to develop great desire or get aroused, but his body may not respond. A normal person will develop desire under appropriate condition (when he is with his partner, and as soon as his mind is filled with desire, his body will respond by getting aroused (erection, hightened senses etc). This shows great integrity between mind and body. A normal person - in fact a great person in today's world! - wouldn't want to habitually go and try to forcefully get aroused. It is because of bad experiences or habits or conditioning of mind, I have developed this urge to watch porn and get arousal. Although, frankly speaking, while writing this post, as I am in deep thinking, and aware of what happens, my lusty nature has suddenly subsided. But whatever, it is the balance between mind and body that I want. People should cry when their heart is heavy, they should eat when their stomach is empty, and they should have sex when they are aroused (which in the normal case, they should be only with a trusted partner). But what when the mind wants desire but the body doesn't react? For all I care, I would actually prefer to be a guy who gets straight erection at the sight of an attractive girl; but I would never want to be a person who keeps looking at porn and still gets no satisfaction, proper arousal etc. I hope you understood me now.

Have the Buddhists of the past ever extensively, or even briefly, expounded the concept of "Qi" in their literature? Of course, it goes without saying that I am talking about the Buddhism of India (all three vehicles) before it was mixed with Taoism in China. I would like to know the literature that deals with concepts of Qi in Buddhism.

I thank all of you for replying and giving links. May you all reach enlightenment soon.

Non, This is the best way for you to apply the theories of Taoism. Remember, the more you crave for attention, the lesser you will get it. The more you run after girls, the further they will go away from you. Look at the likes of Bodhidharma, Lao Tzu etc. Nobody knows anything about them. They didn't care about fame and name, but only wanted to go away from society. But not only the people around them know them so well today, but all over the world their names are quite easily heard nowadays. But still they wouldn't care I am sure. The more you run after sex, the more you think about it all day, the more you invest time in trying to improve sex, the lesser you will enjoy it. Thats the reality. Its the law of the world. Perverts don't enjoy sex and thats why they keep pursuing it to finally achieve that ultimate and completely satisfying orgasm which they never get, because it doesn't exist. But all this doesn't mean that to get better sex, you should deliberately run away from it. Of course, its the intention that matters. As long as you have the craving, you will never be satisfied. You want the company of opposite sex so desperately. But I can guarantee you - you can mark my words - the day you really get what you desire, you will be quite amazed that it wasn't worth so much craving and efforts. You would still feel unsatisfied and crave for even more; because then you would be desperate in searching for the great thing that you had always been desiring which turned out to be so mundane (but which in reality has always been mundane). The aim is to not think too much. And you are doing exactly that.

Non, Since now you've compelled me to reply I will go a bit on my personal life. Thats because nobody here knows who I am except my nick (I wouldn't like to be known beyond that either). Whatever symptoms you have given are still that of the first kind among my classification. I also lost virginity relatively late in life (22 yrs). But I was never desperate to loose it in the first place. I respected girls and womankind in general and even when my bodily desires compelled my mind to perceive woman with lust (which happened many many times) for a moment, my respect for the beauty of women, overtook the lost always. I was a little shy of girls too. On top of that, it has always been my luck that I had very few girls around me where ever I went. I still waited. Then one day I fell in love with a girl. I was deeply in love. It was more like a fantasy love where I care for my girl a lot, loved her, and tried to make her as happy as I could. I did not even care about sex for the first few months. Because that was not important. Then one day I lost virginity. And we both made love a couple of times more subsequently. We both loved each other a lot and this reflected even on bed. But then things changed, mistakes happened, suspicion, betrayal etc. My heart was shattered too like hers. Months went by and slowly I began to accept the reality. My body had been perhaps desiring sex, but my mind was still deep beneath the sea of emotions for her. I went to another place, away from her. May be it was a sense of revenge too in my mind, because I ultimately decided to have sex with a prostitute. Perhaps it must have been loneliness too as I was new in the city. But when I went to bed with her, I felt nothing at all. Nothing. All my lust that had been growing over these months suddenly got destroyed. I also felt a strong sense of guilt for doing whatever I was doing. I realized that sex is not everything. It is in fact nothing great for people to run after it so madly. I have learned a lesson now and have resumed my life as before. I no longer crave for sex. Perhaps some amount of love still exists in my heart for my ex...but thats all. Besides, that I have no other craving. Also, in the wild every Tiger has his tigresses who have territories surrounding the male's territory. And it is usually the Tigresses that go to the Tiger when its the season. But the Tiger still remains alone.

I have always been a solitary individual since a very young age. And I enjoy and cherish my solitude. There are two kinds of loneliness:- 1. Loneliness when you feel depressed due to being alone and crave for society and company. 2. Loneliness that you enjoy and which gives you peace and happiness. Most people fall into the first category. Humans are social animals just like wolves, Lions, wild dogs etc. So no wonder that most really only feel safe in a group. But a Tiger roams the jungle alone and not tolerates even his own kind. He lives with pride and peace alone. I would rather like being the Tiger than being an alpha, beta or zeta wolf in a pack.

Since there have been so many threads opening related to sex lately, I also thought of opening a thread related to something that I have always wondered. It is no wonder that people often think that the size of the penis decides how good you will be on bed and how happy you can make your woman. Some people think that it is the hardness and not the length, yet others feel that thickness is of the most importance to satisfy any girl. My viewpoint is quite different however. I believe that hardness, length etc are only secondary parameters, where as it is the peak temperature during arousal which decides how good the orgasm you will impart on the girl. Temperature of the penis goes quite high during intercourse. Is that temperature a good measure of the pleasure that the partners receive?

So therefore, more heat implies that there is more blood flow? Which further means that the hardness is more?

Many of the accomplished practitioners of Taoism and other similar traditions were smoking addicts. The best example I could come up with is John Chang. I saw him smoking a cigarette in one of his videos in youtube. Now definitely, this means that smoking actually doesn't impede growth in spiritual cultivation. Is this true? Of course it goes without saying that not smoking and taking any intoxicants would always be advantageous in any tradition. But in what way could smoking affect our body according to Taoist (or any similar tradition) point of view? How does it affect the chi? I am aware that many expert internal martial artists of China have been smokers and some of them also went on to lead long lives. But from the point of view of modern medicine and human physiology, smoking is actually very harmful to the body and can become reason for various illnesses. This begs another question. If those "masters" of their arts (whether martial arts or simple spiritual cultivation) are so accomplished - which means they have great will power - then why can't they eliminate their addiction?

Observing the breath or focussing your mind on the abdomen while sitting in lotus (full or half) posture can be very beneficial for developing concentration. Another method is to make a small dot using a pen on a white paper and then stick the paper to the wall, sit in lotus posture and focus with your eyes on that dot. You will realize how difficult it is indeed to achieve full concentration. Even while you are trying hard to concentrate on that dot, your eyes will naturally deviate and point here and there around the dot.

Ajahn Chah one meditated in a graveyard to remove fear from his mind. Its a good idea. I will try it out once too. Already, I've spent time alone in remote and dark areas of the jungle near my place. And it does help in making you stronger. Stronger mind is more conducive for other practices.

The best part of the interview was where the monk talked about Dalai Lama and how people believed that he could save Tibet through magical powers. But in the next scene, what they see is Dalai Lama trying to escape with a gun on his back! I have never believed in the credibility of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism and the monarchy based on the concept of Dalai Lamas. I think even in Tibet true Buddhism could only be found among a few monks and yogis in the remote monasteries situated in the higher mountains. All other sects, like Gelugpa, are nothing but attempts of imperialism by different sects in ruling Tibet. Nowadays, Dalai Lama looks more like a political bureaucrat than a monk and Buddhist teacher. As for the debate about communism and capitalism, anyone who says that communism is very biased and brainwashed. Communism is neither evil nor good, like other political ideologies. It took violence to overthrow older feudal structures to establish capitalistic society. Similarly, it took violence to establish communism in other areas. Communism only failed because the leaders ended up becoming dictatorial (or monarchs as their predecessors had been whom they overthrew) themselves.

Greeks had some influence of Buddhism it seems. An ancient Buddhist text is about a philosophical dialogue between Greek king Menander (Milinda) and a prominent Buddhist monk called Nagasena.

Dwai, Mahabharata as it exists today was written over a period of a millennium or two. Naturally, things changed while it was being edited and modified. The puranas, which are much more recent, claim Magadha to be ruled by non-Vedic kings. You can search "Magadha" in wikipedia and confirm this yourself. All scholars agree that original Mahabharata consisted only around 1100 verses. It was only modified later on. Especially the character Krishna didn't exist in the original story. That is why his position is so ambiguous in Mahabharata as well as his puranic tales. I have explained this earlier as well. The Brahmins wanted to invent their own mythical hero (Krishna) so as to oppose the growing popularity of Gotama "the contemplative" (Gautama Buddha). That is why Krishna was added in Mahabharata as a chariot driver of Arjuna to give his existence a legitimacy. Later Bhagwad Gita was written after taking many concepts from the Buddhist doctrine, and given Vedic twist to it.

Dwai, Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were not Brahmins or Rshis but they were Sramanas. There was always a clear distinction between Sramanas and Brahmins in ancient India. Brahmins are householder priests just like priests anywhere else on Earth. Sramanas were ascetics who left homely life to wander around and search for spiritual upliftment. Mahavira, Buddha etc were Sramanas. Also, Sramana tradition is distinct from Brahmin tradition as it had independent origin from the Indo-Aryan tradition originating from the Vedas. Your claim that Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were followers of Upanishads is completely unfounded because the sutta that first mentions their names doesn't say that they followed Upanishads. In fact, no where in all the Pali Canon can be found the term "Upanishads". Buddhists were only aware of the Vedas perhaps (three of them). You can read the whole Sutta here and no where is the doctrine of these ascetics specifically associated with Brahmanism. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html The only thing mentioned about them was that they belonged to Magadha country and one of them was adept in the technique of reaching the state of nothingness and the other one was adept in reaching the state of mind of neither perception nor non-perception. Considering that they were from Magadha, a place which is mentioned as a "Mlecchha" (barbaric/foreign) country in one of the Brahmanic puranas, it is very unlikely that they were either Brahmins or related to Brahmanism. I know it is the tendency of the the priestly class of Hinduism to give credit to all the good things in this world to their own ancestors; but sometimes its too much! Why is it so difficult to believe that some non-Brahmin could have found something good when they happen to be 95% of the population?

I have faith in all three vehicles (I won't use the term "believe" because I don't claim to know everything about each of them). My last post was only meant to burst the seeds of ludicrous claims of the Hindus that Buddhism borrowed from Hinduism (Vedanta). Buddha was a fully-self-enlightened-one. And according to Buddhist scriptures, the ones adhering to Brahmanic faith in his time believed in Brahma as the creator and the religion revolved around ways to achieve him or worship him. The excerpt from my last post (the poem of the Bodhisattva) further shows what the Buddhists probably thought of the Brahmanic ideology in those regions where they co-existed or where Brahmanism was not quite widespread.

I had been quite busy for these two days so couldn't furnish a reply for the posts raised against mine (although I did make an attempt to read them in a hurry). It will take a great effort indeed to reply to all that now. All I want to say is that those Hindus who are trying to co-opt Buddhism into their fold, are completely motivated by their nationalistic and religious biases. The posts by Philbowser are especially propagandistic in nature. Overall its a great attempt to give all the credit and glory of Buddha and Buddhism to the respected Brahmins (the priestly class) of India, but it is completely contradictory to reality. On the basis of philosophy alone, Brahmanism shares very little with Buddhism, and on a political scale the two had almost always been in conflict. Sankara, the proponent and founder of Advaita was especially zealous in eradicating Buddhism from India and to establish the Brahmanic supremacy through the Brahmanic caste system in the society. Here is a poem written in one of the Jatakas where the Brahmins and their activities are described very nicely. I am not claiming that to have any basis in real history, but it certainly depicts the perception the Buddhists (the ones who compiled such texts) towards the Brahmins to say the least. Here a Bodhisattva is supposed to be replying critically to the false claims of the sacrosanct nature of the Vedas by the Brahmins (and also their attempt of laying the venomous caste system on their "Naga society"):- These Veda studies are the wise man's toils, The lure which tempts the victim whom he spoils; A mirage formed to catch the careless eye, But which the prudent passes safely by. The Vedas have no hidden power to save, The traitor or the coward or the knave; The fire, though tended well for long years past, Leaves his base master without hope at last. Though all earth's trees in one heap are piled To satisfy the fire's insatiate child, Still would it crave for more, insatiate still ,-- How could a Naga hope that maw to fill? Milk ever changes,-- thus where milk has been Butter and curds in natural course are seen; These Brahmins all a livelihood require, And so they tell us Brahma worships fire; Why should the increate who all things planned Worships himself the creature of his hand? Doctrine and rules of their own, absurd and vain, Our sires imagined wealth and power to gain; 'Brahmans he made for study, for command He made the Khattiyas; Vessa plough the land, Suddas servants he made to obey the rest, Thus from the first went forth his high behest?' We see these rules enforced behind our eyes, None by the Brahmins offer sacrifice, None by Khattiya exercises sway, The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey. These greedy liars propagate deceit, And fools believe the fiction they repeat. He who has eyes can see the sickening sight; Why does not Brahma set his creature right? [ Refer to this link for more This is the opinion of Buddha about Brahmanism:- O Vasettha, those brahmins who know the three Vedas are just like a line of blind men tied together where the first sees nothing, the middle man nothing, and the last sees nothing Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, turns out to be foolish talk. `Therefore is it that the threefold wisdom of the Brahmans, wise in their Three Vedas, is called a waterless desert, their threefold wisdom is called a pathless jungle, their threefold wisdom is called perdition!' (Tevijja-Sutta, Dighanikaya, 13:15) I think this should be enough to burst the bubble of those Hindu disinformation agents trying to include Buddhism into "Hinduism" as their nationalistic agenda. As for Sankara, the history of Buddhism written by Taranatha from Tibet mentions that when Sankara used to approach a Buddhist monastery for debate, all the monks used to run hell pell in fear while the earth and monastery shaked. Of course this is just exaggeration, but it does show that Sankara was not really so equanimous towards the Buddhists as his followers make him out to be. His sole agenda was to revive Brahmanism and exterminate both Buddhism and Jainism.

The nationality of those orthodox Brahmins whom I know happen to be Indian. And so is mine. If you can search the term "Santana Dharma" as applied in reference to the modern Hindu religion(s) anywhere in the Hindu scriptures that were written before a few centuries ago, then I will concede my case. This is just one term being introduced by Hindu nationalists because they do not like the term "Hindu" which is foreign in origin. On the contrary, I remember reading this phrase (which means "eternal dharma") being used for Buddhism in many of the Buddhist scriptures (although right now I don't remember exactly which one). This is not surprising because modern Hinduism is heavily influenced by Buddhism. Now comes the interesting part. But the issue is very complex and the space and time very less. I will not comment much about Bhakti here - and as such, you already seem to know about it a lot - but the only thing I can say is the Bhakti is a kind of hero worship of the deities. Whether it leads to any spiritual attainment or not is really contentious and I will not discuss here. I will make a proposition however, though I won't be able to really prove it elaborately here due to the lack of space and resources with me right now. Consider this: around 5 centuries or more after Buddha's final nibbana, his religion had spread like fire everywhere in India due to its profound nature along with much royal support from the likes of Emperor Asoka. Naturally, the Brahmins (priests) who had been conducting sacrifices for the royalty in their regions were loosing lot of business as many people were slowly discarding those beliefs and adhering to Buddha's dharma. Enter the most astute Brahmins here. What could be a better strategy then to raise their own hero (in this case Krishna) and take philosophical doctrine from Buddhism, mould it into their own theistic form, and then promote this mythical hero? Thus, Bhagwat Gita was written. Krishna was invented as a hero, a random story about him appended to the original Mahabharata. If you compare the Buddhist Pali canon with the Bhagwat Gita, you will find many of the teachings being remarkably similar. In fact, some parables used by Krishna are taken word to word as Buddha had spoken several centuries earlier. Concept of reincarnation was added with a twist so as to give legitimacy to the Brahmanic caste system so that they could maintain their superiority. Slowly as Buddhism declined for various reasons, Krishna was being popularized more and more. Finally with the result that Krishna became the central god all over India and Buddha was forgotten completely. The mythical Krishna replaced the historical Buddha while also legitimizing the Hindu caste system based on the Manu smriti. That is why Krishna himself says that any individual who is born into a particular caste should only indulge in his/her own restricted occupations, lest he may not achieve Krishna. As for Bhakti movement, even if initially it was just a continuation of theistic religion of Upanishads, the deities and gods and their legends were invented and written much much later. The famous North Indian god Rama was taken from the epic Ramayana and a Bhakti worship was created around him. Similarly for various other deities. Although some of the initial pioneers of Bhakti religion, like Kabir, were genuinely talented and spiritually attained, their actual doctrine doesn't necessarily need to be theistic, as becomes evident on closer inspection of their teachings. Sure do it. But as I said earlier, the Upanishads were orally transmitted just like the Vedas, so no one can really confirm when exactly they were conceived. But it is pretty much clear as to when they were first written down and that happens to be almost a millennium after Buddha's mahaparinibbana. Hahaha....sorry for my laughter but this excuse is really amateur. If the Buddhists deviated from the path of the Buddha, then the Brahmins completely overhauled their supposedly profound and great dharma. All these practices of untouchability, sati, devdasi (religious prostitution), Kulin system (extreme form of polygamy from Bengal) and many many more were introduced into "Hinduism" and were followed and enforced for so many years, ending in abject poverty, illiteracy etc of a great ancient people who had a few centuries ago been pioneers in various philosophical systems, arts, sciences etc. If you say that the Buddhist monks in India became corrupt consequently leading to the demise of Buddhism, then Brahmanism should have ended long ago because the Brahmins were far more corrupt. So the excuse that Buddhism simply got obliterated spontaneously on its own is not good enough because Brahmanism survived and thrived despite being much more corrupt.

I know some orthodox Brahmins and even they agree that the Vedas were first written down sometime around 1300s. Similarly for the Upanishads/Vedanta. Buddhist scriptures have been committed to written form since much much earlier; more than half a millennium. One of the reasons why it took so much time for the Brahmins to write down their magic formulae was because they considered it sacred and only to be passed along their own racial bloodline. That is why some Hindu scriptures like Manusmriti advocate very inhuman punishment for any outsider who hears the Veda. If you read the Vedas, you will find many hymns there that are to be recited to appease various natural deities. And this is very similar to the religion of Zoroastrianism based on the Zend Avesta. My point being, the religion of the Vedas is actually only a ritualistic tradition much similar to shamanism/animism of the Brahmins alone - and not the "Hindus" because a "Hindu" is defined on the basis of political and geographical boundaries and not on the basis of the core beliefs one adheres to. Another thing I would want to clear out is that Hinduism is indeed much much later to Buddhism. In fact, much of the popular Hinduism of modern India arose at a time when Buddhism had already almost gone extinct after enjoying a great following within and outside India. Modern Hinduism includes "Bhakti religions", "Puranic religion", "Advaita/Vedanta" and the Vedism of the Brahmins (exclusively). None of these have anything to do with Buddhism. Bhakti arose during the time when Muslims started invading from the west and it is a religion of core theism where the devotee completely devotes himself/herself to the duty and worship of their personal deities. Puranic religion is just the various mythical stories regarding the main Hindu deities like Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma etc. This also includes the religion and deity worship based on the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata - the two classical ancient Hindu epics. The remaining two - namely, Vedantaism and Vedism - are the sole religions of the minority Brahmins alone in India and none of the regular Hindus have any idea about what these are (except the academicians perhaps). Buddha's original teachers Alara Kalama and Udakka Ramaputta were most likely Jains or even followers of some other Sramanic traditions. So yes, Buddha did attain some of the higher Jhanas after learning from these teachers and ascetics but he gained ultimate enlightened all by himself. Often the modern Hindu leaders have the tendency to spread the misinformation that Buddhism is merely an offshoot of Hinduism (they don't define "Hinduism" clearly still!) and that Buddha was a Hindu. But this is what they believe and not what the Buddhists believe. In the Vishnu purana, a Hindu text, written around the 6th AD, Buddha is mentioned as an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu who had taken the incarnation on Earth so that he could deviate and deliberately misguide the "demons" by preaching false and heretic (atheistic) doctrine and thus render them eligible for slaughter. So the Brahmins actually considered the Buddhists to be "demons"! On a serious note, the historians all agree that this was a strategy to co-opt Buddhism, at that time a popular religion among the masses, into their own religious fold so that they could have the sole superiority over religion as their ancestors had enjoyed the sole right to perform the yajnas/sacrificial rites. Some Upanishads were probably conceived before the time of the Buddha, but majority of them were written after Buddha died. And again, only the Brahmins, a minority in India, were aware of these. Isn't it surprising that a religion that enjoyed great popularity and following once in ancient India was completely exterminated from that land and the blame was put solely on Muslim invaders even when the same Muslim invaders hardly touched HInduism itself?

The birds have vanished into the sky, and now the last cloud drains away. We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains. - Li Po Apologies for interfering in the discussion.