Another perspective why Buddhism went out of India
by Luz Futten, Spain, The Buddhist Channel, Jan 23, 2006
My comment on the article about why Buddhism did not develop in India, which I think it may open a wider window to see the real landscape, is this: Buddhism, as Jainism, etc was born from Hinduism as a way to "fight with no violence" to the ideas o f a structured hindu society by casts just by birth. The message of Buddha here is simply to tell people that you don't need to be born in the Brahman caste to dedicate to spiritual tasks.
Of course, humans degradate things by changing, modificating and upgrading everything (for bad and good), including Teachings. That's human nature, not a particular problem for Buddhism in India.
About Muslims in India or in any place where are males of species: for men is always a temptation to have an harem of women-slaves. Tha's a problem of male's superb ego that males has to work on it to erradicate (if they want a world with respect and balance!). This "muslim paradise just for men" recalls an old species' subject that all men from all ethnia, religion, etc can be fall so easily, and this simple thing might explain its success to expand. Also brutality can "convince" because is the easy way to achieve things. We should also acknowledge that Muslims can also be very respectful to women and actually appreciate the use of non-violence!
India is a place full of sects, religions, etc. There were so many fights between them. Let's say that Buddhism went out from India just because most Indians had more affinity with other types of spiritual work used by other religions or sects.
Anyway, there are many manifestations of enlightened activity. Or better said, anyone can make an enlightened activity from the most ordinary thing. The most important thing is to have respect for any manifestation of that enlightened activity, but keeping oneself in a place with more affinity, as this can sooth oneself and help oneself to develope the virtues we have to develope in this life, with their respective lessons we might need to learn according our present karma.
A practical example of this is the with the mayor and youngest sect of tibetan buddhism: Tsong Khapa. Tsong Khapa was a disciple of the Karmapa. His nature or his temper needed a calm and solitary place, but the monastery where he was living was full of ordinary life with ordinary problems that building a family mixed with the spiritual life of monkhood did not allowed him to do his practise, and that's why he created rules to control this.
My opinion on this article is that, if there's no violence, no hate, no emotional poisons, no black magic, no ego, and no imposition to someone of a particular way of practising spirituality one might have no affinity with, then it is good that it can co-exist with others.
What is a real truth is that we are all humans who can make mistakes, who can forget things, who might go backward to work on something we had left pending, etc. But that doesn't means we had left developing ourselves.
Also to remind you all that now, Buddhism came back to India after the Chinese invasion to Tibet, and there's a lot of people there practising the best they can.
Maybe the simpler life of the first genuine buddhism (Theravada) didn't suit the taste of people born in an artistic environment. Maybe for those people whould have been more useful to have a boddhisattva that spoke their language who might trully help them to advance in their spiritual path from another part of the vision or perspective (which are all respectful if they respect the livse of all creatures: family members, plants, animals, birds, fishes, ants or extraterrestrials).