Dr. Amritpal Kaur
(Translated from Hindi to English by SR Darapuri I.P.S. (Retd)
(Asian independent) Buddhism is often portrayed as merely a branch or part of Hinduism—a claim that is utterly baseless. No religion employs such abusive language toward its own branches or constituents as the Hindu scriptures have directed toward Buddhism. The *Valmiki Ramayana* states:
“Just as a thief is deserving of punishment, so too is the Buddha (and his followers)—for he is opposed to the Vedas. The *Tathagata* and the atheist are to be categorized in this very same class. Therefore, for the welfare of his subjects, if an atheist can be subjected to punishment by the King, he must indeed be punished just like a thief; however, regarding an atheist who lies beyond one’s control, a learned Brahmin must never engage with him—nor should he enter into any conversation with him.” (Srimad Valmiki Ramayana, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, p. 303)
The *Ashokavadana* reveals that a Brahmin named Pushyamitra Shunga assassinated Brihadratha—the last emperor of the Mauryan dynasty—and seized power. Operating under an agenda of counter-revolution against Buddhism, he orchestrated the massacre of Buddhists, razed Buddhist monasteries to the ground, and upon reaching Sakala (Sialkot), issued a proclamation: “I shall reward one hundred *dinars* to anyone who brings me the severed head of a Buddhist.” This is the reason why, in Chinese Buddhist literature, the name of Pushyamitra is never uttered without an accompanying curse. Rather than simply saying “Pushyamitra,” they refer to him as “Pushyamitra—may he perish!”
In his book *In the Footsteps of the Buddha*, René Grousset notes that the Chinese traveler Xuanzang recorded how Mihirakula, the King of Kashmir, demolished Buddhist stupas, destroyed monasteries, and slaughtered hundreds of Buddhists. According to Waters’ *Yuan Chwang’s Travels* (Vol. 2), the Chinese traveler also recorded that King Shashanka had the Bodhi Tree cut down, replaced the statue of the Buddha with an idol of Maheshwara, and destroyed the Buddhist faith.
The *Shankara Digvijaya* contains a vivid account of King Sudhanva massacring Buddhists in accordance with the directives of the Hindu preceptor Kumarila Bhatta:
“Thereupon, issuing a decree for the extermination of the anti-Vedic Buddhists, the King declared: ‘Throughout the entire territory stretching from the Himalayas to Rameswaram, whoever encounters a Buddhist—be it a child or an elder—must slay him. Whosoever fails to do so shall be slain by me.'” (1/92-93)
In his renowned treatise *Tantravartika*, Kumarila Bhatta characterized the Buddha’s teachings—particularly those regarding *ahimsa* (non-violence)—as impure, futile, and worthy of rejection, likening them to milk spilled upon a dog’s hide. Following him, the preceptor Shankara, in his commentary on the *Brahma Sutras*, described the Buddha as a “babbling enemy of the world” (3-2-32).
While expounding upon one of Panini’s aphorisms (2-4-9) in his *Mahabhashya*—written in the 2nd century BCE—the grammarian Patanjali sought to provide an illustration of groups characterized by perpetual mutual antagonism; in doing so, he cited the Buddhists and the Brahmins, whose reciprocal hostility was likened to the relationship between a cat and a mouse, or a snake and a mongoose.
Emperor Ashoka had the words of the Buddha inscribed upon stone edicts—a practice that deeply offended the Brahmins. To cast Ashoka as a villain, these very Brahmins—along with their grammarians—went so far as to alter the rules of grammar itself. In his edicts, the emperor prefixed his name with the title *Devanam Priya* (Beloved of the Gods); however, by inserting a specific, novel rule into their grammatical framework, the Brahmins declared that *Devanam Priya* signified “a fool.” (Katyayana, c. 150 BCE). In this context, these terms were interpreted to mean “fool.”
In ancient Sanskrit plays, one frequently encounters scenes where Buddhist monks are beaten, mocked, and openly reviled. One such ancient and renowned Sanskrit drama is *Mṛcchakaṭikam* (The Little Clay Cart); in its seventh act, the protagonist, Charudatta, sets out to meet the heroine, Vasantasena, and along the way, he spots a Buddhist monk. He exclaims:
“Oh! Why have I encountered the inauspicious sight of a Buddhist monk right at the very outset?”
Furthermore, while cautioning the public against the *Buddhadhamma* (Buddhist doctrine), various Puranic texts also heaped condemnation upon the Buddha and his teachings. The *Brahma Purana* asserts that Vishnu, having assumed the incarnation of the Buddha, destroyed the religion of the Shakya people and foisted upon them a “counterfeit commodity”—that is, Buddhism. The *Bhavishya Purana* claims that the Buddha turned Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas—who were adherents of the *Devadharma* (the religion of the gods)—away from the Vedas, thereby spreading ignorance and darkness everywhere.
This superstition directed against the *Buddhadhamma* was deliberately propagated so that people would begin to shun even the mere sight of Buddhists. Under such circumstances, who would possibly wish to listen to their ideas? This served as a weapon of social ostracism, with superstition acting as the instrument. How could any religion unleash such a torrential barrage of invective and condemnation against a mere branch of its own faith? A religion would resort to such measures only when it faces a formidable challenge from a rival…!!!!
