It's hard to respond briefly to this remark: "but I'm pretty sure the
wholesale slaughter of Buddhist monks and destruction of Buddhist temples
by Muslims did not help" --except to say that the near certainty *is*
misplaced. First we ought to note that persecution often serves to enhance
group identity, thereby *strengthening* religions. Clearly that wasn't the
case when Turks came to power in 12th century India. Buddhism (not just
Theravada) had been in sharp decline on the sub-Himalayan continent for
quite some time. Its failure to differentiate itself from a transformed
Hinduism (which now eschewed animal sacrifice, 'accepted' the Buddha as an
avatara of Vishnu, etc.) played a role, as did Hindu hostility. The
efforts of the great Advaitin, Sankara, in organizing Hindu monastic life
Shaiva, especially) provided a rival to Buddhism's long-held advantage in
this sphere.
The time-line blurb from the buddha-net page is not merely misleading,
but it's likely factually incorrect. By 1193 Buddhism probably had no true
'heartland in India' --that's the misleading part. The assertion that
"Moslems" (even the spelling belies an antiquarian approach) destroyed
Buddhist monasteries is probably wrong in many cases. For the details
(i.e., the 'history') on Vikramasila see:
Chaudhary, R. (1978) "Decline of Vikramasila." Journal of Indian History,
56, pp. 213-235. (Trivandrum) and also
Narayan, B. (1977-78) "The Vikramasila Mahavihara Site. Some New Light on
the Basis of Archeological Evidence." Journal of the Bihar Research
Society, 63-64, pp. 212-214.
Chaudhary provides evidence which largely exonerates Bakhtiyar Khaldi from
this heinous act, while implicating local Biharis. In other instances the
Turkish rulers seem to have mistaken walled monasteries as fortresses. No
religious (i.e., Islamic) motives seem to have been present. The well
known incident of the burning of the Nalanda library has been documented
by S. H. Askari & Q. Ahmed (eds.) (1983-1987) _COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY OF
BIHAR_, 2 vols. Patna. They and D.R. Patil, author of _ANTIQUARIAN
REMAINS AT BHUBANESHWAR_ (Calcutta, 1961), basically concur that the act
of arson was not committed by the (Muslim) Turks.
It also should be pointed out that *reciprocal* massacres between Hindus &
Buddhists took place in India during the 7th century --before Muslim
generals raided Transoxiana & Sind in the early 8th cent. The early
Ghaznavids seemed interested in power & wealth much more than in spreading
Islam. Wealth was found in temples, and I'd guess in monasteries as well.
Yet Hinduism not only survived, but flourished in India despite the
losses.
Other sources which shed light on the decline of Buddhism point to even
earlier periods. By the end of the 5th century (!) Buddhist temples in
South India were replaced by temples to Shiva at Kanchipuram, Srisailam,
Vengipura (A.P.), etc. Related to the destruction of Buddhist images
(long before Islam arrives) is the work of H. Sarkar and B.N. Misra on
Nagarjunakonda (Delhi: 1966).
If you have to use a metaphor for this I'd suggest the establishment
(not the 'arrival') of Muslim Turks as the last nail in Buddhism's coffin
in N. India --provided we acknowledge that there were a dozen or so nails
already well hammered such that the lid was not going to open again. Of
course, if non-historians prefer to cling to 'historical' ideas that can
not be supported by historical evidence, so be it!