Zoomar, I agree that Hinduism is not exactly conducive to being widely spread, in the evangelical manner that Christianity and Islam were and the philosophical manner Buddhism was. However, supposing that Buddhism spread to China and Japan as usual, but Southeast Asia remains primarily Hindu/Hindu influenced due to trade links with India transmitting culture, then we can assume that such influences would eventually reach Australia and NZ in ATL without substantial Buddhist and later Islamic influence. Then, let us suppose that Buddhism, along with going to China and Japan, spreads west to the Middle East. BTW, Persia was Zoroastrian if I recall. Buddhism also shall spread to Central Asia and gain strong roots there in this ATL. When it spreads West however, let us assume that it gains influence in Mesopotamia, from where it spreads to Anatolia and Syria, and eventually parts of North Africa. I am thinking here that a Buddhism with some strong presence in the Middle East and North Africa would slow down Islam's drive, along with a stronger Persia. Meanwhile, we shall add in a POD that China doesn't abandon its treasure fleets under Cheng Ho but instead keeps them. They eventually sail to the New World, where Buddhism becomes dominant. So, we have a scenario in which India and Southeast Asia, along with much of Oceania is Hindu while China, Japan, much of Central Asia, and most of the New World is Buddhist while Christianity is strong in Europe, North Africa, parts of Central Asia, and makes gains in Sub-Saharan Africa due to Portuguese and later Spanish efforts (Spain is no longer interested in a root to the New World as China has already found one and trade with China, which now has more material to trade, is more important).
What does everyoen think?