Buddhism recovers in 6-700 AC in the Harsha rule and with his death, it remains dominant in eastern india until the Muslim conquest.
What I read about Buddhism in india it needs a regular donation from the state to control a area with monastery so you must make Pope Church system which can sustain and defeat muslim conquest of india
Only institutionalisation of Buddhism like happen in Europe with Christian will save Buddhism .Long time since I read Indian history, but wouldn´t the POD be before Muhammad? If so, Islam would be butterflied.
Until the white huns come around and destroy the whole thing, the huna did more to destroy Buddhism in India than the Muslims and it was right around the same time when religious movement down South arose who mixed everything up and made buddha an avatar of vishnu. Nothing is going to save Buddhism in India, the corruption of the sanghas made it very unpopular among the ordinary people who still practiced pre vedic and vedic rituals and practices, Vendantic Hinduism just absorbed everything into it and it's proponents were so well versed in the art of debate, logic and rhetoric that they just defeated Buddhist doctrine plus the rise of bhakti movement which played a important role in merging non vedic practice into vendantic Hinduism. The new hindu religion that emerged was flawed in matters of caste and it's treatment of women but in other aspects it had wide popular appeal and intellectual appeal too something which Buddhism didn't have.India had two ways in which it could have become Buddhist -
- Ashoka does not become pacifistic instead is more zealous in spreading the religion, this would also result in much more politically United Subcontinent as the Mauryan empire does not later crumble to Hindu revolts, this one is more likely to happen if India were to be Buddhist
- Greco Bactrian conquests are much more successful and they are able to implement soft Buddhism and Hellenistic religion on India, this would not be all over India but only North India, this is much less likely to happen
Oh, interesting. Good analysis, however I'm merely curious how would India look like while BuddhistUntil the white huns come around and destroy the whole thing, the huna did more to destroy Buddhism in India than the Muslims and it was right around the same time when religious movement down South arose who mixed everything up and made buddha an avatar of vishnu. Nothing is going to save Buddhism in India, the corruption of the sanghas made it very unpopular among the ordinary people who still practiced pre vedic and vedic rituals and practices, Vendantic Hinduism just absorbed everything into it and it's proponents were so well versed in the art of debate, logic and rhetoric that they just defeated Buddhist doctrine plus the rise of bhakti movement which played a important role in merging non vedic practice into vendantic Hinduism. The new hindu religion that emerged was flawed in matters of caste and it's treatment of women but in other aspects it had wide popular appeal and intellectual appeal too something which Buddhism didn't have.
The disappearance of Buddhism was just inevitable unless you butterfly away the vendantic movement of the 7th to 13 th century and also bhakti movement too. Islamic invasion of 1200s into the heart land did cause the decline but it's giving it too much credit.
Unfortunately not that different? I don't think it would have effect on caste and other stuff, probably would have religion with less rituals but I don't think that a good thing in a pre modern society, rituals gave people a sense of protection, a feeling of being secure. I honestly don't think history would be that different.Oh, interesting. Good analysis, however I'm merely curious how would India look like while Buddhist
Yeah, but remember, Huns invaded during Gupta period who were already Hindu empire, as such Buddhism had already declined by then, as mentioned before unless Ashoka tried to zealous convert the population, India will not be BuddhismUntil the white huns come around and destroy the whole thing, the huna did more to destroy Buddhism in India than the Muslims and it was right around the same time when religious movement down South arose who mixed everything up and made buddha an avatar of vishnu. Nothing is going to save Buddhism in India, the corruption of the sanghas made it very unpopular among the ordinary people who still practiced pre vedic and vedic rituals and practices, Vendantic Hinduism just absorbed everything into it and it's proponents were so well versed in the art of debate, logic and rhetoric that they just defeated Buddhist doctrine plus the rise of bhakti movement which played a important role in merging non vedic practice into vendantic Hinduism. The new hindu religion that emerged was flawed in matters of caste and it's treatment of women but in other aspects it had wide popular appeal and intellectual appeal too something which Buddhism didn't have.
The disappearance of Buddhism was just inevitable unless you butterfly away the vendantic movement of the 7th to 13 th century and also bhakti movement too. Islamic invasion of 1200s into the heart land did cause the decline but it's giving it too much credit.
The empire will collapse much earlier.Ashoka tried to zealous convert the population,
Buddhism never penetrated south like they did north, it was mostly seen as an elites religion, only in north and east were buddhism really strongThe empire will collapse much earlier.
Guptas were not a totally a hindu dynasty by end they came to patronizing buddhism and gupta being this "Orthodox" Hindu is a leftist way of looking at stuff. They patronised buddhism even at their peak.
I'll ask you a question
Why did buddhism collapse in South india by 5th century ad even before the rise of vendantic movement? There were no gupta Or huna Or anyone people just stopped being Buddhist and went back to their folk religion and the Buddhist viharas were gradually replaced with hindu temples.
??? I am from the South, most of the major hindu temples here were turned into Buddhist viharas and again back into temples, it wasn't seen as religion of elites although not as popular as the folk religion but it still had support of the masses.Buddhism never penetrated south like they did north, it was mostly seen as an elites religion, only in north and east were buddhism really strong
And Ashoka did have the capability to convert a major portion of Mauryan empire to Buddhism, he just choose the path to pacifism
And Mauryan empire collapsed due to Hindu revolt against a extremely weakened Mauryans, but here, No real Hindu power would be able to revolt against Mauryans
What ? No that is blatantly false??? I am from the South, most of the major hindu temples here were turned into Buddhist viharas and again back into temples, it wasn't seen as religion of elites although not as popular as the folk religion but it still had support of the masses.
Mauryan empire collapsed because of foreign invasion and climate change that cause widespread crop failure not some "hindu revolt" Long before shunga arose 2/3 of the empire was lost to Greek invasion or revolts.
What about the rock painting in anjanta ellora and other rock carving in the deccan 😳😳😳 the jain and Buddhist rock carving were done without support of the people.? Man that's just wrong to say buddhism influence in the South didn't exist, without that there would be no vedantic movement of the 7th century. The biggest temple in my city was a Buddhist vihara and the same was the case in most Town and cities established in antiquity down South.What ? No that is blatantly false
South never was that buddhist to begin with
What ? No that is blatantly false
South never was that buddhist to begin with and Mauryans lost due to internal revolt and crumbling of the empire over any invasion
Shunga were the deathblow but Mauryans had already a problem of weak governance and rebellions all around
Yeah how did buddhism reach Sri Lanka?View attachment 645183
Ashoka's buddhist missions
Buddhism amongst Tamils - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
What about the rock painting in anjanta ellora and other rock carving in the deccan 😳😳😳 the jain and Buddhist rock carving were done without support of the people.? Man that's just wrong to say buddhism influence in the South didn't exist, without that there would be no vedantic movement of the 7th century. The biggest temple in my city was a Buddhist vihara and the same was the case in most Town and cities established in antiquity down South.
I am not saying Buddhist influence did not exist at all, but it was minimal and most of the population was not buddhistView attachment 645183
Ashoka's buddhist missions
Buddhism amongst Tamils - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Simply not true. Buddhist influence in South India is tremendous. At the height of the Mauryan Empire, the south was slowly transforming itself culturally to adapt Buddhist ideologies. Go to any Southern temples and you will see Buddhist influence even today. The fall of the Mauryan Empire struck a blow to the Buddhist influence as Buddhist monasteries and monks lost their patrons. The internal fighting in Mauryan Empire caused their distant holdings to disenfranchise themselves from the capital. Not to mention I believe the central authority tried to enforce too many reforms or politically overextended themselves without using proper military force. Most likely this emboldened regions to revolt against the Empire.I am not saying Buddhist influence did not exist at all, but it was minimal and most of the population was not buddhist
They no doubt have adopted a few Buddhist practices within their own religion, but it was always appropriated into the native beliefs
Sri Lanka had a very special history of Ashoka's own children going there to convert the population, but that is not true both most of south India, at best they had a few places with Buddhist majority