AHC - Buddhism spreads faster -

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In OTL Buddhism began 5 centuries BC and seemed to only expand from regional to national appeal within India with Ashoka 300 years later. This "Constantine" of Buddhism was much less successful. Most of his missionary expeditions did not have a lasting proselytizing affect, although he tried to spread the faith to Egypt and the Mediterranean world.

He had enduring, but not irreversible, impact in India, and only his Sri Lankan mission resulted in enduring Buddhism conversion outside India.

the adoption of Buddhism in China only occurred 1000 years after the start of Buddhism, and with Korea, Japan, and southeast asia adopting it later still.

What could have made buddhism more competitive in the western world, either before, during or after Ashoka's era? Could Buddhism have spread east earlier?

looking at it from another angle, could Buddhism's spread be stopped cold outside the indian subcontinent?

Looking at other angles still, is there a plausible way that Christianity could have been more locally bound for a millenium, before seriously spreading to other civilizational centers? What about Islam? Would it be plausible for it to be bound within Arabia for centuries, but later have explosive growth?
 
the adoption of Buddhism in China only occurred 1000 years after the start of Buddhism, and with Korea, Japan, and southeast asia adopting it later still.

There was Buddhism in China 500 years after the start of Buddhism, in the 1st century CE. Buddhism wasn't widespread until the collapse of the Han Dynasty made people lose faith in the old ways of thought and religion. Perhaps, if the Han Dynasty isn't restored after the Xin Dynasty, then the resulting chaos and disorder could drive more people to turn to new faiths, such as Buddhism.

However, even if Buddhism becomes widespread in China 500 years early, it doesn't mean will Japan and Korea adopt Buddhism, because the structures of state that helped Buddhism spread in Japan relied on unification, while I don't think the Korean states were that Chinese-influenced at this time. Until Japan is unified (historically I think this was 4th century CE, I might be wrong), I don't see Buddhism spreading that quickly. I'm not sure about Korea, that's where my knowledge is fuzzy.

Vietnam was a part of China at this time, but I'm pretty sure Buddhism's diffusion to Laos, Cambodia, Burma, etc followed a different trajectory than the Mahayana variety in Vietnam, so I'm not sure about Southeast Asia.
 
In OTL Buddhism began 5 centuries BC and seemed to only expand from regional to national appeal within India with Ashoka 300 years later. This "Constantine" of Buddhism was much less successful. Most of his missionary expeditions did not have a lasting proselytizing affect, although he tried to spread the faith to Egypt and the Mediterranean world.

He had enduring, but not irreversible, impact in India, and only his Sri Lankan mission resulted in enduring Buddhism conversion outside India.

True, but you also have to consider that it also took over 300 years for Christianity to become a state religion in the Roman Empire as well, and it generally took more centuries to spread to other areas. In terms of an enduring legacy, you also have to consider that Hinduism, which is closely related to Buddhism, was already prevalent within the area, while Europe did not have anything similar at the time.

the adoption of Buddhism in China only occurred 1000 years after the start of Buddhism, and with Korea, Japan, and southeast asia adopting it later still.

Not at all. Buddhism first entered Goguryeo in 372, roughly 800 years later, through the Former Qin, Baekje by a monk from India in 384, and in Silla through Goguryeo by 527. Archaeological evidence also suggests that Goguryeo might have adopted Buddhism earlier. One of the reasons that they converted was due to its similarities with shamanism, which it initially blended into before becoming a state religion in Silla and Balhae after 668 and 698, respectively.

What could have made buddhism more competitive in the western world, either before, during or after Ashoka's era? Could Buddhism have spread east earlier?

looking at it from another angle, could Buddhism's spread be stopped cold outside the indian subcontinent?

Looking at other angles still, is there a plausible way that Christianity could have been more locally bound for a millenium, before seriously spreading to other civilizational centers? What about Islam? Would it be plausible for it to be bound within Arabia for centuries, but later have explosive growth?

In order for Buddhism to spread further, the missionaries would have to find a way to incorporate it into the prevalent beliefs within each region, which would have been shamanism in most cases. Other than that, there should be enough interest for Buddhists in other areas to travel to India and bring back a significant amount of texts to base their beliefs on. As far as I know, this was the case in China, Korea, and Japan.

However, even if Buddhism becomes widespread in China 500 years early, it doesn't mean will Japan and Korea adopt Buddhism, because the structures of state that helped Buddhism spread in Japan relied on unification, while I don't think the Korean states were that Chinese-influenced at this time. Until Japan is unified (historically I think this was 4th century CE, I might be wrong), I don't see Buddhism spreading that quickly. I'm not sure about Korea, that's where my knowledge is fuzzy.

See above. Korea as a whole adopted Buddhism long before unification, and it was probably not until the 8th century that Korea began associating Buddhism with China. Also, Baekje spread Buddhism to Japan in 552, which probably means that it would have become prevalent within the region soon afterward.
 
See above. Korea as a whole adopted Buddhism long before unification, and it was probably not until the 8th century that Korea began associating Buddhism with China. Also, Baekje spread Buddhism to Japan in 552, which probably means that it would have become prevalent within the region soon afterward.

Oh, well, I was thinking, if Buddhism spread faster after its initial introduction due to the fact that the Eastern Han never arises, it wouldn't reach Paekche and Silla due to the fact that I don't think Paekche and Silla were around at this time in the 1st century CE. Or if they were, I don't think they could be called states, maybe just cities or tribes. That's why I suggested that the Korean states need to form first, because historically, the spread of Buddhism tends to rely on the patronage and donations of local leaders and rulers.

On the other hand, I know Koguryo did exist in some way at this time, but I'm not sure what Buddhism's early reach into Koguryo entails.
 
Oh, well, I was thinking, if Buddhism spread faster after its initial introduction due to the fact that the Eastern Han never arises, it wouldn't reach Paekche and Silla due to the fact that I don't think Paekche and Silla were around at this time in the 1st century CE. Or if they were, I don't think they could be called states, maybe just cities or tribes. That's why I suggested that the Korean states need to form first, because historically, the spread of Buddhism tends to rely on the patronage and donations of local leaders and rulers.

On the other hand, I know Koguryo did exist in some way at this time, but I'm not sure what Buddhism's early reach into Koguryo entails.

Oh, okay. I see your point. However, the Korean states would not have necessarily adopted Buddhism right after the Han did, so it would have taken about a century or so to spread outside of China. If this scenario occurs, however, Goguryeo might have spread the religion soon after to Baekje by 250-300, which would mean that Japan would in turn learn about Buddhism a century earlier or so. I'm not sure how this would exactly affect Southeast Asia as well, although the butterflies as a whole in Asia might cause a significant amount of states to be consolidated earlier than in OTL.
 
Oh, okay. I see your point. However, the Korean states would not have necessarily adopted Buddhism right after the Han did, so it would have taken about a century or so to spread outside of China. If this scenario occurs, however, Goguryeo might have spread the religion soon after to Baekje by 250-300, which would mean that Japan would in turn learn about Buddhism a century earlier or so. I'm not sure how this would exactly affect Southeast Asia as well, although the butterflies as a whole in Asia might cause a significant amount of states to be consolidated earlier than in OTL.

Well, as for butterflies, I would have to ask how this impacts the creation of Japan's development. I'm not a proponent of the Korean horserider theory put forth by Egami Namio and Gari Ledyward, and in fact I consider myself skeptical about it, but I find it interesting enough that I won't dismiss it off-hand as merely Korean nationalism.
 
Well, as for butterflies, I would have to ask how this impacts the creation of Japan's development. I'm not a proponent of the Korean horserider theory put forth by Egami Namio and Gari Ledyward, and in fact I consider myself skeptical about it, but I find it interesting enough that I won't dismiss it off-hand as merely Korean nationalism.

My knowledge on this topic is limited, so I can only suggest that a different set of clans would have gained influence in Japan, which would mean that the promoted ideologies would be different. The problem is that although Chinese records suggest that Japanese society was probably more matriarchal before 500, there is very limited information on where each tribe/state was located in, so it would be very hard to construct a different set of events after Buddhism is trasmitted from Baekje to Japan, along with other cultural elements such as Chinese characters. Korean and Japanese sources also contradict each other in many aspects, so they would have to be reconciled as well.
 
My knowledge on this topic is limited, so I can only suggest that a different set of clans would have gained influence in Japan, which would mean that the promoted ideologies would be different. The problem is that although Chinese records suggest that Japanese society was probably more matriarchal before 500, there is very limited information on where each tribe/state was located in, so it would be very hard to construct a different set of events after Buddhism is trasmitted from Baekje to Japan, along with other cultural elements such as Chinese characters. Korean and Japanese sources also contradict each other in many aspects, so they would have to be reconciled as well.

Hmm, okay. As I always do, I do have one quibble. I should point out that Chinese records suggest a female ruler in Japan around 200 CE, there seemed to have been male rulers by 413 to 502, given how Chinese rulers of the Southern Dynasties gave titles to the five kings from Wa who sent tribute missions. On the other hand, I'm not sure Japan was unified, so there is the possibility that Himiko's domain was a different one from the one of the five kings. In other words, I could suggest that Japan wasn't completely matriarchal, and maybe there were two different courts, one in Kyushu and one in Honshu, with differing attitudes towards gender.

I agree with the rest, in the sense that Japanese history is really too obscure, and the butterflies too vast, and the sources too different, for a point of divergence in the 1st century CE.
 
It is said that Ashoka had sent missionaries to the West to preach Dhamma. It was many centuries before the births of Jesus and Muhammad. Christianity or Islam had not even appeared on the scene. Still Buddhism could not spread its roots in the Middle East even in the absence of any other proselytizing religions. Why? What were the reasons which prevented Buddhism from repeating its success in the Far East, in the Middle East too?
 
The problems with a faster spread of Buddhism is:

1) It does not make much sense to those regions whose religions/theology/mythology is not already karmic which is most of the world outside India.

2) The initial strain of Buddhism does not offer much "practical" benefits, and this was an age when people expected religious practice to have benefits. To extinguish one's personality so that one isn't reborn is not a very attractive proposition by itself. People want good luck fairies who will make the rains come when there is a drought, who will expiate sin, protect them in battle, reward them in the afterlife, etc.

Buddhism only really began to spread when Mahayan Buddhism developed which had its own mythology about Pure Lands that good people could be reborn into that rewards them for their own services, and Mahyana Buddhism doesn't develop until the 1st or 2nd centuries AD.

3) There is not a strong missionary impulse to Buddhism. There is no eschatology that demands more converts be made. Missionary activities aren't discouraged of course, but there is no clear impulse to spread the word unlike the demands made by both Christianity and Islam.

To be honest, many of the things that finally made Buddhism (in its Mahayana variety) a success in prosletyzing were not things that the Buddha taught, but new innovations (Pure Lands, Boddhisatvas) made by other people centuries after the Buddha died.

There are very good reasons why Buddhism plateaued in its popularity despite great support by Ashoka.
 
Top