Best case scenario for SE Asian Hinduism

samcster94

Banned
I always found it odd that Hinduism used to span further eastward than it does now. Buddhism, and later Islam, competed with it. With any pod, what is the best case scenario for Hinduism there and how well can it do if the POD requires Islam to exsit???
 

Philip

Donor
Buddhism was much more widespread in India in the past. I don't see why a similar reversal can't happen in the Buddhist regions of SEA.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Kick
Hinduism is still very widespread in Southeast Asia. I suspect that Buddhist sectarians are in fact inflating the number of Buddhists to hide the large Hindu populations in their midst, a similar tactic used by Western ideologues and Muslim sectarians in Indonesia to overinflate the number of Muslims in such a vastly multi-cultural country. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Hindus is as much as 50% of continental Southeast Asia and as much as 20% in Indonesia.
 
Hinduism is still very widespread in Southeast Asia. I suspect that Buddhist sectarians are in fact inflating the number of Buddhists to hide the large Hindu populations in their midst, a similar tactic used by Western ideologues and Muslim sectarians in Indonesia to overinflate the number of Muslims in such a vastly multi-cultural country. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Hindus is as much as 50% of continental Southeast Asia and as much as 20% in Indonesia.
So, instead of an old religion falling by the wayside as part of a trend that had been continuing since the rise of Buddhism, you find it easier to believe that a vast conspiracy of Buddhists is inflating their numbers on the books to somehow make their religion more appealing... somehow? And this is to the degree that a population of 50% Hindu is somehow completely smothered? Am I missing something? And then you continue and say that this is happening in Indonesia with Muslims? Bullshit on the first one, and citation desperately needed on the second.

I agree with @Intransigent Southerner .

It seems to me that you are objectively wrong.

D125FAC4-B5A1-4755-891C-494938E36530.jpeg

This is from the Lowry Institute. The purple bars are Hindu population.
 
Last edited:

Maoistic

Banned
You are objectively wrong.
Last I checked there were around 15 million Hindus in Indonesia. Seeing the vast Hindu cultural practices for which Indonesia is renowned, not to mention how outside of Islam most of Indonesia follows the original culture of the Hindu polities, this number can easily be double that.
 

Maoistic

Banned
So, instead of an old religion falling by the wayside as part of a trend that had been continuing sense the rise of Buddhism, you find it easier to believe that a vast conspiracy of Buddhists is inflating their numbers on the books to somehow make their religion more appealing... somehow? And this is to the degree that a population of 50% Hindu is somehow completely smothered? Am I missing something? And then you continue and say that this is happening in Indonesia with Muslims? Bullshit on the first one, and citation desperately needed on the second.

I agree with @Intransigent Southerner .

It seems to me that you are objectively wrong.
It's no conspiracy. For one, experts on SE Asia constantly emphasise the vast syncretism of the region. For another, the languages, scripts and cultural practices of SE Asia come predominantly from the Hindu polities that existed. If you read travellers and tourists' accounts of SE Asia and see documentaries like Peter Owen-Jones "Around the world in 80 Faiths" you see constant mention and appearance of street Brahmans preaching in the streets or selling images of Hindu gods. Heck, Hindu temples populate SE Asia even if many are in ruins now, as are many Buddhist temples anyway.

Also, the phenomenon of sectarian inflation is not an unique one. It occurs in Lebanon where Maronites continue to claim Christians make half the population when in fact it may be as low just 25% at this point, as well as in Latin America and China, where Protestant missionaries inflate the number of Protestants that there actually are.
 
Last I checked there were around 15 million Hindus in Indonesia. Seeing the vast Hindu cultural practices for which Indonesia is renowned, not to mention how outside of Islam most of Indonesia follows the original culture of the Hindu polities, this number can easily be double that.
83247325-6623-4474-8C42-82312F41480B.jpeg

There are about 261.1 million people in Indonesia.

Taking your claim that there are 15 million Hindus at face value, that means that about 5.7% of Indonesia’s population is Hindu.

Now even if we go further with that and take your other claims at face value and double the percentage of Hindus, that is still only about 11.4% Hindu, not even close to your 20% number.

Also, the claim that you can double the number is ridiculous and baseless. Just because a country is renowned for its culture of antiquity tied to a certain religion does not mean thy follow its religion. By that logic, we can go ahead and double the number of Assyrian Polytheists, as parts of that traditional ancient culture still persist. Not to mention Roman/Greek Polytheism and Zoroastrianism.

It’s what religion people identify with that counts, not what religion you want to willy-nilly assign to them.
 
Last edited:
Seeing the vast Hindu cultural practices for which Indonesia is renowned
The "vast Hindu cultural practices" are irrelevant. Wayang plays, including Hindu ones like the Ramayana and Mahabharata plays, are completely Islamized in Java. So are virtually all other elements of Hindu culture in Java.

Almost all Indonesian Hindus are Balinese, which skews the demographics because Bali is extremely densely populated.

how outside of Islam most of Indonesia follows the original culture of the Hindu polities
Not sure what you mean, because almost the entirety of Indonesia is either Muslim or was never Hindu.

experts on SE Asia constantly emphasise the vast syncretism of the region
A syncretism dominated by Theravada Buddhism and Islam, respectively.

you see constant mention and appearance of street Brahmans preaching in the streets or selling images of Hindu gods.
Buddhism is not incompatible with Hindu deities.
 
It's no conspiracy.
Yes. It is a conspiracy. You are saying a vast amount of Buddhists, somewhere, somehow, are clogging up the numbers to make it look like there are more Buddhists than actuality.

For one, experts on SE Asia constantly emphasise the vast syncretism of the region. For another, the languages, scripts and cultural practices of SE Asia come predominantly from the Hindu polities that existed. If you read travellers and tourists' accounts of SE Asia and see documentaries like Peter Owen-Jones "Around the world in 80 Faiths" you see constant mention and appearance of street Brahmans preaching in the streets or selling images of Hindu gods. Heck, Hindu temples populate SE Asia even if many are in ruins now, as are many Buddhist temples anyway.
Syncretism is a big deal there, yes. By far the majority of people there are Buddhist, however, and the number of Hindus is accurate. That point means nothing.

Also, your “logic” about the scripts, languages, and cultural practices of the region coming from old Hindu polities (which is mostly true) meaning that there are far more Hindus than we think is ridiculous.

By the same logic, there are far more Roman Polytheists than we think in Europe, 10% even to draw a similarly arbitrary number as you did. Wow, I didn’t know those pesky Christians were suppressing the Roman Polytheists like that! After all, look around. The languages are derived from (gasp) Latin scripts! And the cultural practices can be traced back to Rome.

Oh, and the point about the constant mention of Brahmins in this one certain book and Hindu practices seem by tourists is completely anecdotal, not to mention irrelevant. Hindus can be seen and prominent without having a large number, just like many religions across the world, and of course there are majority-minority-religion provinces as in most countries with a varied religious history. But the numbers are still accurate, and you have put no proof forth to the contrary other than anecdotal and irrelevant “evidence” and the “because I said so” argument.

Also, the phenomenon of sectarian inflation is not an unique one. It occurs in Lebanon where Maronites continue to claim Christians make half the population when in fact it may be as low just 25% at this point, as well as in Latin America and China, where Protestant missionaries inflate the number of Protestants that there actually are.
So... the only recorded circumstances of what you’re saying about Buddhists doing actually happening is by minority religions who are under at least some danger of persecution by the majority? Huh. You know, going by actual trends shown by these, it seems there may be less Hindus than the numbers show, but under no circumstance more. The SE Asian Buddhists are a majority religion obviously, and would have no reason to do this going by the given examples in the modern world. Hindus, however would. (Not that I believe that Hindus are bumping their numbers, I’m just showing how ridiculous your argument really is if this is the evidence and precedent for it.)

I have given actual graphs and charts and numbers in this argument, as well as historical arguments based in trends and modern day parallels. This is not to mention actually doing math and crunching numbers and finding your points completely false and numbers completely arbitrary. You have made an unsubstantiated claim, still have not substantiated it, and have instead fallen on anecdotal and irreleveant points to try to prop up the collapsing house of your claim with balsa sticks.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hinduism is still very widespread in Southeast Asia. I suspect that Buddhist sectarians are in fact inflating the number of Buddhists to hide the large Hindu populations in their midst, a similar tactic used by Western ideologues and Muslim sectarians in Indonesia to overinflate the number of Muslims in such a vastly multi-cultural country. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Hindus is as much as 50% of continental Southeast Asia and as much as 20% in Indonesia.
Keep this up and it will become the most idiotic conspiracy theory that ever resulted in a member being Banned.

For now we'll back up one notch.

Kicked for a week.
 
An insider perspective : Hindus outside of the Indonesian island Of Bali is even rarer than Pandas

And for the scenario, is a isolationist Majapahit that suppress islamic traders possible? That will keep most of Indonesia and Malaysia hindu atleast
 
The key, I think, is keeping the Khmer Empire Hindu. Khmer religious/literary culture greatly influenced that of the conquering Tai people who migrated south in the 12th and 13th centuries, and because the Khmer were Buddhist at the time the Tai-- once they settled down-- began creating Buddhist kingdoms, the predecessors of modern Thailand and Laos. I believe that the Khmer also had a hand in strengthening Buddhism among the Mon of southern Burma, leading the Burmese of north/central Burma to adopt it as well.

As for how to keep the Khmer Hindu, a start may be preventing Jayavarman VII from taking the throne or having him rule with a different philosophy. If you don't have him renounce the old (Hindu) gods and attempt to engineer religious change from above, you will end up with a Khmer state that is heavily influenced by Buddhists and contains a lot of them (a bit like China, maybe) but nevertheless remains recognizably Hindu. As for what kind of Hinduism... Shiva-devotion or Shaivism seems to have been very popular, and continued contact with Shaivist South India will only reinforce that.

And for the scenario, is a isolationist Majapahit that suppress islamic traders possible?

An isolationist archipelago state? Sounds like Japan. But I think Majapahit depended more on trade wealth and naval strength than Japan did so this may not be possible.
 
An isolationist archipelago state? Sounds like Japan. But I think Majapahit depended more on trade wealth and naval strength than Japan did so this may not be possible.
How strong was islam in the region prior to its major expansion in the Indian subcontinent?
 
With any PoD?
Then I'd go for the easy "No Islam" PoD. Prior to the advent of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism competed in the region, both attempting to (and to some extent succeeding in) reinterpreting pre-existing local cults, too, although especially in the highlands, non-Hindu indigenous practices widely persisted.
Without Islam, of course some other kind of missionary religion could arise. But it doesn't have to. If it doesn't, then Hindu influences will be major in South-East Asia, alongside Buddhism and (other) Chinese influences.
 
With any PoD?
Then I'd go for the easy "No Islam" PoD. Prior to the advent of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism competed in the region, both attempting to (and to some extent succeeding in) reinterpreting pre-existing local cults, too, although especially in the highlands, non-Hindu indigenous practices widely persisted.
Without Islam, of course some other kind of missionary religion could arise. But it doesn't have to. If it doesn't, then Hindu influences will be major in South-East Asia, alongside Buddhism and (other) Chinese influences.
Or you could just prevent Islam from making inroads there.
 
Top