Buddha does not become Buddha

So or so, the concept of ending the cycle of reincarnations (keyword: samsara) has been there in Hinduism. Buddha didn't build that, so to speak.
 
First of all, the Shakya Gaṇasangha* is a Republic located in modern day Nepal. Prince Siddartha was never really a Prince except in the sense he was from an aristocratic family and is a descendent of the Solar Line of the Semi-Mythological Hindu Kings descended from the Sun God. His father was an elected Leader. Hinduism as we know it today didn't really exist yet, and the Brahmanic religions were known to the Shakyas, but did not play a significant role in their religion. The traditional Shakya religion was likely more Scythian in nature, possibly mainly Sun Worship. Buddhism wasn't really a direct development of Hinduism the way Christianity was to Judaism. Hinduism was not unified enough as a religion for that to be a possibility, and their influence was minimal in Shakya.

By the time of the Buddha, they were a vassal state to the Kingdom of Kosala, whose Prince (Virudhaka), and later King bore a strong hatred for the Shakya Clan. He would eventually exterminate the entire Clan in the Buddha's lifetime. The causes of which are karmic in nature in Buddhist theology, but in that life, basically, Virudhaka's mother was a slave from Shakya. The Shakya clan elders lied to Virudhaka's father about her status when they married her to him. Therefore, Virudhaka always bore the shame of being a slave's son, and was humiliated even when he visited the Shakya Republic. The Buddha managed to prevent Virudhaka from commencing his massacre three times, but did not ultimately succeed—the story of which is interesting, Virudhaka eventually give up his massacre because an old Shakya man sacrificed himself to save his clansman. This convinced him to give up his hatred, whereas the Buddha could not (Buddhist Theology: 1 of the 3 things a Buddha cannot do is negate karma).

Therefore, had Prince Siddartha remained a Senator in the Shakya Republic, he would have been killed along with the rest of his clan.

Some other Sramanic** Religion, like Jainism for example, would probably become much more prominent and take Buddhism's place. That is, if we ignore the theological necessity of the Buddha being the only one who could have made such a tremendous difference in India.

*Republic. Government of Equals.
**Ancient Indian Religions came in two general streams. Brahmins and Sramana. Brahmins would be how we conceive of a traditional priest or learned man of the Brahmin class. Sramana would be more along the lines of wandering mendicants, such as Christian Desert Fathers, Yogis, Jains, and Buddhist Monks. Buddhism is therefore a Sramanic Tradition.
 
First of all, the Shakya Gaṇasangha* is a Republic located in modern day Nepal. Prince Siddartha was never really a Prince except in the sense he was from an aristocratic family and is a descendent of the Solar Line of the Semi-Mythological Hindu Kings descended from the Sun God. His father was an elected Leader. Hinduism as we know it today didn't really exist yet, and the Brahmanic religions were known to the Shakyas, but did not play a significant role in their religion. The traditional Shakya religion was likely more Scythian in nature, possibly mainly Sun Worship. Buddhism wasn't really a direct development of Hinduism the way Christianity was to Judaism. Hinduism was not unified enough as a religion for that to be a possibility, and their influence was minimal in Shakya.

By the time of the Buddha, they were a vassal state to the Kingdom of Kosala, whose Prince (Virudhaka), and later King bore a strong hatred for the Shakya Clan. He would eventually exterminate the entire Clan in the Buddha's lifetime. The causes of which are karmic in nature in Buddhist theology, but in that life, basically, Virudhaka's mother was a slave from Shakya. The Shakya clan elders lied to Virudhaka's father about her status when they married her to him. Therefore, Virudhaka always bore the shame of being a slave's son, and was humiliated even when he visited the Shakya Republic. The Buddha managed to prevent Virudhaka from commencing his massacre three times, but did not ultimately succeed—the story of which is interesting, Virudhaka eventually give up his massacre because an old Shakya man sacrificed himself to save his clansman. This convinced him to give up his hatred, whereas the Buddha could not (Buddhist Theology: 1 of the 3 things a Buddha cannot do is negate karma).

Therefore, had Prince Siddartha remained a Senator in the Shakya Republic, he would have been killed along with the rest of his clan.

Some other Sramanic** Religion, like Jainism for example, would probably become much more prominent and take Buddhism's place. That is, if we ignore the theological necessity of the Buddha being the only one who could have made such a tremendous difference in India.

*Republic. Government of Equals.
**Ancient Indian Religions came in two general streams. Brahmins and Sramana. Brahmins would be how we conceive of a traditional priest or learned man of the Brahmin class. Sramana would be more along the lines of wandering mendicants, such as Christian Desert Fathers, Yogis, Jains, and Buddhist Monks. Buddhism is therefore a Sramanic Tradition.
Is he a sourc for that? As I’ve read different historical accounts about Buddha and the place he was from
 
Is he a sourc for that? As I’ve read different historical accounts about Buddha and the place he was from

Ancient Indian Republics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaṇa_sangha

The Solar Dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suryavansha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikshvaku_dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raghuvanshi

The Lunar Dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_dynasty

First King of the World, distant Ancestor of the Shakya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maha_Sammata

King Virudhaka of the Kingdom of Kosala
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virudhaka

Sramanic Traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śramaṇa
 
Cheers was aware of the solar and lunar dynasties, but not the other links

I was actually first made aware of the two dynasties by reading Jaya: An Illustrated Retelling of the Mahabharata. A great book for anyone interested in Hinduism. It came as a surprise when awhile later, a familiar name jumped out at me when reading about Buddhism. And that's how I realized the greater puzzle that the Shakyas fit into.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9864913-jaya
 
First of all, the Shakya Gaṇasangha* is a Republic located in modern day Nepal. Prince Siddartha was never really a Prince except in the sense he was from an aristocratic family and is a descendent of the Solar Line of the Semi-Mythological Hindu Kings descended from the Sun God. His father was an elected Leader. Hinduism as we know it today didn't really exist yet, and the Brahmanic religions were known to the Shakyas, but did not play a significant role in their religion. The traditional Shakya religion was likely more Scythian in nature, possibly mainly Sun Worship. Buddhism wasn't really a direct development of Hinduism the way Christianity was to Judaism. Hinduism was not unified enough as a religion for that to be a possibility, and their influence was minimal in Shakya.

By the time of the Buddha, they were a vassal state to the Kingdom of Kosala, whose Prince (Virudhaka), and later King bore a strong hatred for the Shakya Clan. He would eventually exterminate the entire Clan in the Buddha's lifetime. The causes of which are karmic in nature in Buddhist theology, but in that life, basically, Virudhaka's mother was a slave from Shakya. The Shakya clan elders lied to Virudhaka's father about her status when they married her to him. Therefore, Virudhaka always bore the shame of being a slave's son, and was humiliated even when he visited the Shakya Republic. The Buddha managed to prevent Virudhaka from commencing his massacre three times, but did not ultimately succeed—the story of which is interesting, Virudhaka eventually give up his massacre because an old Shakya man sacrificed himself to save his clansman. This convinced him to give up his hatred, whereas the Buddha could not (Buddhist Theology: 1 of the 3 things a Buddha cannot do is negate karma).

Therefore, had Prince Siddartha remained a Senator in the Shakya Republic, he would have been killed along with the rest of his clan.

Some other Sramanic** Religion, like Jainism for example, would probably become much more prominent and take Buddhism's place. That is, if we ignore the theological necessity of the Buddha being the only one who could have made such a tremendous difference in India.

*Republic. Government of Equals.
**Ancient Indian Religions came in two general streams. Brahmins and Sramana. Brahmins would be how we conceive of a traditional priest or learned man of the Brahmin class. Sramana would be more along the lines of wandering mendicants, such as Christian Desert Fathers, Yogis, Jains, and Buddhist Monks. Buddhism is therefore a Sramanic Tradition.

This is very fascinating indeed. I suppose what gives the Buddha more of a presence compared to others was the supposed prophecy if he did become a power and great king. So while conventionally , Siddharta might have been slaughters by them, it would be interesting to fiollow the prophetic route. Have him survive the outcome and perhaps swsore vengeance by rusing from the ashes.

Well, with Buddhism, it was also the fact its impact was widespread in China and Southeast Asia.
 
Well, with Buddhism, it was also the fact its impact was widespread in China and Southeast Asia.

And in the Indo-Greek Kingdoms, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and in Egypt and Rome as well. Ashoka the Great really tried very hard to push Buddhism everywhere. We can expect Christianity to be very different if Buddhism was absent and without a similar replacement.

The Tang Dynasty, a predominantly Buddhist Empire, also maintained satellite colonies in the Middle-Eastern territories up until the rise of Islam.
 
I was actually first made aware of the two dynasties by reading Jaya: An Illustrated Retelling of the Mahabharata. A great book for anyone interested in Hinduism. It came as a surprise when awhile later, a familiar name jumped out at me when reading about Buddhism. And that's how I realized the greater puzzle that the Shakyas fit into.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9864913-jaya
Aye I first learned about the dynasties when I was a kid and found a book about it in my grandparents house
 
And in the Indo-Greek Kingdoms, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and in Egypt and Rome as well. Ashoka the Great really tried very hard to push Buddhism everywhere. We can expect Christianity to be very different if Buddhism was absent and without a similar replacement.

The Tang Dynasty, a predominantly Buddhist Empire, also maintained satellite colonies in the Middle-Eastern territories up until the rise of Islam.

I am wondering what different religions could've rose up. Would be too much to wonder if Siddharta became India's Alexander? I am wondering how that could affect Iran and Zoroasterianism as well.
 
I am wondering what different religions could've rose up. Would be too much to wonder if Siddharta became India's Alexander? I am wondering how that could affect Iran and Zoroasterianism as well.
As in he unites all of India then expands westward?
 
I suppose what gives the Buddha more of a presence compared to others was the supposed prophecy if he did become a power and great king.

A Siddartha who actually becomes the Greatest Emperor of India ever huh? China at this time would be in the Spring & Autumn, and then the Warring States Period. He could conquer a divided China and then start building a global empire.

Theology Stuff:

The Chakaravartins shares the same physical characteristic and karmic potential as Buddhas. But they were meant to be "World Monarchs" rather than "World Teachers". According to the Sage Asita, Siddartha was born to be capable of either destinies, but (in Buddhist theolog), his own vows in prior lifetimes was destined to compel him to chose the path of a Buddha. Whilst used to refer to historical Kings, the title is also used to refer to prehistoric kings who ruled all four continents around Mount Meru (the four human worlds), and to the far future King in the time of Maitreya (who was the son of that King's Prime Minister).

From the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia:
  • Cakravala Cakravartin: a ruler over all four continents postulated in ancient Indian cosmography
  • Dvipa Cakravartin: a ruler over only one of four continents
  • Pradesa Cakravartin: a ruler over only part of a continent.
Suffice to say, in our modern world, we know of no ruler who can be said to rule the entire world, let alone these other "continents" inhabited by humans (but in cosmology, they're very different to us, different lifespan, different culture) who we have yet to discover.
 
A Siddartha who actually becomes the Greatest Emperor of India ever huh? China at this time would be in the Spring & Autumn, and then the Warring States Period. He could conquer a divided China and then start building a global empire.

Theology Stuff:

The Chakaravartins shares the same physical characteristic and karmic potential as Buddhas. But they were meant to be "World Monarchs" rather than "World Teachers". According to the Sage Asita, Siddartha was born to be capable of either destinies, but (in Buddhist theolog), his own vows in prior lifetimes was destined to compel him to chose the path of a Buddha. Whilst used to refer to historical Kings, the title is also used to refer to prehistoric kings who ruled all four continents around Mount Meru (the four human worlds), and to the far future King in the time of Maitreya (who was the son of that King's Prime Minister).

From the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia:
  • Cakravala Cakravartin: a ruler over all four continents postulated in ancient Indian cosmography
  • Dvipa Cakravartin: a ruler over only one of four continents
  • Pradesa Cakravartin: a ruler over only part of a continent.
Suffice to say, in our modern world, we know of no ruler who can be said to rule the entire world, let alone these other "continents" inhabited by humans (but in cosmology, they're very different to us, different lifespan, different culture) who we have yet to discover.

You are a very smart person and I appreciate loads of that. If not necessarily the greatest Emperor, then well a very renown one.

So Emperor Siddharta would go after divided China after uniting India then? Well, Achaemenid Empire would probably still be a big influence on India, especially if they saw the young upstart Siddharta as a potential threat.
 
You are a very smart person and I appreciate loads of that. If not necessarily the greatest Emperor, then well a very renown one.

So Emperor Siddharta would go after divided China after uniting India then? Well, Achaemenid Empire would probably still be a big influence on India, especially if they saw the young upstart Siddharta as a potential threat.
I do think he’d need to focus on consolidation of his gains first before moving to take over over places
 
I do think he’d need to focus on consolidation of his gains first before moving to take over over places

And assuming no supernatural lifespan, I foresee Rahula being required for carrying out the second half of his conquests.

But I think we're all missing a big detail: Siddartha was a philosopher by inclination (ridiculously talented warrior too if the stories are true), so, assuming he was a Philosopher King, he would have to be able to justify any conquests to himself in the context of ethics and ancient Indian principles like Just War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma-yuddha

Divided China? Sure.

But the Persian Empire was pretty cosmopolitan, no? Their Kings couldn't even be said to be bad. Unless Siddartha acted in self defence against Persian interference.
 
And assuming no supernatural lifespan, I foresee Rahula being required for carrying out the second half of his conquests.

But I think we're all missing a big detail: Siddartha was a philosopher by inclination (ridiculously talented warrior too if the stories are true), so, assuming he was a Philosopher King, he would have to be able to justify any conquests to himself in the context of ethics and ancient Indian principles like Just War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma-yuddha

Divided China? Sure.

But the Persian Empire was pretty cosmopolitan, no? Their Kings couldn't even be said to be bad. Unless Siddartha acted in self defence against Persian interference.

That's kinda what I meant. I figured any challenges to Persia would be because of self-defense. Iran was doing very well at the time so seeing a young upstart empire as such could be dentrimental to their assets.

So Rahula would be forced to do the second-hald, which is what? Actually pursuing China or finishin unifying India under the Sharya reformed sun religion? Or both?
 
And assuming no supernatural lifespan, I foresee Rahula being required for carrying out the second half of his conquests.

But I think we're all missing a big detail: Siddartha was a philosopher by inclination (ridiculously talented warrior too if the stories are true), so, assuming he was a Philosopher King, he would have to be able to justify any conquests to himself in the context of ethics and ancient Indian principles like Just War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma-yuddha

Divided China? Sure.

But the Persian Empire was pretty cosmopolitan, no? Their Kings couldn't even be said to be bad. Unless Siddartha acted in self defence against Persian interference.
Indeed Rahula should he exist here and not be replaced by someone else would need to either so,Isiah his fathers gains or make more of them.
 
That's kinda what I meant. I figured any challenges to Persia would be because of self-defense. Iran was doing very well at the time so seeing a young upstart empire as such could be dentrimental to their assets.

So Rahula would be forced to do the second-hald, which is what? Actually pursuing China or finishin unifying India under the Sharya reformed sun religion? Or both?
If the sun religion becomes permanent, and isn’t replaced with some hybrid worship.
 
So Rahula would be forced to do the second-hald, which is what? Actually pursuing China or finishin unifying India under the Sharya reformed sun religion? Or both?

Alexander's Conquests, although swift, relied on a solid foundation in the League of Corinth. It depends on what Siddhartha can do. Unifying India seems like a difficult task unto itself— Siddhartha may have to play the Philip to Rahula's Alexander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Corinth

However, the Shakya can easily extend their Ganasangha to a Confederation. Defeating enemy rulers, then admitting them into a government of equals with Siddhartha himself as a "Great Elect" (stole the title from his own ancestor, Maha-Sammata, who was also elected to rule the entire world, according to Buddhist cosmology).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maha_Sammata

It would be incredibly funny if "Sangha" in TTL meant "United States" rather than "Monastic Order". In OTL, the Buddha modeled the Monastic Orders after the Senates of the Indian Republics, thus why they bore the same name.

If the sun religion becomes permanent, and isn’t replaced with some hybrid worship.
Given India's syncretic and multicultural nature, I doubt anything as simple as Sun worship would stick around for long without innumerable layers of new religions slapped on top. That time period was rife with complex new schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_philosophy

ADDENDUM: So what if the Shakya Empire became something like an Elected Monarchy? With only the descendants of Siddartha being eligible for "Great Elect"ship, and all of the defeated independent rulers are now "Elector-Princes" who have the right to vote for their overlord, but only from the pool of the appropriate bloodline? Seems considerably more stable than what happened with the Diadochi after Alexander's death.
 
Last edited:
Top