Max Sinister
Banned
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.
Praise the all-mighty Zun!Very true, Afghanistan likely keeps its old religion for a time as well.
Is he a sourc for that? As I’ve read different historical accounts about Buddha and the place he was fromFirst 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
Cheers was aware of the solar and lunar dynasties, but not the other linksAncient 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
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.
Well, with Buddhism, it was also the fact its impact was widespread in China and Southeast Asia.
Aye I first learned about the dynasties when I was a kid and found a book about it in my grandparents houseI 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
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.
As in he unites all of India then expands westward?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 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:
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.
- 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.
I do think he’d need to focus on consolidation of his gains first before moving to take over over placesYou 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
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.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.
If the sun religion becomes permanent, and isn’t replaced with some hybrid worship.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?
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?
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.If the sun religion becomes permanent, and isn’t replaced with some hybrid worship.