Buddhism as world's largest religion?

In short, the only thing that is an artifact of Enlightenment thought is the notion of Buddhism as being any one thing. It is many things, ranging from philosophy, to spirituality, metaphysics, philosophy, law, guides to governance, economics (look up the now deceased King Bhumibol of Thailand and you will see some interesting things) and now as a methodology of language which is assisting neuroscientists in understanding some of the complexities of the mind.

I'm not sure how this makes it substantively different from Christianity, which contains but is not limited to philosophy, spirituality, metaphysics, law, governance, economics, etc. I'm objecting to CountPeter's definition of religion, and his choice to remove Buddhism from it. As an artifact of Enlightenment thought, particularly in the West, we tend to separate the world of religion from the world of government, philosophy, and so on but that isn't how ancient or medieval people saw things, neither in the East or West.
 
I'm not sure how this makes it substantively different from Christianity, which contains but is not limited to philosophy, spirituality, metaphysics, law, governance, economics, etc. I'm objecting to CountPeter's definition of religion, and his choice to remove Buddhism from it. As an artifact of Enlightenment thought, particularly in the West, we tend to separate the world of religion from the world of government, philosophy, and so on but that isn't how ancient or medieval people saw things, neither in the East or West.
Just a quick thing, did you mean someone else when you said "CountPeter's definition?" Because I think you meant something else :p

I suppose the best example of how different Christianity and Buddhism are (bare with me, I woke up literally 2 minutes ago so apologies for rambling) and would be stoicism or pythagoreanism. Whilst Christianity did have philosophy stem from it, it could exist in a philosophical "null state" where somebody doesn't hold a particular view whilst being a good Christian.
Buddhism however like Stoicism began and behaved very much like a philosophy from the beginning. Until much later for instance, it was only philosophical divides that it shared with rival religions Jainism and Hinduism as opposed to later theology.
It's also important to look at how Buddhist theology stems from its philosophy rather than the other way around. Something like the Trinidadian belief came from an interpretation of scripture which then allowed later theologians to come up with philosophical cal justificatione, whilst Buddhism began with philosophical propositions (e.g.) emptiness and then add theological positions.

Autocorrect is not my freind today.
 
Just a quick thing, did you mean someone else when you said "CountPeter's definition?" Because I think you meant something else :p

Haha yes I meant Admiral Beez, I was not paying attention when I wrote that.

I suppose the best example of how different Christianity and Buddhism are (bare with me, I woke up literally 2 minutes ago so apologies for rambling) and would be stoicism or pythagoreanism. Whilst Christianity did have philosophy stem from it, it could exist in a philosophical "null state" where somebody doesn't hold a particular view whilst being a good Christian.
Buddhism however like Stoicism began and behaved very much like a philosophy from the beginning. Until much later for instance, it was only philosophical divides that it shared with rival religions Jainism and Hinduism as opposed to later theology.
It's also important to look at how Buddhist theology stems from its philosophy rather than the other way around. Something like the Trinidadian belief came from an interpretation of scripture which then allowed later theologians to come up with philosophical cal justificatione, whilst Buddhism began with philosophical propositions (e.g.) emptiness and then add theological positions.

Autocorrect is not my freind today.

I would still question this, given how deeply rooted in Greek metaphysics and philosophy Christianity is; Paul tied them inextricably together before the Gospels were even written. I think declaring it a "null state" philosophically is wrong, and would contend that only much later when Christianity became broad enough to be everything to everyone did it become so. But I worry we're drifting largely off topic now.

Since the OP didn't state an earliest POD, I think a simple "No Islam" timeline with the right butterflies could suffice. The Turkic tribes adopt Buddhism before sweeping over Persia, Russia, and India. Without so foreign a religion, they're able to make Buddhism stick in India in a way they never could with Islam. Without Muslim traders bringing it to Southeast Asia and Indonesia, states there remain largely Hindu or Buddhist but as the latter gains sway and power the balance shifts. In China, stronger patronage for Buddhist temples exists and it becomes more prevalent if not dominant. I'd think with India, Indonesia, Central Asia, and parts of China and Russia under its sway Buddhism would easily have a plurality of the world's population.
 
Since the OP didn't state an earliest POD, I think a simple "No Islam" timeline with the right butterflies could suffice. The Turkic tribes adopt Buddhism before sweeping over Persia, Russia, and India. Without so foreign a religion, they're able to make Buddhism stick in India in a way they never could with Islam. Without Muslim traders bringing it to Southeast Asia and Indonesia, states there remain largely Hindu or Buddhist but as the latter gains sway and power the balance shifts. In China, stronger patronage for Buddhist temples exists and it becomes more prevalent if not dominant. I'd think with India, Indonesia, Central Asia, and parts of China and Russia under its sway Buddhism would easily have a plurality of the world's population.

Nice.

Though Persia may have the problem of Sassanian Zoroastrianism blocking the path of the Turks. Still, the rest of that easily secures a Buddhist majority.
 
Haha yes I meant Admiral Beez, I was not paying attention when I wrote that.



I would still question this, given how deeply rooted in Greek metaphysics and philosophy Christianity is; Paul tied them inextricably together before the Gospels were even written. I think declaring it a "null state" philosophically is wrong, and would contend that only much later when Christianity became broad enough to be everything to everyone did it become so. But I worry we're drifting largely off topic now.
So looking over my post from the morning, there are a few things I would like to... readress (particularly now that I am on a computer and my phone won't incessantly turn "Trinitarian" into "Trinidadian" XD).

So going back to something I stated earlier, Buddhism as a term really isn't that good, being vague enough to cover a tradition that in many ways is larger in both scale and diversity to "Abrahamism" which of course would cover all of the religions that came about from that tradition.
But where we draw the line between the traditions is where I think "Buddhism" is different to "Abrahamic" religions.
So the defining trait from one sect of Abrahamism to another is distinctively theological. Whether it is faith to faith (does Christ fulfill the Messiah prophecy? Was Muhammad the messenger of god?) or internal (was Christ all spirit, all body or some other combination? Should the Quran take precedent or is the life of the prophet the defining way to interpret the Quran?). Buddhism however is almost exclusively divided on points of philosophy. The split with Therevada to Mahayana largely comes about from the degree to which one should or should not follow a specific epistemology or route to the same objective (I.e. do we use Emptiness as an epistemology for discerning practice, reject an epistemology altogether or follow a more traditional line of epistemology), and distinctions like Zen to Vajrayana stem from how effective an anti-intellectual stance (Zen) is versus a fluid identity that is informed by a rigorous understanding of emptiness epistemology put into practice (Vajrayana). Specific theological elements relating to mythologising already stem from a purely philosophical basis (skillful means) but are added past the fact in the same way that Stoics would retailor myths to better fit stoic ideals of the Logos.

Ultimately it is just a reason why personally (to the extent that "Buddhism" makes sense as one thing) I would say that Buddhism is both religion and philosophy in the same manner as Confucianism, Stoicism etc whilst Christianity has always been purely religion with philosophical trends that historically surrounded it.



Back on topic though, I also think the Turk route is a good one. If butterflys still permitted, they could still get to europe through the Rus or Constantinople too.
 
In my opinion the Turkish option seems unlikely. Why would the Turks for no reason find routes to Europe whenever it can easily close to home, invade the Indian subcontinent? Why run west to fight in tougher environments just to spread your religion? Without Islam and then the Abbasid court using Mamluk warrior castes, the Turks would not have migrated to Anatolia or much of the Mid East, that much I feel is assured.
 
In my opinion the Turkish option seems unlikely. Why would the Turks for no reason find routes to Europe whenever it can easily close to home, invade the Indian subcontinent? Why run west to fight in tougher environments just to spread your religion? Without Islam and then the Abbasid court using Mamluk warrior castes, the Turks would not have migrated to Anatolia or much of the Mid East, that much I feel is assured.

Hm. What about successor states to the Sassanids - like, let us say, a more powerful and Persianized Lakhmid kingdom in Mesopotamia, a Sassanid remnant in the Levant, and a Hephthalite kingdom in the east - hiring Buddhist Uyghurs as bodyguards and to fight the Romans? A sort of steppe counterpart to the Varangian Guard.
 
Hm. What about successor states to the Sassanids - like, let us say, a more powerful and Persianized Lakhmid kingdom in Mesopotamia, a Sassanid remnant in the Levant, and a Hephthalite kingdom in the east - hiring Buddhist Uyghurs as bodyguards and to fight the Romans? A sort of steppe counterpart to the Varangian Guard.

That sounds possible, to keep these groups Buddhist would require a sort of inter mixture between this type of Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. Perhaps a particular form of Buddhist sect that develops to consider military prowess or honor codes in battle to be used in attaining enlightenment?
 
That sounds possible, to keep these groups Buddhist would require a sort of inter mixture between this type of Buddhism and Zoroastrianism. Perhaps a particular form of Buddhist sect that develops to consider military prowess or honor codes in battle to be used in attaining enlightenment?
Weren't Sōhei in Sengoku Period of Japan like that? I mean there were actual buddhist monk fighting for a cause that is similar to what you said. At least as I see it
 
Weren't Sōhei in Sengoku Period of Japan like that? I mean there were actual buddhist monk fighting for a cause that is similar to what you said. At least as I see it

I am not sure, Japanese history is quite far from my expertise. However, I seem to recall some sort of group similar in Japan to what I would see.
 
In my opinion the Turkish option seems
In my opinion the Turkish option seems unlikely. Why would the Turks for no reason find routes to Europe whenever it can easily close to home, invade the Indian subcontinent? Why run west to fight in tougher environments just to spread your religion? Without Islam and then the Abbasid court using Mamluk warrior castes, the Turks would not have migrated to Anatolia or much of the Mid East, that much I feel is assured.

unlikely. Why would the Turks for no reason find routes to Europe whenever it can easily close to home, invade the Indian subcontinent? Why run west to fight in tougher environments just to spread your religion? Without Islam and then the Abbasid court using Mamluk warrior castes, the Turks would not have migrated to Anatolia or much of the Mid East, that much I feel is assured.
Disagree. Gokturks were here before Islam; Chasar dominance and Bulgars also didn't have anything to do with islam.
 
In my opinion the Turkish option seems unlikely. Why would the Turks for no reason find routes to Europe whenever it can easily close to home, invade the Indian subcontinent? Why run west to fight in tougher environments just to spread your religion?
I doubt it would be specifically to spread the religion as much as being a natural side effect.
Without Islam and then the Abbasid court using Mamluk warrior castes, the Turks would not have migrated to Anatolia or much of the Mid East, that much I feel is assured.
There could be a whole host of reasons why another empire might have used the Turks similarly. Or you could get somebody like Batu Khan who just really fancies having a go at Europe despite the challenges and wiser council.
 
Disagree. Gokturks were here before Islam; Chasar dominance and Bulgars also didn't have anything to do with islam.

The Gokturks and their various iterations where in Central Asia, similar to other nomadic hordes like the Hepthalites. Where did the Hepthalites expand into? They invaded India primarily and over time became Buddhist/Hindu much like the Turks would in this scenario.
 
The Gokturks and their various iterations where in Central Asia, similar to other nomadic hordes like the Hepthalites. Where did the Hepthalites expand into? They invaded India primarily and over time became Buddhist/Hindu much like the Turks would in this scenario.
Gokturks raided Crimea. Also, Avars and Huns? Pechenegs? The former may not have been turkic, but came from the same region, so little difference.
 
Gokturks raided Crimea. Also, Avars and Huns? Pechenegs? The former may not have been turkic, but came from the same region, so little difference.

Of course. That is not the discussion though. Did the Gokturks in their existence raid into Iraq or Syria? If your argument is that such a nomadic group would migrate to the Pontic steppe and through Georgia arrive in Kurdistan, Zanjan, etc... as the Khazar and far earlier Cimmerians did, then yes. However, the Turks as a whole would still be residing in the areas formerly known as Tocharia and Sogdia, which gives them the option of invading Iran or South Asia, which the later is what attracted the nomadic forces for centuries and would do so too in the future.

Turkish warriors were attracted to Iraq and the splendour of Baghdad by the Abbasid who used them as slaves in high positions. Otherwise, all the Turks would know about Iran is the desert on its east that forbade invasions and travel or its mountain ranges in Mazandran.

Also mind you, most of my argument was around invading and becoming a hegemonic power in the Mid East as the Saljuq would become as an opposing power to the then hegemonic Fatimid power in Egypt.
 
Have Achaemenid Persia keep the Greeks underfoot and later accept Buddhist missionaries from India. Greek Buddhism then spreads across Europe, and so all of Eurasia has Buddhism or Buddhist ideas.



Eh, Buddhism is close enough with its bodhisattvas and arhats and monasteries. :p


A Zoroastrianism that has absorbed aspects of Buddhist belief system? Not a far fetched possibility I say, such as the Zoroastrianism during the Seleucid time frame absorbed cult worship forms of Greek religious practices.

Ahura Mazda would still be the embodied peace keeper of nirvana but alongside Zoroaster we would see the Buddha with the devas taking on aspects of the sutras and such
 
Of course. That is not the discussion though. Did the Gokturks in their existence raid into Iraq or Syria? If your argument is that such a nomadic group would migrate to the Pontic steppe and through Georgia arrive in Kurdistan, Zanjan, etc... as the Khazar and far earlier Cimmerians did, then yes. However, the Turks as a whole would still be residing in the areas formerly known as Tocharia and Sogdia, which gives them the option of invading Iran or South Asia, which the later is what attracted the nomadic forces for centuries and would do so too in the future.

Turkish warriors were attracted to Iraq and the splendour of Baghdad by the Abbasid who used them as slaves in high positions. Otherwise, all the Turks would know about Iran is the desert on its east that forbade invasions and travel or its mountain ranges in Mazandran.

Also mind you, most of my argument was around invading and becoming a hegemonic power in the Mid East as the Saljuq would become as an opposing power to the then hegemonic Fatimid power in Egypt.
Your points are valid.
Yes, the Pontic argument was what I aimed for. Remember how many Caucasian Wars there were between chasars and Arabs.
For a millennium, Turks went on pouring forth from the steppe and into everything from the Balkans to India. Why they would spare Anatolia, Syria and Iran in ALL Non-Abbasid timelines is what I couldn't see.
 
A Zoroastrianism that has absorbed aspects of Buddhist belief system? Not a far fetched possibility I say, such as the Zoroastrianism during the Seleucid time frame absorbed cult worship forms of Greek religious practices.

Ahura Mazda would still be the embodied peace keeper of nirvana but alongside Zoroaster we would see the Buddha with the devas taking on aspects of the sutras and such
Zoroastrianism is so theistically entrenched to have a deity as significant in its theology or as a creator (dualist or otherwise) that I think any syncretism is more likely to lead to another religion, something like Manichaeism which is virtually Zoroastrianism, Christianity and an odd understanding of Buddhism.
 
The idea of a Greek philosopher deciding to translate Buddhist texts and distribute them across the Greek world before the fall of the Diadochi seems like a better way to get a more "pure" form of Buddhism, more close to its original intent in many ways, to permeate the Middle East and thus eventually spread more. While this runs the risk of leaving Buddhism as just one more "elite" philosophy akin to Stoicism or Epicureanism or perhaps some sort of mystery cult, I think that Buddhist ideas have the potential to appeal to the common people as well as the elite to a wider degree than some of the more esoteric greek cults.

As to what most have been saying about steppe peoples, Turkic migrations aren't all that implausible. Once the Turks are established on the steppe, getting them to go to Europe is tricky, but getting them to attack the Middle East is less so. All you need to divert a people from India is a strong Indian state guarding the major mountain passes. If you have that, then climatological and political factors could incite a Turkish migration into the easier pickings of Iran. Once the Turks are established further west, it will then be tougher for them to turn back and expand into India as a unified political actor, so you'll probably get several splintered Turkic groups ruling the Near East and parts of Afghanistan and India.
 
Top