Buddhist India

How could Buddhism dominate the land of its birth, and what would be the repercussions of this? (For an added bonus, develop a esoteric version of it that could compete with Tibetan level (I think its called diamond something) mysticism.)
 
Historically, Hinduism has been pretty much impossible to uproot, I'm not sure that any PoD could manage to change that without butterflying Buddhism.
 
Maybe it is absorbed into a local variety of Buddhism like a lot of the other branches instead of being seen as a creation of the most recent avatar of Vishnu and mostly swept under the rug. (I think Jesus is supposed to be an avatar of somebody too, according to something I heard a long time ago)
 
(I think Jesus is supposed to be an avatar of somebody too, according to something I heard a long time ago)

Of Vishnu as well, probably. In fact, Jesus would make a great avatara: a supreme deity descended to Earth as a mortal to restore the moral order of the universe.
 
I think a more viable goal, perhaps, would to have Buddhism be a strong, perhaps even majority, religion in part of what is today India.

Without Hinduism, speaking of India really ceases to make sense, because it is one of the chief elements of the Indian national identity. An idea I juggled a bit with a long time ago - before running headfirst into the problem of not being able to find proper material - was to have the change be around the collapse of the Maurya empire. With a reasonably strong successor state, it might be possible to have a form of (even more) syncretized blend of Buddhism and unorthodox Hinduism become the state religion there, thus forming the foundation of what might later become a north-Indian culture.

...I'll see if I can find my thread; I received some excellent pointers there that you might appreciate.

Ah, yes, here it is.
 
Historically, Hinduism has been pretty much impossible to uproot, I'm not sure that any PoD could manage to change that without butterflying Buddhism.

Hinduism can easily coexist with Buddhism- this was the case in pre-Islamic SE Asia and in India itself, in parts into the CE. You get a situation much like that between Taoism and Buddhism in China.

What happened IOTL was that once Buddhism fell out of favour with the royal courts, Hinduism aggressively struck back. There are still some traces of this- in Kerala where my family comes from, for example, a lot of the vocabulary associated with the Syrian christian church is directly taken from Buddhist clerical organisation (the Church councils are called 'Sangha' for example) and it has been speculated that a number of early Christian converts were converts from Buddhism looking for a more accepted religion to escape persecution.
 
Hinduism can easily coexist with Buddhism- this was the case in pre-Islamic SE Asia and in India itself, in parts into the CE. You get a situation much like that between Taoism and Buddhism in China.

What happened IOTL was that once Buddhism fell out of favour with the royal courts, Hinduism aggressively struck back. There are still some traces of this- in Kerala where my family comes from, for example, a lot of the vocabulary associated with the Syrian christian church is directly taken from Buddhist clerical organisation (the Church councils are called 'Sangha' for example) and it has been speculated that a number of early Christian converts were converts from Buddhism looking for a more accepted religion to escape persecution.

In fact, weren't the areas of India that became predominantly Muslim once predominantly Buddhist?
 
In fact, weren't the areas of India that became predominantly Muslim once predominantly Buddhist?

Basically what happened was that Buddhism and Hinduism coexisted alongside each other and both were given patronage by the rulers irrespective of whether the Indian ruler was Buddhist or Hindu basically on even terms mostly. The problem was by the time of the arab/persian conquests of North India the traditional empires that had given patronage to buddhism had collapsed due to the numerous wars fought between the major indian nations against the nomadic tribes, each other and so forth. Therefore when the arabic armies invaded, because the buddhist kingdoms had weakened they were unable to defend themselves effectively against the arab armies. This caused Buddhism to weaken even more and with the burning of the major Buddhist centers such as nelanda the scholars of buddhism and teachers who had the potential to become reformers or powerful speakers fell because the vast majority of major Buddhist sanghas and places of learning were destroyed over a period of time by rival kingdoms, nomadic incursions, and the arabc/persion incursions.

On the other hand because Hinduism was less concentrated and was broken among the various cultures and ethnicities and tribes of india it was able to hold together and more of its scholars than the Buddhists were able to survive. Over time the new states in north and central India set up by middle easterners soon became more tolerant and you had the Islamic society at least in laymen terms coexisting with the fellow religions with some rulers from the different religions causing trouble to one group or another at some time or the other but not in general. But the damage had been done. Hinduism managed to survive because it responded to the invasions by revising its principles through puranas, bhajans, and so forth because it had more scholars by the 11th century who realized traditional ritualistic practice was not that effective in preserving their religion. Because it moved from emphasis on rituals to devotional worship it became more identifiable with the local groups and tribes and princedoms that encompassed India. Therefore Buddhism lost ground here as well.

With their intellectual base extinguished and few if any teachers remaining and Hindu philosophies that adopted many Buddhist ideas as well as foreign incursion caused Buddhism to gradually dissapear from the indian subcontinent. Therefore objectively speaking Buddhism dispersed not due to only one factor but a multitude of factors that hit it immediately at the same time from multiple sides that caused it to collapse.

Therefore for Buddhists to survive you need any of the indian empires at minimum to develop the capabilities to successfully repel foreign incursions or at the very least project enough power to protect the various buddhist intellectual centers. Otherwise if history proceeds as otl buddhism has little chance of surviving. Otherwise if such a thing could happen then at the same time hinduism adapts buddhism would too and you would have a peaceful balanced state of affairs that would develop in india. Therefore buddhism would at least be a plurality aka a strong minority or even rival hinduism akin to as described above beetween the relationship of buddhism and daosim though a more apt comparison would be between Japanese shintoism and Buddhism which coexisted with each other in Japan.
 
Buddhism dominating India is not too difficult to conceive, because it actually happened in history. In fact when Ashoka adopted Buddhism, it might have become the majority religion in Mauryan Empire which covered almost the whole of the subcontinent and beyond. Of course, the Brahmins resented their loss of influence and one of the reasons for the fall of the Mauryan Empire was the Brahmin revolt. The Mauryan Empire established by one brahmin, Chanakya was terminated by another brahmin, Pushyamitra Sunga, who was the commander-in-chief of the Mauryan Imperial Army. Ashoka, though he propagated Buddhism did not suppress or discourage Hinduism. Many emperors like Harsha Vardhan encouraged both religions. In fact Hinduism in its modern form did not exist at that time. Vaishnavism and Shaivism were rival faiths who considered Vishnu and Shiva as their supreme deities. Both sects while fighting Buddhism and Jainism also fought each other.
Later Vaishnavism and Shaivism joined together making Vishnu and Shiva as equal members of the Trinity. Brahma was added as the third member but with less power. Other sects like the Shaktheyas also joined. Buddha was proclaimed as an avatar (incarnation) of Vishnu and many practices of Buddhism were adopted into Hinduism. The Gupta Empire formed in the fourth century promoted Hinduism. The Gupta period, known as the Golden Age of Ancient India also saw the decline of Buddhism.
Later in the nineth century, it was Shankaracharya who adopted many Buddhist principles and propagated Adwaita philosophy who re-established the supremacy of Hinduism. For this, he borrowed Adwaita, which was originally devised by Buddha and established it as the foremost philosophical principle of Hinduism. He adopted the Sangha structure of Buddhism and established four monasteries at the four corners of India, Badrinath in the north, Puri in the east, Sringeri in the south, Dwarka in the west. In short by adopting the philosophy of Buddhism and the organisation of Buddhism, he banished Buddhism from its land of birth. That's why Shankaracharya is called "Prachchanna Buddha" (Buddha in disguise).
If Ashoka, instead of being tolerant, had made Buddhism the sole state religion and banished other faiths, India might have remained Buddhist for future. If a Buddhist Mauryan Empire had lasted for a few centuries, India too would have become Buddhist like SriLanka, Thailand or Burma.
 
Basically what happened was that Buddhism and Hinduism coexisted alongside each other and both were given patronage by the rulers irrespective of whether the Indian ruler was Buddhist or Hindu basically on even terms mostly. The problem was by the time of the arab/persian conquests of North India the traditional empires that had given patronage to buddhism had collapsed due to the numerous wars fought between the major indian nations against the nomadic tribes, each other and so forth. Therefore when the arabic armies invaded, because the buddhist kingdoms had weakened they were unable to defend themselves effectively against the arab armies. This caused Buddhism to weaken even more and with the burning of the major Buddhist centers such as nelanda the scholars of buddhism and teachers who had the potential to become reformers or powerful speakers fell because the vast majority of major Buddhist sanghas and places of learning were destroyed over a period of time by rival kingdoms, nomadic incursions, and the arabc/persion incursions.

On the other hand because Hinduism was less concentrated and was broken among the various cultures and ethnicities and tribes of india it was able to hold together and more of its scholars than the Buddhists were able to survive. Over time the new states in north and central India set up by middle easterners soon became more tolerant and you had the Islamic society at least in laymen terms coexisting with the fellow religions with some rulers from the different religions causing trouble to one group or another at some time or the other but not in general. But the damage had been done. Hinduism managed to survive because it responded to the invasions by revising its principles through puranas, bhajans, and so forth because it had more scholars by the 11th century who realized traditional ritualistic practice was not that effective in preserving their religion. Because it moved from emphasis on rituals to devotional worship it became more identifiable with the local groups and tribes and princedoms that encompassed India. Therefore Buddhism lost ground here as well.

With their intellectual base extinguished and few if any teachers remaining and Hindu philosophies that adopted many Buddhist ideas as well as foreign incursion caused Buddhism to gradually dissapear from the indian subcontinent. Therefore objectively speaking Buddhism dispersed not due to only one factor but a multitude of factors that hit it immediately at the same time from multiple sides that caused it to collapse.

Therefore for Buddhists to survive you need any of the indian empires at minimum to develop the capabilities to successfully repel foreign incursions or at the very least project enough power to protect the various buddhist intellectual centers. Otherwise if history proceeds as otl buddhism has little chance of surviving. Otherwise if such a thing could happen then at the same time hinduism adapts buddhism would too and you would have a peaceful balanced state of affairs that would develop in india. Therefore buddhism would at least be a plurality aka a strong minority or even rival hinduism akin to as described above beetween the relationship of buddhism and daosim though a more apt comparison would be between Japanese shintoism and Buddhism which coexisted with each other in Japan.

This is actually a rather good summary imo. Buddhism was much more dependent on state support and stable societies than Hinduism which always had its folk religion roots.
 
If Ashoka, instead of being tolerant, had made Buddhism the sole state religion and banished other faiths, India might have remained Buddhist for future. If a Buddhist Mauryan Empire had lasted for a few centuries, India too would have become Buddhist like SriLanka, Thailand or Burma.

This, however, begs the question of just how in the name of credulity he'd manage to do so.

Breaking enemy armies is one thing, but facing down constant large-scale revolts and broad insubordination is another, and I'm fairly certain that would be the least of consequences if Ashoka had tried to outlaw the beliefs of the majority of the people in his lands.
 
This, however, begs the question of just how in the name of credulity he'd manage to do so.

Breaking enemy armies is one thing, but facing down constant large-scale revolts and broad insubordination is another, and I'm fairly certain that would be the least of consequences if Ashoka had tried to outlaw the beliefs of the majority of the people in his lands.

The Romans managed it, didn't they?
 

elkarlo

Banned
This is actually a rather good summary imo. Buddhism was much more dependent on state support and stable societies than Hinduism which always had its folk religion roots.

Didn't know all that. I wondered by Buddhism all but died out in India
 
The Romans managed it, didn't they?

Managed what? They managed to fail utterly in restricting the spread of Christianity...

Therefore for Buddhists to survive you need any of the indian empires at minimum to develop the capabilities to successfully repel foreign incursions or at the very least project enough power to protect the various buddhist intellectual centers. Otherwise if history proceeds as otl buddhism has little chance of surviving. Otherwise if such a thing could happen then at the same time hinduism adapts buddhism would too and you would have a peaceful balanced state of affairs that would develop in india. Therefore buddhism would at least be a plurality aka a strong minority or even rival hinduism akin to as described above beetween the relationship of buddhism and daosim though a more apt comparison would be between Japanese shintoism and Buddhism which coexisted with each other in Japan.

It seems like it would be easier for Buddhism to develop a more geographically diverse support base than to reduce or eliminate the danger of internal warfare or external invasion destroying its intellectual and public foundations rather than, say, creating an ATL Indian Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries capable of repelling the Muslims. This also seems like it would have the advantage of allowing a broader range of responses to the challenges you pointed out, increasing the likelihood of finding, if not an acceptable pan-Indian response than at least a regionally popular adaptation of the fundamental beliefs.
 
Managed what? They managed to fail utterly in restricting the spread of Christianity...



It seems like it would be easier for Buddhism to develop a more geographically diverse support base than to reduce or eliminate the danger of internal warfare or external invasion destroying its intellectual and public foundations rather than, say, creating an ATL Indian Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries capable of repelling the Muslims. This also seems like it would have the advantage of allowing a broader range of responses to the challenges you pointed out, increasing the likelihood of finding, if not an acceptable pan-Indian response than at least a regionally popular adaptation of the fundamental beliefs.
yes that could work. problem is how to develop that geographic base. Perhaps building of more sanghas across india and more acceptance of different interpretation of the Buddhist scriptures by various monks?
 
Didn't know all that. I wondered by Buddhism all but died out in India

Yup- Buddhism depended on an intact network of monks and monasteries. Basically how things worked were that the people would still have their own local and regional religious beliefs (what we would call Hinduism) and in conjunction with that would follow Buddhist beliefs and practices as well. Think about how the modern Japanese follow both Shinto (for daily and life events) and Buddhist rituals (for bigger events like weddings and death) concurrently. When secular powers stopped patronising Buddhism (for various reasons, for example, a rise in power of Brahmin castes or a disintegration of the state structure which had supported the sangha with successor states distancing themselves from previous policy) the Buddhist organisation suffered in a way that Hinduism was relatively immune to.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Wow thank you. I saw that in Japan. Also during the 30s on the govt pushed Shintoism over Buddhism. Without sponsor ship it suffered. Though in Japan the 2 were often blended but separate somehow. An odd dynamic
 
Top