Hinduism spreads further than in OTL

In OTL, india spread pretty far, except, what if Hinduism had spread much further? What if many southeast asian hindu kingdoms never converted to Buddhism? Perhaps a Hindu noble in India could convert a major power to Hinduism through a meeting with one of their leaders....
 
In OTL, india spread pretty far, except, what if Hinduism had spread much further? What if many southeast asian hindu kingdoms never converted to Buddhism? Perhaps a Hindu noble in India could convert a major power to Hinduism through a meeting with one of their leaders....
Hinduism was pretty major in Champs and Indonesia before Islam replaced it
 
Hinduism definitely spread to Iran,Mesopotamia,Indonesia and may have made to the Caucasus and East Africa. You will run into a problem with the emergence of Islam,Christianity and Buddhism. Plus Zoroastrianism is a big rival of Hinduism in it's own right. And Buddhism emerged because of problems with the caste system and extreme asceticism. More than likely the Hinduism found in far off places like the Caucasus or East Africa would be Folk Hinduism, adapted to the local traditions and environment. You'll also need strong leaders who won't feel the need to convert and can defend Hinduism against invaders.
 
There is an old Indian temple in Greco-Roman occupied Egypt

"Among the unexpected discoveries at Berenike were a range of ancient Indian goods, including the largest single concentration (7.55 kg) of black peppercorns ever recovered in the classical Mediterranean world (“imported from southern India” and found inside a large vessel made of Nile silt in a temple courtyard); substantial quantities of Indian-made fine ware and kitchen cooking ware and Indian style pottery; Indian-made sail cloth, basketry, matting, etc. from trash dumps; a large quantity of teak wood, black pepper, coconuts, beads made of precious and semi-precious stones, cameo blanks; “a Tamil Brahmi graffito mentioning Korra, a South Indian chieftain”; evidence that “inhabitants from Tamil South India (which then included most of Kerala) were living in Berenike, at least in the early Roman period”; evidence that the Tamil population implied the probable presence of Buddhist worshippers; evidence of Indians at another Roman port 300 km north of Berenike; Indian-made ceramics on the Nile road; a rock inscription mentioning an Indian passing through en route; “abundant evidence for the use of ships built and rigged in India”; and proof “that teak wood (endemic to South India), found in buildings in Berenike, had clearly been reused”(from dismantled ships)

Its Buddhist but there is plasticity between Buddhism and "Hinduism" which really is a rather modern umbrella term that is quite vague it what it encompasses. I don't with all the castes and groups worshipping on the Indian subcontinent would perceive their faiths being the same.
 
Last edited:
There is an old Indian temple in Greco-Roman occupied Egypt



Its Buddhist but there is plasticity between Buddhism and "Hinduism" which really is a rather modern umbrella term that is quite vague it what it encompasses. I don't with all the castes and groups worshipping on the Indian subcontinent would perceive their faiths being the same.
Very interesting but your quote doesn't really show it spread there, more that there was an important mercant community (masting, commercial goods...)
 
Hinduism definitely spread to Iran,Mesopotamia,Indonesia

Lolwut?

Iran was Zoroastrian, and Zoroastrianism was almost an anti-Hinduism in that it believed the Devas (the Hindu gods) were demons and the Asuras (demons in Hinduism) were a singular God (known as Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism).
 
Lolwut?

Iran was Zoroastrian, and Zoroastrianism was almost an anti-Hinduism in that it believed the Devas (the Hindu gods) were demons and the Asuras (demons in Hinduism) were a singular God (known as Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism).

Pre-Islam Persia was mostly Zoroastrian. They still had religious minorities, one of which includes Hindu worshipers.

As for your best shot? Have a united Hindu India(This likely means no Mauyran Dynasty or atleast Ashoka doesn't embrace Buddhism) and preclude the rise of Islam; this means that Hinduism in South East Asia and western India doesn't get supplanted by Islam. A strong Hindu India could send out missionaries in a manner similar to Ashoka did with Buddhism. Traces of Hinduism can be found all over the world; in East Africa thanks to the Indian Sea Trade Routes, in Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia and South East Asia. The regions it is most likely to become the dominant religion for are South East Asia and perhaps parts of Central Asia which before Islam was dominated by Zoroastrianism and Folk Religion.
 
As for your best shot? Have a united Hindu India(This likely means no Mauyran Dynasty or atleast Ashoka doesn't embrace Buddhism) and preclude the rise of Islam; this means that Hinduism in South East Asia and western India doesn't get supplanted by Islam. A strong Hindu India could send out missionaries in a manner similar to Ashoka did with Buddhism. Traces of Hinduism can be found all over the world; in East Africa thanks to the Indian Sea Trade Routes, in Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia and South East Asia. The regions it is most likely to become the dominant religion for are South East Asia and perhaps parts of Central Asia which before Islam was dominated by Zoroastrianism and Folk Religion.

Why would Hindus send missionaries? Proselytizing has never been part of Hinduism as far as I'm aware, and that's one reason it has only shrunk over time. In order to spread Hinduism, I think, you need India (or a Hindu Southeast Asian state) to somehow create settler colonies. The settlers' should mix with the native one to create a syncretic variant of Hinduism as the natives and settlers mingle.
 
Why would Hindus send missionaries? Proselytizing has never been part of Hinduism as far as I'm aware, and that's one reason it has only shrunk over time. In order to spread Hinduism, I think, you need India (or a Hindu Southeast Asian state) to somehow create settler colonies. The settlers' should mix with the native one to create a syncretic variant of Hinduism as the natives and settlers mingle.

Proselytizing is not the only way for a religion to spread. Hinduism spread by cultural fascination and sophistication in the Central Asia for hundreds of years until the Islamic invasion of the area and then the destruction of Zabul. It is just alike Zoroastrianism, Egyptian religion, Sumerian/Akkadian religion in that respect. All of which spread from a perceived small location (Afghanistan for Zoroastrianism, Sumer for the obvious and Egypt for the other).
 
There is an old Indian temple in Greco-Roman occupied Egypt



Its Buddhist but there is plasticity between Buddhism and "Hinduism" which really is a rather modern umbrella term that is quite vague it what it encompasses. I don't with all the castes and groups worshipping on the Indian subcontinent would perceive their faiths being the same.
It really isn't a modern concept to seperate the various schools of Buddhism from Hinduism.

The Pali Canon recgonises the Brahamanical faith as seperate from its own, in the same context that it recognises the nihilist Carvaka school as seperate. Indeed the very first Sermon of Siddartha Guatama (Buddha) of course talks about the Noble Eightfold Path, the Right View section being the middle way between Eternalism (described as the Brahmnical path) and Nihilism (described as the path of the Carvaka).

Even outside of the Pali Canon (so exiting the the theology into the practical nature of the religion), the early Buddhist Community is practically defined by its opposition to Brahmanism and Jainism (Carvaka starts to disappear as a meaningful school) all the way up to Nagarjuna and his verses on the Center.

The Mahayana school of Buddhism which was the most successful prosletysing school of Buddhism (I imagine the temple you refer to as Buddhist probably was Mahayana) is defined by Nagarjunas doctrines on emptiness which are the least Hindu thing imaginable.

The reason this distinction is important is because Hindus are often calling other native Indian faiths Hindu, much to the annoyance of many practitioners of those faiths.
 
It really isn't a modern concept to seperate the various schools of Buddhism from Hinduism.

The Pali Canon recgonises the Brahamanical faith as seperate from its own, in the same context that it recognises the nihilist Carvaka school as seperate. Indeed the very first Sermon of Siddartha Guatama (Buddha) of course talks about the Noble Eightfold Path, the Right View section being the middle way between Eternalism (described as the Brahmnical path) and Nihilism (described as the path of the Carvaka).

Even outside of the Pali Canon (so exiting the the theology into the practical nature of the religion), the early Buddhist Community is practically defined by its opposition to Brahmanism and Jainism (Carvaka starts to disappear as a meaningful school) all the way up to Nagarjuna and his verses on the Center.

The Mahayana school of Buddhism which was the most successful prosletysing school of Buddhism (I imagine the temple you refer to as Buddhist probably was Mahayana) is defined by Nagarjunas doctrines on emptiness which are the least Hindu thing imaginable.

The reason this distinction is important is because Hindus are often calling other native Indian faiths Hindu, much to the annoyance of many practitioners of those faiths.
the relatively modern concept is Hinduism being a unified religious term for all subcontinental faiths (I should have said not including buddhism), not Buddhism and Hinduism being divided.

There is a quote from another thread asking about this very thing

To use the general term Hinduism at this stage is historically something of an anachronism. The term 'Hindu' was not in use in the early first millennium AD, and those who were supporters of what today we call 'Hindu' sects used their sectarian labels to identify their religion. Therefore they identified themselves by the broader labels of Vaishnava and Shaiva or, within these, by the narrower labels of Bhagavatas, Pashupatas and so on. The consciousness of a religious identity was that of the sect and not of an all-inclusive religion incorporating every sect. This makes a significant difference to understanding the nature of what today is called Hinduism. [page 275]

What we define as the Hindu community in religious terms actually consisted of a range of groups with clear internal identities as sects -such as Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta or, more closely, Bhagavata, Pashupata, Kapalika and so on. The Buddhists and the Jainas were distinct even if some beliefs and practices overlapped. Hostility between the Shramanic sects and those of the Puranic religions were clear in the literature of the period, for example, in the biting satire meted out to various Shramanic sects in the famous play of Krishna Mishra, the Prabodhachandrodaya. [...]

Reference to 'Hindu' was initially to a geographical identity and only much later did it take on a religious connotation. The clubbing together of all the castes, non-castes and sects under one label - Hindu - would have been strange to most people and even repugnant to some, since it would have made brahmans, shudras and untouchables equal members of a religious community of 'Hindus' who were treated on par in terms of their religious identity. This was alien to the existing religions in the subcontinent. It therefore took some time for the term 'Hindu' to enter current usage. Hindus did not use this name for themselves until about the fourteenth century, and then only sparingly. [page 438-440]
From Romila Thapar's Early India from the Origins to A.D. 1300
 
Top