How would a majority Buddhist India have developed?

Buddhism famously originated in India and while successfully expanding east towards other parts of Asia, it never emerged beyond a small minority of practitioners in India. What if that was not the case and Buddhism grew to become the majority religion of India?
 
The more sceptical Buddhist épistémologies could have led to further improvements in scientific methods- Buddhism was the only epistemology that required concepts to be proved through practical application in order to know it was a true fact, for the rest it was merely optional. For practically a millenium it was the majority religion of the elite that left records at least and that age is known as the classical age of India with the first temples, statues and paintings all being Buddhist along with all of the scientific advances being fostered in Buddhist institutions. Obviously it’s not a guarantee and depends on what type of Buddhism spread, but it seems fairly likely you would see more vigorous intellectual activity.
 
Well, I doubt it would remain as a unified country.
Before islam, the Ganges and Indus basins, dominated by Buddhism would have increased contact with Afghanistan.
Given Islamic success at erasing the Buddhist identity of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Xinjiang, I would presume that Muslims would spread more into the Ganges valley. With that being said, I would actually say that more Buddhists in India would mean more Muslims in India.
This would ultimately result in Bharat consisting of Indus-Ganges basin, while several Hindu and possibly Jain states may emerge in the south
 

yoyo

Banned
The more sceptical Buddhist épistémologies could have led to further improvements in scientific methods- Buddhism was the only epistemology that required concepts to be proved through practical application in order to know it was a true fact, for the rest it was merely optional. For practically a millenium it was the majority religion of the elite that left records at least and that age is known as the classical age of India with the first temples, statues and paintings all being Buddhist along with all of the scientific advances being fostered in Buddhist institutions. Obviously it’s not a guarantee and depends on what type of Buddhism spread, but it seems fairly likely you would see more vigorous intellectual activity.
A majority buddhist india would require a long-lived strong centralized administration intent on cultural homogeneity and building a state-wide buddhist clerical class. There were logical and skeptical in the astika(hindu), and other nastik(jain, and in the now extinct ajivika and lokayata traditions) so a development of scientific method would mostly likely entail selective horizontal synthesis and cultivation of these ideas. Development of scientific principles and implementation of buddhism as the majority religion would require a significant burst of literacy. These PODs would more far-reaching than even a buddhist-majority india.
 

yoyo

Banned
Well, I doubt it would remain as a unified country.
Before islam, the Ganges and Indus basins, dominated by Buddhism would have increased contact with Afghanistan.
Given Islamic success at erasing the Buddhist identity of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Xinjiang, I would presume that Muslims would spread more into the Ganges valley. With that being said, I would actually say that more Buddhists in India would mean more Muslims in India.
This would ultimately result in Bharat consisting of Indus-Ganges basin, while several Hindu and possibly Jain states may emerge in the south
Afghanistan had buddhist monasteries, but it doesn't mean it was the majority religion. In addition prior hepthalite attacks and sasanian persecution weakened the religion significantly.
 
Well, I doubt it would remain as a unified country.
Before islam, the Ganges and Indus basins, dominated by Buddhism would have increased contact with Afghanistan.
Given Islamic success at erasing the Buddhist identity of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Xinjiang, I would presume that Muslims would spread more into the Ganges valley. With that being said, I would actually say that more Buddhists in India would mean more Muslims in India.
This would ultimately result in Bharat consisting of Indus-Ganges basin, while several Hindu and possibly Jain states may emerge in the south

Well I wouldn’t say it’s a foregone conclusion- Islam historically had no success converting Theravada Buddhist areas in Southeast Asia and even vajrayana Buddhism amongst the mongols prevailed over Islam, so there’s nothing specifically about Buddhism that leads to weaker cultural and religious identities that will be easy to displace. On the other hand, perhaps more contact with a vibrant primarily Buddhist culture to the south will preserve these northern Buddhists from assimilation and prevent the islamisation of the area. Also Jains don’t really do well in positions of rulership, it’s not a very state friendly philosophy.
 

yoyo

Banned
Well I wouldn’t say it’s a foregone conclusion- Islam historically had no success converting Theravada Buddhist areas in Southeast Asia and even vajrayana Buddhism amongst the mongols prevailed over Islam, so there’s nothing specifically about Buddhism that leads to weaker cultural and religious identities that will be easy to displace. On the other hand, perhaps more contact with a vibrant primarily Buddhist culture to the south will preserve these northern Buddhists from assimilation and prevent the islamisation of the area. Also Jains don’t really do well in positions of rulership, it’s not a very state friendly philosophy.
The western Gangas, and Mauryas would disagree in regards to jainism. Jain texts have been found in afghanistan.
The Arab muslims succeeded in converting maldives, which was theravada buddhist. Bihar and bengal were centres of vajrayana buddhism until the 1200s and were completely wiped out by Khilji and mamluk attacks. in india astik traditions were the majority, whereas nastik traditions found appeal among traders, rulers, etc... basically non-agrarian populaces. To become dominant, a diocese system similar to roman empire should be adopted in order to standardize and enforce a particular strain of buddhism. One problem buddhism in india had was that buddhism was transitioning from hinayana to mahayana to vajrayana buddhism which led to frequent schisms within the sangha and weakened the religion . When muslims came, it was in process of becoming vajrayana.The frequent change in dominant buddhist tradition largely happened in india, not so much in southeast asia and east asia. e.g theravada had little competiiton in sri lanka, burma and thailand. vajrayana had no competiiton in tibet.
 
If instead of trying to spread Buddhism overseas, Ashoka had tried to establish Theravada Buddhism as the state religion of his Empire and had suppressed all other religions, perhaps Buddhism might have become and survived as the majority religion in India. Though he became a Buddhist himself Ashoka appears to have not forced his religion over his subjects. It is not clear whether all the princes had accepted Buddhism. Chandragupta Maurya adopted Jainism and died as a Jain monk. His son Bindusara adopted Ajivaka cult. The grandson Ashoka found refuge in Buddhism. In ancient India the different religions, though competed against each other were not exclusive as in the Middle East. It appears that the situation was similar to East Asia where people follow the customs of several religions like Confuscionism, Daoism, Buddhism etc. on different occasions. Different kings and dynasties were partial to and sponsored different religions and fought each other like the Cholas were Saivites, the Pandyas were Vaishnavites, the Palas were Buddhists etc. There were also kings like Harsha who supported Hinduism and Buddhism equally at the same time. But the exclusiveness as in the case of semitic religions came with Islam.
 
Frustratingly, I cannot recall where I read this, but I have come across the suggestion that Buddhism was never deeply rooted among lay people (householders) in India because it didn't offer them much in terms of things like rituals — they would still turn to local brahmins or their community's wise men for such needs. The focus at the time was entirely on monastic life and supporting the monastic community. This would have made things easier for the Hindu revival later on. So you would need to address this issue.
 
The western Gangas, and Mauryas would disagree in regards to jainism. Jain texts have been found in afghanistan.
The Arab muslims succeeded in converting maldives, which was theravada buddhist. Bihar and bengal were centres of vajrayana buddhism until the 1200s and were completely wiped out by Khilji and mamluk attacks. in india astik traditions were the majority, whereas nastik traditions found appeal among traders, rulers, etc... basically non-agrarian populaces. To become dominant, a diocese system similar to roman empire should be adopted in order to standardize and enforce a particular strain of buddhism. One problem buddhism in india had was that buddhism was transitioning from hinayana to mahayana to vajrayana buddhism which led to frequent schisms within the sangha and weakened the religion . When muslims came, it was in process of becoming vajrayana.The frequent change in dominant buddhist tradition largely happened in india, not so much in southeast asia and east asia. e.g theravada had little competiiton in sri lanka, burma and thailand. vajrayana had no competiiton in tibet.
The muslim invasions were the killing blow to Gangetic Buiddhism, but not the cause of the decline, it was already dying by then being replaced by Hinduism (the Pala Kingdom was replaced by the Hindu Sena), Chinese pilgrims to India during the 9th and 10th centuries comment how Buddhism wasn't that prevalent in India by the time and the situation only got worse by then.
 

Anawrahta

Banned
The muslim invasions were the killing blow to Gangetic Buiddhism, but not the cause of the decline, it was already dying by then being replaced by Hinduism (the Pala Kingdom was replaced by the Hindu Sena), Chinese pilgrims to India during the 9th and 10th centuries comment how Buddhism wasn't that prevalent in India by the time and the situation only got worse by then.
I agree in regards to political change, but decline was in terms of change in nature of relgiion. Around this time the Indian buddhists by the name of Padmasambhava and Atisha spread Vajrayana buddhism to Tibet. Buddhism was still going strong, it wasn't mahayana or theravada. In fact the one last remaining Indic regions in Northern India to still profess buddhism happens to be the Newars of Nepal, who have a hereditary caste of Vajrayana buddhist priests. I don't think it was a decline but rather a transition to a completely different order. Personally, I think buddhism was in a revival centred around vajrayana buddhism without Khilji.
 
If instead of trying to spread Buddhism overseas, Ashoka had tried to establish Theravada Buddhism as the state religion of his Empire . . .
Ashoka is an interesting study in that he was—

bad guy Ashoka early in his career (maybe even worse than the average tyrannical king!)

and good guy Ashoka later in his career.

======

I asked an Indian grad student about it here in Houston. He said, it’s not that unusual in that you’re first expanding an empire and then consolidating.

H.G. Wells wrote a history of the world some time after WWI and said Ashoka had some kind of conversion and became a sincere good guy.

==============

I think there is a possibility of a soft sell as far as state religion. You verbally say religious freedom and tolerance is the policy, and it even is to a considerable extent. But Buddhism gets prompter money and more attention. And being a Buddhist is a somewhat quicker way to move up the government hierarchy (if anything, people are too quick taking advantage and gaming the system in this regard!)
 
Last edited:
It was in certain Buddhist works that Ashoka is described as a cruel tyrant (Chandashoka) before conversion to Buddhism and a kindhearted, benevolent ruler (Dharmashoka) after conversion. I think such a portrayal of cruel and gentle Ashoka, before and after conversion is to highlight the effect of Dhamma over the Emperor. Before conversion Ashoka was a normal Indian king whose aim was to increase his military power and spread his realm conquering his neighbors. But after converting to Buddhism Ashoka pledged not to raise his sword to kill the people and expand his empire. But he did not disband the Mauryan Army which was the largest in India. He was a realist who knew the necessity of maintaining his forces even while initiating several welfare programs for the people.
 
It was in certain Buddhist works that Ashoka is described as a cruel tyrant (Chandashoka) before conversion to Buddhism and a kindhearted, benevolent ruler (Dharmashoka) after conversion. I think such a portrayal of cruel and gentle Ashoka, before and after conversion is to highlight the effect of Dhamma over the Emperor. Before conversion Ashoka was a normal Indian king whose aim was to increase his military power and spread his realm conquering his neighbors. But after converting to Buddhism Ashoka pledged not to raise his sword to kill the people and expand his empire. But he did not disband the Mauryan Army which was the largest in India. He was a realist who knew the necessity of maintaining his forces even while initiating several welfare programs for the people.

Some of this too may be propaganda.. That is, attempting to appeal to the ideal Buddhist ruler who rules the land and uses the army for the supposed common good, as opposed to glory or so forth. Among the Kushan rulers, the introduction of Buddhism had no effect on their war making mentality. Likewise, the Tibetan empire was renowned for their prowess militarily. We might say that Buddhism in these cases, had little effect on their perception of martial affairs.
 
Well I wouldn’t say it’s a foregone conclusion- Islam historically had no success converting Theravada Buddhist areas in Southeast Asia and even vajrayana Buddhism amongst the mongols prevailed over Islam, so there’s nothing specifically about Buddhism that leads to weaker cultural and religious identities that will be easy to displace. On the other hand, perhaps more contact with a vibrant primarily Buddhist culture to the south will preserve these northern Buddhists from assimilation and prevent the islamisation of the area. Also Jains don’t really do well in positions of rulership, it’s not a very state friendly philosophy.

While I would say that it is not necessarily a foregone conclusion to the degree that nothing is foregone truly in history, it still stands to reason that Islam and its associated states, did generally wipe out Buddhism when they had the position of power. Much of this is related to the conception that the Buddhist spread throughout Asia was achieved through a very unique and different political climate to that period under Sassanid and later Caliphal authorities. Buddhism was itself dependent upon the diffusion through tolerant steppe, semi-steppe empires in Central Asia, such as the Kushans, the Arsacid, the Kangju-Sogdians, the Han Dynasty, the varied Saka regimes and the remnant Xiognu territories.

Without these vectors of transmission, the Buddhists of later times wee harried on the western edges by the Sassanid Empire and its anti-Buddhist policies and its expansionism, which harmed the ability of Buddhism to spread further west. Adding to this, was the changes within Hindustan, which saw Buddhism decline somewhat in its favor. The best opportunity for revival would be a scenario wherein the Hepthalites, taking the mantle of the Kushans, promote Buddhism to some degree and conquer much of the Sassanid empire and likewise counter the Gupta empire within Magadha, allowing a renewed Bactro-steppe-Saka hegemony over Hindustan and Central Asia, reopening the Silk Road and so forth.

If we wait until later times, our conditions would rely upon changing internal issues in Hindustan, a new Eranshahr, under a Buddhist or more tolerant dynasty or a no Islam scenario wherein Tibet is able to conquer Bactria, Tocharia and push influence into Hindustan. another option, is the route of 'Mahakhitan', using the Liao Dynasty to decimate Islam within the Indus region. Yet, this is using many variables on success of a single people. It is better to simply cut the head of the serpent, that being the Sassanid empire and the Caliphates.
 
The Kushan Empire (20-280 AD)

https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-08enl.html

‘ . . . the Kushans became a world power second only to China and Rome and the first unified force in Afghanistan to dispense rather than receive authority. . . ’

‘ . . . a flourishing of urban life and continued patronage of Buddhist sculpture and the building of monasteries. . . ’
A major player, and a sweet deal for Buddhism.

https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-08enl.html

‘ . . . Archaeologists who rediscovered the base of thes stupa in 1908-1909 ascertained that this stupa had a diameter of 286 feet. Reports of Chinese pilgrims such as Xuan Zang indicate that its height was roughly 600 to 681 feet high and was covered with jewels. This immense multi-storied building must have ranked among the wonders of the ancient world. . . ’
Ah, the fancy side of Buddhism. ;)
 
Top