What if India remained Buddhist?

Buddhism recovers in 6-700 AC in the Harsha rule and with his death, it remains dominant in eastern india until the Muslim conquest.
What I read about Buddhism in india it needs a regular donation from the state to control a area with monastery so you must make Pope Church system which can sustain and defeat muslim conquest of india
 
Buddhism recovers in 6-700 AC in the Harsha rule and with his death, it remains dominant in eastern india until the Muslim conquest.
What I read about Buddhism in india it needs a regular donation from the state to control a area with monastery so you must make Pope Church system which can sustain and defeat muslim conquest of india

Long time since I read Indian history, but wouldn´t the POD be before Muhammad? If so, Islam would be butterflied.
 
During Islamic invasion, Buddhism is in chaos because incomplete spread of new vajrayana doctrines. If Islam late for hundred years, then new Vajrayana would resist Muslim just like Nepal and Tibet. If Islam is earlier for hundred year, Indian Buddhism would resist Muslims just like Burmese, Thai and Vietnamese. Its not always true that Buddhism couldn't compete and resist Islamic faith.
 
When exactly is the POD? I am no expert in Indian history, but IIRC, Buddhism had lost its force well before the arrival of Islam on the subcontinent. The POD would at least have to be after Muhammad, and Islamic forces would have to be equally successful in spreading eastwards (though not necessarily westwards).
 
India had two ways in which it could have become Buddhist -
  1. Ashoka does not become pacifistic instead is more zealous in spreading the religion, this would also result in much more politically United Subcontinent as the Mauryan empire does not later crumble to Hindu revolts, this one is more likely to happen if India were to be Buddhist
  2. Greco Bactrian conquests are much more successful and they are able to implement soft Buddhism and Hellenistic religion on India, this would not be all over India but only North India, this is much less likely to happen
 

Deleted member 116192

India had two ways in which it could have become Buddhist -
  1. Ashoka does not become pacifistic instead is more zealous in spreading the religion, this would also result in much more politically United Subcontinent as the Mauryan empire does not later crumble to Hindu revolts, this one is more likely to happen if India were to be Buddhist
  2. Greco Bactrian conquests are much more successful and they are able to implement soft Buddhism and Hellenistic religion on India, this would not be all over India but only North India, this is much less likely to happen
Until the white huns come around and destroy the whole thing, the huna did more to destroy Buddhism in India than the Muslims and it was right around the same time when religious movement down South arose who mixed everything up and made buddha an avatar of vishnu. Nothing is going to save Buddhism in India, the corruption of the sanghas made it very unpopular among the ordinary people who still practiced pre vedic and vedic rituals and practices, Vendantic Hinduism just absorbed everything into it and it's proponents were so well versed in the art of debate, logic and rhetoric that they just defeated Buddhist doctrine plus the rise of bhakti movement which played a important role in merging non vedic practice into vendantic Hinduism. The new hindu religion that emerged was flawed in matters of caste and it's treatment of women but in other aspects it had wide popular appeal and intellectual appeal too something which Buddhism didn't have.
The disappearance of Buddhism was just inevitable unless you butterfly away the vendantic movement of the 7th to 13 th century and also bhakti movement too. Islamic invasion of 1200s into the heart land did cause the decline but it's giving it too much credit.
 
Until the white huns come around and destroy the whole thing, the huna did more to destroy Buddhism in India than the Muslims and it was right around the same time when religious movement down South arose who mixed everything up and made buddha an avatar of vishnu. Nothing is going to save Buddhism in India, the corruption of the sanghas made it very unpopular among the ordinary people who still practiced pre vedic and vedic rituals and practices, Vendantic Hinduism just absorbed everything into it and it's proponents were so well versed in the art of debate, logic and rhetoric that they just defeated Buddhist doctrine plus the rise of bhakti movement which played a important role in merging non vedic practice into vendantic Hinduism. The new hindu religion that emerged was flawed in matters of caste and it's treatment of women but in other aspects it had wide popular appeal and intellectual appeal too something which Buddhism didn't have.
The disappearance of Buddhism was just inevitable unless you butterfly away the vendantic movement of the 7th to 13 th century and also bhakti movement too. Islamic invasion of 1200s into the heart land did cause the decline but it's giving it too much credit.
Oh, interesting. Good analysis, however I'm merely curious how would India look like while Buddhist
 

Deleted member 116192

Oh, interesting. Good analysis, however I'm merely curious how would India look like while Buddhist
Unfortunately not that different? I don't think it would have effect on caste and other stuff, probably would have religion with less rituals but I don't think that a good thing in a pre modern society, rituals gave people a sense of protection, a feeling of being secure. I honestly don't think history would be that different.
 
Until the white huns come around and destroy the whole thing, the huna did more to destroy Buddhism in India than the Muslims and it was right around the same time when religious movement down South arose who mixed everything up and made buddha an avatar of vishnu. Nothing is going to save Buddhism in India, the corruption of the sanghas made it very unpopular among the ordinary people who still practiced pre vedic and vedic rituals and practices, Vendantic Hinduism just absorbed everything into it and it's proponents were so well versed in the art of debate, logic and rhetoric that they just defeated Buddhist doctrine plus the rise of bhakti movement which played a important role in merging non vedic practice into vendantic Hinduism. The new hindu religion that emerged was flawed in matters of caste and it's treatment of women but in other aspects it had wide popular appeal and intellectual appeal too something which Buddhism didn't have.
The disappearance of Buddhism was just inevitable unless you butterfly away the vendantic movement of the 7th to 13 th century and also bhakti movement too. Islamic invasion of 1200s into the heart land did cause the decline but it's giving it too much credit.
Yeah, but remember, Huns invaded during Gupta period who were already Hindu empire, as such Buddhism had already declined by then, as mentioned before unless Ashoka tried to zealous convert the population, India will not be Buddhism
 

Deleted member 116192

Ashoka tried to zealous convert the population,
The empire will collapse much earlier.
Guptas were not a totally a hindu dynasty by end they came to patronizing buddhism and gupta being this "Orthodox" Hindu is a leftist way of looking at stuff. They patronised buddhism even at their peak.
I'll ask you a question
Why did buddhism collapse in South india by 5th century ad even before the rise of vendantic movement? There were no gupta Or huna Or anyone people just stopped being Buddhist and went back to their folk religion and the Buddhist viharas were gradually replaced with hindu temples.
 
The empire will collapse much earlier.
Guptas were not a totally a hindu dynasty by end they came to patronizing buddhism and gupta being this "Orthodox" Hindu is a leftist way of looking at stuff. They patronised buddhism even at their peak.
I'll ask you a question
Why did buddhism collapse in South india by 5th century ad even before the rise of vendantic movement? There were no gupta Or huna Or anyone people just stopped being Buddhist and went back to their folk religion and the Buddhist viharas were gradually replaced with hindu temples.
Buddhism never penetrated south like they did north, it was mostly seen as an elites religion, only in north and east were buddhism really strong
And Ashoka did have the capability to convert a major portion of Mauryan empire to Buddhism, he just choose the path to pacifism
And Mauryan empire collapsed due to Hindu revolt against a extremely weakened Mauryans, but here, No real Hindu power would be able to revolt against Mauryans
 

Deleted member 116192

Buddhism never penetrated south like they did north, it was mostly seen as an elites religion, only in north and east were buddhism really strong
And Ashoka did have the capability to convert a major portion of Mauryan empire to Buddhism, he just choose the path to pacifism
And Mauryan empire collapsed due to Hindu revolt against a extremely weakened Mauryans, but here, No real Hindu power would be able to revolt against Mauryans
??? I am from the South, most of the major hindu temples here were turned into Buddhist viharas and again back into temples, it wasn't seen as religion of elites although not as popular as the folk religion but it still had support of the masses.
Mauryan empire collapsed because of foreign invasion and climate change that cause widespread crop failure not some "hindu revolt" Long before shunga arose 2/3 of the empire was lost to Greek invasion or revolts.
 
??? I am from the South, most of the major hindu temples here were turned into Buddhist viharas and again back into temples, it wasn't seen as religion of elites although not as popular as the folk religion but it still had support of the masses.
Mauryan empire collapsed because of foreign invasion and climate change that cause widespread crop failure not some "hindu revolt" Long before shunga arose 2/3 of the empire was lost to Greek invasion or revolts.
What ? No that is blatantly false
South never was that buddhist to begin with and Mauryans lost due to internal revolt and crumbling of the empire over any invasion
Shunga were the deathblow but Mauryans had already a problem of weak governance and rebellions all around
 

Deleted member 116192

What ? No that is blatantly false
South never was that buddhist to begin with
What about the rock painting in anjanta ellora and other rock carving in the deccan 😳😳😳 the jain and Buddhist rock carving were done without support of the people.? Man that's just wrong to say buddhism influence in the South didn't exist, without that there would be no vedantic movement of the 7th century. The biggest temple in my city was a Buddhist vihara and the same was the case in most Town and cities established in antiquity down South.
 
What ? No that is blatantly false
South never was that buddhist to begin with and Mauryans lost due to internal revolt and crumbling of the empire over any invasion
Shunga were the deathblow but Mauryans had already a problem of weak governance and rebellions all around
1619241836974.png

Ashoka's buddhist missions
 

Deleted member 116192

View attachment 645183
Ashoka's buddhist missions
Yeah how did buddhism reach Sri Lanka?
You're right in that.
Further in South Asia before Islam, people didn't identify with religion, a person may say he's a Buddhist but may believe in vishnu and may perform vedic rituals. There wasn't any label.
After Islam it became something like this is Islam and this is not Islam hence hindu.
Not exactly a correct description but you guys get the idea of what I am saying
 
What about the rock painting in anjanta ellora and other rock carving in the deccan 😳😳😳 the jain and Buddhist rock carving were done without support of the people.? Man that's just wrong to say buddhism influence in the South didn't exist, without that there would be no vedantic movement of the 7th century. The biggest temple in my city was a Buddhist vihara and the same was the case in most Town and cities established in antiquity down South.
View attachment 645183
Ashoka's buddhist missions
I am not saying Buddhist influence did not exist at all, but it was minimal and most of the population was not buddhist
They no doubt have adopted a few Buddhist practices within their own religion, but it was always appropriated into the native beliefs
Sri Lanka had a very special history of Ashoka's own children going there to convert the population, but that is not true both most of south India, at best they had a few places with Buddhist majority
 
I am not saying Buddhist influence did not exist at all, but it was minimal and most of the population was not buddhist
They no doubt have adopted a few Buddhist practices within their own religion, but it was always appropriated into the native beliefs
Sri Lanka had a very special history of Ashoka's own children going there to convert the population, but that is not true both most of south India, at best they had a few places with Buddhist majority
Simply not true. Buddhist influence in South India is tremendous. At the height of the Mauryan Empire, the south was slowly transforming itself culturally to adapt Buddhist ideologies. Go to any Southern temples and you will see Buddhist influence even today. The fall of the Mauryan Empire struck a blow to the Buddhist influence as Buddhist monasteries and monks lost their patrons. The internal fighting in Mauryan Empire caused their distant holdings to disenfranchise themselves from the capital. Not to mention I believe the central authority tried to enforce too many reforms or politically overextended themselves without using proper military force. Most likely this emboldened regions to revolt against the Empire.

The best way I can see Buddhism to propagate and replace 'Hinduism' is by taking up the social justice cause. The caste system, sati, elevation of Brahmins, occult practices, sacrificial rituals etc should be the ideological enemy of Buddhism. What Buddhism should do is to dig into the Vedic era and demolish the existing caste system that locks people into a caste by virtue of birth. To that effect, Buddhist monasteries will have to transform into an educational institution that teaches people not just Buddhist Philosophy but life skills. Also, there should be a proper separation between the Church and State. The Mauryans to my knowledge dabbled too much into Buddhism and they lost track of the military domination of their Empire.
 
Top