Perhaps, but a Buddhist India would certainly be offended and angry if Islamic Caliphates conquer Buddhist central asia
WI - Buddhist India
- Thread starter Brahman
- Start date
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
Dharmyodh is same as Crusade , and a power full Buddhism North India with help of China will be going for conquest.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
In the time of Buddha ,shakya were vessal of Kosala, so it is not comments able a independent polity will submit to OK there vessel state, when they can submit to sovergian Kosala state.
twovultures
Donor
While Buddhists may not crusade in a Christian sense, I can definitely see multiple states in a Buddhist India launching major wars "in defense of the Sangha" in response to Muslims conquering Buddhist central Asians.
I wonder what the effect on the caste system will be. While Buddhism doesn't support caste (apparently there have been Dalit movements to convert their members to Buddhism for this reason), officially neither does Sikhism, and yet IIRC communities like the Jat Sikhs still maintain a caste identity. Caste seems to be very deeply bound in Indian culture, and depending on the POD that sees Buddhism take over they may not be able or willing to remove this component of social hierarchy.
If an entire confederation starts growling along with the some Indian states who were their allies, I am pretty sure Kosala would allow the Shakyas to go, also considering until around 50 BCE the kosalas did have good relations with Shakya
Dhramyodh is a war for righteous and for no selfish reason. It does not always mean religion. Crusade does. They are different inherently
Also there is something call putting a friend dynasty on the throne to secure security and alliance, which would aid kosala even more. Think about it pragmatically
Dharmayuddha is more about the ideal rules for warfare rather than a type of war. The epics detail detail dharmayuddha as an ideal war where only equals fight each other in epic duels and while similarily armed, something the Mahabharata shows most heroes aren't capable of doing when victory is desired, many resorting to underhanded.
I agree that there is no religious intention behind it, but once again its not about the reasons or desire for war. It's about the way its conducted.
Caste system is nothing but class system that got integrated with religion, as such class systems would exist, but there will be social mobility as well as the system being less structured
I am NOT an expert, and a westerner, but my understanding is that "Hinduism" in ancient times was simply what Indians believed. Hinduism absorbed a good deal of Buddhist concepts. And none of the eastern religions require the exclusive adherence that the Abrahamic religions require.
Buddhism became defined as its own religion when it spread outside of India. Hinduism became more defined as a religion due to contact with Islam, which it for obvious reasons couldn't just absorb.
Also, the Kushans favored Buddhism as opposed to Hinduism, as did the Palas, and Buddhism remained dominant in Bengal and maybe Punjab until destroyed and supplanted by Islam.
I'm open to correction, but I don't think "India goes Buddhist instead of Hindu" really works as a concept. Its not like the Middle East remaining pagan or going Christian instead of Muslim. Nor were the leading Buddhists trying to purge India of all Hindu tendencies, any more than they tried to supplant the indigenous Chinese and Japanese beliefs.
Buddhism became defined as its own religion when it spread outside of India. Hinduism became more defined as a religion due to contact with Islam, which it for obvious reasons couldn't just absorb.
Also, the Kushans favored Buddhism as opposed to Hinduism, as did the Palas, and Buddhism remained dominant in Bengal and maybe Punjab until destroyed and supplanted by Islam.
I'm open to correction, but I don't think "India goes Buddhist instead of Hindu" really works as a concept. Its not like the Middle East remaining pagan or going Christian instead of Muslim. Nor were the leading Buddhists trying to purge India of all Hindu tendencies, any more than they tried to supplant the indigenous Chinese and Japanese beliefs.
I think what the OP means is like Bhutan and Nepal where there is no real distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism except with the Tibetan minority. Whereas in India the syncretism between Hinduism and Buddhism never really happened onto the level of Bhutan and Nepal.
twovultures
Donor
That's a very good point. I'm no expert myself, but I think I can point to one thing that would be the line of Buddhism "replacing" Hinduism in India. It is not removing belief in the Hindu gods, or the practices of 'popular' Hinduism by the average person, but the rise of a religious hierarchy that rejects the Vedas as scripture, and the religious rituals that they proscribe for Brahmins to do. This would essentially abolish the Brahmins as formal priests, and crosses the closest line that Hinduism has between "orthodox" and "heterodox" religion.
India will still have a lot of what we think of as Hinduism, with temples and household shrines to the same gods, but from a religious practice perspective it would be like Europe ditching the New Testament for the Quran-technically worshipping the same god, but with a very different religion.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
Religious war between Islam and Christian world come to indentify as crusade in 2 war ,before that it is know as pilgrimage / journey . Crusade was a political movement start by eastern Roman empire to regain there land from Muslim . And word for crusade change alongside the history in the start of 17 century it was know as holy - war .
So in OTL Dharmayudh means- righteous battle but in the timeline where Buddha - India right to save central Asia will come to identify from war with Islam/malechh .
So in OTL Dharmayudh means- righteous battle but in the timeline where Buddha - India right to save central Asia will come to identify from war with Islam/malechh .
Yes I agree, thats the reason why I choose Therevada Buddhism to be tha dominant faith, which is a non theistic faith, compared to Mahayana that was dominant in India,
Emperor Gustavus Adolphus
Banned
As a Timeline writer about Buddhism, I would say that a Buddhist India would actually be better, in the long term. Here's why.
Buddhism is more open, flexible and outgoing. Hinduism deals with problems like "History Centrism", Ethno-centrism and Hinduism is a very complex belief system with rigid and flexible parts. This results in multiple problems. With all these problems, they are easy to be divided, when a political change takes place, due to an outside invasion or influence. This actually led to the permanent fracture of Indian kingdoms, which eventually led to the Islamic conquests.
In a Buddhist majority India, I would see a more united land and a less ethnic strife. The Northwestern and Central Asian regions wouldn't undergo the OTL like rampage (first by the various Pagan Huns, etc and then Muslim invaders) and be very much within the Buddhist sphere of the Indian subcontinent. This leads to a Political and Economic stability in the South Asia, which would actually make it better.
In the Modern World, however, we would see less ethnic strife inside the subcontinent and a nation that isn't easy to colonize and exploit, as it happened in OTL. There would be more of a "Buddhist sphere" spread across South, Southeast and East Asia, which predominantly share an ethos and a more affinity to research into things. This would change the mindset of the whole pouplace in these regions.
You can check out my Timeline (in progress) about Buddhism, if you're all interested.
Buddhism is more open, flexible and outgoing. Hinduism deals with problems like "History Centrism", Ethno-centrism and Hinduism is a very complex belief system with rigid and flexible parts. This results in multiple problems. With all these problems, they are easy to be divided, when a political change takes place, due to an outside invasion or influence. This actually led to the permanent fracture of Indian kingdoms, which eventually led to the Islamic conquests.
In a Buddhist majority India, I would see a more united land and a less ethnic strife. The Northwestern and Central Asian regions wouldn't undergo the OTL like rampage (first by the various Pagan Huns, etc and then Muslim invaders) and be very much within the Buddhist sphere of the Indian subcontinent. This leads to a Political and Economic stability in the South Asia, which would actually make it better.
In the Modern World, however, we would see less ethnic strife inside the subcontinent and a nation that isn't easy to colonize and exploit, as it happened in OTL. There would be more of a "Buddhist sphere" spread across South, Southeast and East Asia, which predominantly share an ethos and a more affinity to research into things. This would change the mindset of the whole pouplace in these regions.
You can check out my Timeline (in progress) about Buddhism, if you're all interested.
Emperor Augustine of the Western Roman Empire defined Crusade as a 'just war' to violently 'convert' infidels and bring about Christianity to the infidels. Pope Urban II reaffirmed this definition. When did anyone call it a Pilgrimage? Pilgrimages to Jerusalem were called just that - Pilgrimage or a Holy tour of the Holy Lands. Crusade was meant as a religious war the moment it was coined by Augustine.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
In India , how historian saw it but Hinduism was popular in the south and Buddhism was popular in the North and in the western - costal region Jainism and in equal Orthodox Hinduism was popular and on the eastern side paganism was popular before the coming of Islam. (Popular means only majority were from follow specific religion but minority were also present)
Islam conquest in India started rapid migration from one part to other part from this migration and synthesis of 4 culture modern Hinduism born.
See - 1- south have more conservative type of Hinduism in modern age
2- western coast have more population of Jain and there veganism is famous. Also Rajputana effected by Orthodox Hinduism .
3-eastern coast have more nature worship then other part of India.
4-North was just land of why will I follow you .Also major Buddhism dynasty were from empire in the north.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
At the time of the First Crusade, iter, "journey", and peregrinatio, "pilgrimage" were used for the campaign. Crusader terminology remained largely indistinguishable from that of Christian pilgrimage during the 12th century. Only at the end of the century was a specific language of crusading adopted in the form of crucesignatus—"one signed by the cross"—for a crusader. This led to the French croisade—the way of the cross.[3] By the mid 13th century the cross became the major descriptor of the crusades with crux transmarina—"the cross overseas"—used for crusades in the eastern Mediterranean, and crux cismarina—"the cross this side of the sea"—for those in Europe.[6][7] The modern English "crusade" dates to the early 1700s.[8]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades lone for here .
For your knowledge there was no one know as Emperor Augustine of the Western Roman Empire ever present in the time of crusade.