WI Indian Buddhism survived?

[Intransigent Southerner]

Indian Buddhism began to decline when the monastic community became increasingly isolated from the laity in the mid- to late first millennium, ceding ground to Hindu and Jain groups who appealed much more to lay communities. By the time of the Turko-Islamic invasions in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Indian Buddhism had become to a great extent a religion of a landholding and royally patronized monastic elites. When the Turks destroyed the religious centers associated with indigenous kings, there was no lay community to fall back on, unlike Hinduism or Jainism which was perfectly fine without the support of great kings or emperors.

What lay-Buddhist connections there were took the form of tantric Buddhism, with its arcane magic and incantations and a propensity to merge into Hinduism.

This eventually led to the vanishing of Buddhism, although the religion held on for longer than we often think. Bodh Gaya, where the Buddha attained enlightenment, still had a functioning Buddhist community in the early fifteenth century under Muslim rule (which had vanished by the reign of Akbar, when a Shaivite temple was set up on the site) and the last Tamil Buddhist texts date to the seventeenth century.

But what if a Buddhist reform movement in the late first millennium had reinvigorated lay-monastic ties and allowed Buddhism to retain a major religious presence in its land of birth, even after the onset of Islamic rule?

 

[kholieken]

Probably nothing change. Jain community hardly any effect on Indian history. Surviving Buddhist community would be like Jain, a minority faith in India, ineffectual against tens of millions Hindu and Muslim Indians.

 

[Sardar]

Perhaps an alt-Mughal Emperor takes interest in some aspects of Buddhism, and promotes it unofficially? Or one could have a Buddhist Kingdom in the South, though again I'm not too sure.

 

[NotAMyth]

But what if a Buddhist reform movement in the late first millennium had reinvigorated lay-monastic ties and allowed Buddhism to retain a major religious presence in its land of birth, even after the onset of Islamic rule?

The problem is not Buddhism (or even Jainism) needing reform - it was already a reform movement. Its main problem was the Brahmanical reforms that were undertaken to combat the rapidly growing influence of the ascetic reform religions, in the 5th-6th Century CE.
Specifically, the most appealing idea of the initial ascetic reformation was that of ahimsa or non-violence, and not requiring the prohibitively expensive cattle sacrifices for rituals. This was game-changing for most of the peasantry as it was a huge recurring cost and only brahmans were allowed to consume said sacrificial cattle.
The Brahmans one-upped this and took it to its logical extreme by making vegetarianism compulsory for themselves and virtue for others while adding Buddha to the Hindu mythos by establishing him as an avatar of Vishnu. The peasantry who anyways could not afford meat on a regular basis liked this even more because this meant that their frugal lives were now a virtue, and they could look down upon the unvirtuous meat-eating nobles even more.
If you want Buddhism to remain strong and relevant, you need to somehow butterfly or delay these reforms. The latter scenario would probably see Buddhism getting entrenched in Coastal regions, where I suspect fish consumption would prevent the reform Brahmanical virtue of absolute vegetarianism from being widely accepted.
A longer-lasting Mauryan Empire, or a Gupta Empire never rising, can both be PoDs that can allow these reforms to be delayed. The former patronized the Buddhists, while the latter's patronage of Vaisnavism was instrumental in the assimilation of non-traditional ideals into the Hindu mainstream.

 

[twovultures]

Given Buddhism's evangelical roots, an invigorated Buddhist religion in India could come into conflict with Islam over hearts and minds. Buddhist communities might become targeted for repression by an Araungzeb-type leader while Hindu communities are more left alone because of this. Of course, this assumes a scenario where Muslim leaders care about converting the masses, which historically wasn't always the case. In a scenario where Muslim elites are more concerned with governing and getting their tax money than prosletyzing, it's possible that these lay Buddhist communities will snatch up more commoners disaffected with Hinduism for whatever reason, and Islam is a smaller religion on the subcontinent, practiced mostly by feudal elites.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

Its main problem was the Brahmanical reforms that were undertaken to combat the rapidly growing influence of the ascetic reform religions, in the 5th-6th Century CE.

I would say it’s a mix of both Brahmanic reform and Buddhist detachment from the laity; both were necessary for the downfall of Buddhism. Jainism was never as detached from lay believers as Buddhism ultimately became, and hence survived the emergence of what we now call Hinduism. The Theravada community also remained dominant in Sri Lanka, even despite the Shaivite Chola invasions, because of their strong connections to the laity.

 

[Simreeve]

A new branch of Buddhism, which includes more 'social activism' in its teachings than the older branches did, is actually doing quite well in part of India (mainly in Maharashtra) these days: Its converts are mostly from the Dalits, the groups from the Hindu populace who used to be called 'Untouchables', because of the fact that Buddhism doesn't [automatically] perpetuate the caste system.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Could Bengal have become a center of Buddhism? It's adjacent to Buddhist Burma and the Pala Empire was a Buddhist state into the second millennium, although it was replaced by several Hindu states. IIRC the Islamisation of Bengal focused on modern Bangladesh because Muslim settlers helped carve out farms from the jungle and swamp. So perhaps the Pala Empire could reform (or if it falls, be succeeded by another Buddhist dynasty) and use Buddhist monasteries to organise the settlement of this region.

 

[Sarthak]

I think I could get 2 PoDs for a stronger Buddhist presence on the subcontinent. 1. Jayasithi Malla succeeds in uniting Nepal in the 1370s under his hard-line Vajrayana Buddhist attitude, creating a strong center of Buddhism to spread from the Himalayas. 2. Bengal remains Buddhist. This would at least create two strong regional centers for Buddhism to respread into the subcontinent.

 

[PsyloSurgeon]

I think I could get 2 PoDs for a stronger Buddhist presence on the subcontinent. 1. Jayasithi Malla succeeds in uniting Nepal in the 1370s under his hard-line Vajrayana Buddhist attitude, creating a strong center of Buddhism to spread from the Himalayas. 2. Bengal remains Buddhist. This would at least create two strong regional centers for Buddhism to respread into the subcontinent.

1. These PODs are way too late. A more appropriate POD would involve an emergence of a Magadhan regime that heavily patronizes Buddhism of either the Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana disposition. A Gandharan regime like the Indo-Greeks or Kushans would be too peripheral and too dominated by steppe nomads to be able to consolidate and evangelize India. A Deccan regime like the Satvahana might consolidate the South and establish Buddhism there, but there is already significant competition from Hinduism and Jainism here so early on.
2. Therefore, the POD must predate the 10th century, before the Vajrayana Buddhist Pala Dynasty began to also patronize Hindu rituals and customs. Anything after this would get at most a Hindu majority, Buddhist minority or a Hindu-Buddhist Syncretism.
3. Vajrayana POD: Pala Dynasty somehow emerges victorious in the Tripartite Struggle and destroy the Pratihara Empire. The conquer much of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, and drive the Arabs out of Sindh. The Palas control the North India, and the Rashtrakutas control Southern India. The Palas adopt centralizing policies that enable them to create a long-lasting Imperial system that lasts after their eventual deposition. Then the Rashtrakutas disperse, and this Magadhan regime would carve out Buddhist Vassal states out of the ashes of the former Rashtrakutas.
4. Mahayana POD: The Vardhana or Gupta Dynasty lasts much longer, and create a long-lasting Imperial system.
5. Theravada POD: A Mauryan POD, or the Guptas instead find Theravada Buddhism more suitable for their Imperial Ideology. Perhaps the Guptas patronize Theravada in opposition to the Kushan's Mahayana.

Nepali scenario would just be comparable to OTL Sri Lanka, since the Muslims are in control of North India and would block Nepali missionary activity. Buddhist Bengal would just be even more vulnerable to Delhi Sultanate conquest, given that iconoclasm and loss of patronage would doom Buddhist institution as that happened OTL. I fully expect that Bengal would become even more Muslim than OTL.

 

[Brahman]

Biggest Problem was that Hinduism adapted and ate Buddhism, it took everything and everyone in Buddhism and reappropriated it in a Hindu Context, as such being a Hindu or even simultaneously being a Hindu and Buddhist was not shunned but accepted. Buddhists also had to extensively rely on state patronage to survive compared to Hinduism as such when it was eliminated or not given any special preference Gupta and majorly in Delhi Sultanate, they perished.

Best POD would be Mauryan Empire forcing Buddhism down everyone's throat and creating a empire that lasts long enough for people to associate India with Buddhism

 

[Deleted member 5909]

2. Therefore, the POD must predate the 10th century, before the Vajrayana Buddhist Pala Dynasty began to also patronize Hindu rituals and customs. Anything after this would get at most a Hindu majority, Buddhist minority or a Hindu-Buddhist Syncretism.

Forgive my ignorance, as my knowledge of Indian history is rather limited, but isn't that what happened in OTL? I've read that at a certain point, Hinduisim and Mahayana Buddhism began to blend so thoroughly among the laity that with the loss of royal patronage for the monasteries, it was largely a Hindu-Buddhist syncretism that emerged.

There's also the fact that the Advaita of Adi Shankara was so close to Madhyamaka philosophically that a lot of Indian Buddhism was simply absorbed into Hinduism. If you study both schools of thought, it starts to become apparent that the respective Absolutes of the two schools (Sunyata vs. Nirguna Brahman) are very similar, albeit differing on certain key points, such as the nature of the Self (or lack thereof). And I say that as someone with a deep personal interest in both Advaita and Madhyamaka.

 

[PsyloSurgeon]

Biggest Problem was that Hinduism adapted and ate Buddhism, it took everything and everyone in Buddhism and reappropriated it in a Hindu Context, as such being a Hindu or even simultaneously being a Hindu and Buddhist was not shunned but accepted. Buddhists also had to extensively rely on state patronage to survive compared to Hinduism as such when it was eliminated or not given any special preference Gupta and majorly in Delhi Sultanate, they perished.

Buddhist Monks adopted their ideas from even earlier renunciate traditions. The concepts of Dharma, karma, Tapas predated buddhism. In addition, ascetic renunciation may have existed as early as the Late Bronze or Early Iron Age, since there is a mention of Kesins in the Rigveda. Interestingly, the description of these "Kesins" are quite similar to the Shaivite monks of the much later era.
One aspect of Buddhism that was digested by Hinduism was the concept of monasteries.
I think the fact the Buddhism was converging with hindu traditions especially with Vajrayana was particularly problematic since it led to the Buddhism losing its cultural hegemony. Vajrayana and Shaivite traditions had become extremely closely linked.

Best POD would be Mauryan Empire forcing Buddhism down everyone's throat and creating a empire that lasts long enough for people to associate India with Buddhism

I would say the best POD is for the Mauryas or any Magadhan regime to engage with deforestation and expansion of arable land by granting forestland to Buddhist monastic institutions. This would lead to vast expansion of Buddhist-adhering population, like what happened with Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka. The Anuradhapura kingdom lasted more thana 1000 years, and was able to engage in agricultural expansion which allowed for expansion of Buddhism there.
This is also what the Mughals did in East bengal, by clearing forestland which led to expansion of Islam amongst the Bengalis.

 

[Deleted member 5909]

I think the fact the Buddhism was converging with hindu traditions especially with Vajrayana was particularly problematic since it led to the Buddhism losing its cultural hegemony. Vajrayana and Shaivite traditions had become extremely closely linked.

From my understanding, the early Tantric movements of both Buddhism and Hinduism borrowed so extensively from each other that it isn't really possible to know in which milieu Tantra originally developed. I wonder if the opposite scenario to what occurred in OTL would also be possible, with Vajrayana entirely absorbing a lot of Shaivism early on? If the Muslim conquest is prevented, you may be able to get a northern India that is dominated by Vajrayana Buddhism and a south that is primarily Hindu.

Also, just throwing out possibilities here for the OP: Now that I think about it, one way to get Buddhism remaining dominant in India is to have the Turkic peoples embrace Buddhism instead of Islam early on. How you would go about doing this, I don't know. Buddhism was very widespread among the Mongols. Perhaps the Ilkhanate rulers remain Buddhist, thus influencing the Turks to do so? This is all speculation, so please correct me if I'm wrong. As I've said, this period of history isn't my strong suit.

 

[PsyloSurgeon]

A new branch of Buddhism, which includes more 'social activism' in its teachings than the older branches did, is actually doing quite well in part of India (mainly in Maharashtra) these days: Its converts are mostly from the Dalits, the groups from the Hindu populace who used to be called 'Untouchables', because of the fact that Buddhism doesn't [automatically] perpetuate the caste system.

The Sinhalese, who are Theravada Buddhists indeed once had a "Caste System" or what ever you may call it.
Sinhalese had a Govigama caste, which interestingly most Sri Lankan Prime Ministers and Presidents have been a member of. To my knowledge, only President Ranasinghe Premadasa was a non-govigama, but perhaps I may be wrong.
The Siam Nikaya, which was established in association with the Thai Sangha in the 18th century, was open to only Monks of Govigama and Radala castes.
There was even an "untouchable" caste called the Rodiyas, who are believed to be a descended from one of the early Sinhalese rulers, Parakramabahu.

Of course Buddhism does not promote any "caste system", but it appears that adopting Buddhism as early as the 4th century BCE may not necessarily remove the "caste system" or whatever it may be called, as the Sinhalese had such a system that was in itself quite unique to island they inhabited. Some of the grouping like the Karava may date to the early Anuradhapura period, so there is little doubt on indigenous origins of the system.

That being said, I wonder whether "caste" is just something that is uniquely South Asian rather than a practice mandated by a specific religion.

 

[PsyloSurgeon]

From my understanding, the early Tantric movements of both Buddhism and Hinduism borrowed so extensively from each other that it isn't really possible to know in which milieu Tantra originally developed. I wonder if the opposite scenario to what occurred in OTL would also be possible, with Vajrayana entirely absorbing a lot of Shaivism early on?

Perhaps, the Pala dynasty which were Vajrayana Buddhists from what is now Bengal unifies North india and establishes a long-lasting rule. In fact the Palas converted Tibet to Vajrayana buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pala_Empire

If the Muslim conquest is prevented, you may be able to get a northern India that is dominated by Vajrayana Buddhism and a south that is primarily Hindu.

Without the Muslim conquest, Vajrayana would most likely be a minority group in the Gangetic Valley like OTL Nepal, or how Jainism is in Rajasthan and Gujarat OTL.

Also, just throwing out possibilities here for the OP: Now that I think about it, one way to get Buddhism remaining dominant in India is to have the Turkic peoples embrace Buddhism instead of Islam early on. How you would go about doing this, I don't know. Buddhism was very widespread among the Mongols. Perhaps the Ilkhanate rulers remain Buddhist, thus influencing the Turks to do so? This is all speculation, so please correct me if I'm wrong. As I've said, this period of history isn't my strong suit.

Mongols became Buddhist over a very long period in time from the 13th century to the 17th century. Ilkhanate and Yuan were Buddhist, perhaps the Mongols do indeed conquer the Delhi Sultanate and establish a Buddhist regime there. They may rebuild Nalanda and Vikramshila which were destroyed by the Ghurid conquests.

 

[Beacon]

The Sinhalese, who are Theravada Buddhists indeed once had a "Caste System" or what ever you may call it.
Sinhalese had a Govigama caste, which interestingly most Sri Lankan Prime Ministers and Presidents have been a member of. To my knowledge, only President Ranasinghe Premadasa was a non-govigama, but perhaps I may be wrong.
The Siam Nikaya, which was established in association with the Thai Sangha in the 18th century, was open to only Monks of Govigama and Radala castes.
There was even an "untouchable" caste called the Rodiyas, who are believed to be a descended from one of the early Sinhalese rulers, Parakramabahu.

Of course Buddhism does not promote any "caste system", but it appears that adopting Buddhism as early as the 4th century BCE may not necessarily remove the "caste system" or whatever it may be called, as the Sinhalese had such a system that was in itself quite unique to island they inhabited. Some of the grouping like the Karava may date to the early Anuradhapura period, so there is little doubt on indigenous origins of the system.

That being said, I wonder whether "caste" is just something that is uniquely South Asian rather than a practice mandated by a specific religion.

The Dalit buddhist movement is different from the older schools of buddhist thoughts. Navayana (New vehicle) was developed by Dr. Ambedkar specifically as a rejection of the caste system which was pervasive in other Indian religions.
Many other countries/societies have unofficial caste systems. Medieval societies had the division between clergy, nobles, burghers and peasants. Then there's the example of the Burakumin in Japan. But none of these places have had their caste systems be institutionalised to the same level as they have been in south asia.

The turko-islamic invasions were the death knell to buddhism in India. Butterfly those away and you might give them a chance to reform and survive.