WI: Primarily Buddhist India?

This quote from Flocculencio:

Also, Hinduism developed it's own evangelical wing in Buddhism, giving it a more easily propagated form. Apparently modern Hinduism is a relatively recent (recent meaning within the past 2000 years or so) reaction to a swing away from Buddhism which was the dominant form of Hinduism for a thousand years or so (c.f. the arrival of Christianity coinciding with the final swamping of Buddhism in S. India). When you deal with Asia, you deal in Deep Time, as far as a human timescale goes.

made me think of another interesting religious/cultural AH scenario: What if Buddhism supplanted Hinduism as the main religion of the Indian subcontinent? Imagine the possibilities if a Semitic-branch monotheistic religion comes into contact: The pagans are trying to convert you just as much as you're trying to convert them!

Anyways, how could you go about doing this and what would the effects be?
 
This quote from Flocculencio:



made me think of another interesting religious/cultural AH scenario: What if Buddhism supplanted Hinduism as the main religion of the Indian subcontinent? Imagine the possibilities if a Semitic-branch monotheistic religion comes into contact: The pagans are trying to convert you just as much as you're trying to convert them!

Anyways, how could you go about doing this and what would the effects be?

Well it was primarily Buddhist for quite a while. IIRC the reason Buddhism declined in popularity as the primary Hindu sect was that Bramhinical Hinduism adopted a political route, becoming less detached from the world than Buddhism and focusing on court and political ritual. This gained it prominence as the officially favoured sect by most kings and so forth. By the first few centuries AD Buddhism had retreated to S. India and then Ceylon.

You'd have to make Bramhinical Hinduism less effective or less antagonistic. Perhaps have a system of religion develop as in SE Asia where Hinduism and Buddhism weren't as sharply distinguished.
 
India becoming Budhist would have lead to a much higher spread of Buddhism in East Asia. Many be most of SE Asia, China , Korea and Japan would have been completely Buddhist. Central Asia and parts of persia may have also been Buddhist, it's a long shot but still possible.
 
A primarily Buddhist India would mean no muslim invasion, therefore no wars between muslims and Hindus which resulted in a rapid decline of Buddhists that had been reduced further by Politics.
 
Flocc's wrong, I'm afraid, BTW. Buddhism was a REBELLION against Hinduism, not a subbranch.

And, razers are for fish, how Buddhism have stopped a Muslim invasion? Pacifism has yet to stop any invasion on the ground, ever.
 
Flocc's wrong, I'm afraid, BTW. Buddhism was a REBELLION against Hinduism, not a subbranch

That's a simplification. Buddhism was in essence a reformation- it replaced the earlier dominant version of Hinduism and essentially became the dominant form*. It's only in modern times after Brahminical Hinduism set itself up in opposition to Buddhism that the two have been seen as different religions rather than as different branches of the same philosophical base. Before that the situation was much more like that which prevailed in Indonesia where Hinduism and Buddhism tended to be blended along with folk religions- essentially if a state was Buddhist or Hindu simply depended on which way the ruling dynasty leaned. Back in India, however, Brahminical Hinduism managed to gain definite dominance among the aristocracy and thereby prevailed.

And, razers are for fish, how Buddhism have stopped a Muslim invasion? Pacifism has yet to stop any invasion on the ground, ever.

Yeah...because Buddhist states have been so peaceful. Pacificism is an ideal, but one that isn't really put into practice by Buddhist states any more than it has by Christian states. The Khmer Empire, Ayuthayya, Srivijaya, Kandy, Dai Viet...all extremely warlike Buddhist (or Hindu-Buddhist) states.

*Keep in mind that Buddhism didn't mean that people would have to change their beliefs- in the villages and such the people would have still kept on worshipping their local deities- adopting Buddhism meant that one simply added the understanding that the Buddha's teachings were the ultimate truth on top of this. Essentially deities were subject to the Dharma in the same way humans were. Whether you were Vishnu or a king or a merchant or a peasant farmer you were still expected to act meritoriously. Buddhist India's belief structure would have looked a lot like China's where Buddhist ideals were combined with folk religion.
 
Boy, ripping out every. major point but reincarnation hardly seems like the minor reform to me; evidence, please?
 
Boy, ripping out every. major point but reincarnation hardly seems like the minor reform to me; evidence, please?

Boy, ripping out ever major point but the nature of God hardly seems like minor reform to me; why are you calling "Protestantism" a branch of Christianity, not a different religion like it obviously is?[1]

[1] If it isn't obvious, this is satirical. A "reformation" can involve significant changes to the underlying doctrine. That doesn't mean that it's a different religion altogether (most of the time).
 
Boy, ripping out ever major point but the nature of God hardly seems like minor reform to me; why are you calling "Protestantism" a branch of Christianity, not a different religion like it obviously is?[1]

[1] If it isn't obvious, this is satirical. A "reformation" can involve significant changes to the underlying doctrine. That doesn't mean that it's a different religion altogether (most of the time).

That was pretty much what I meant. Philosophically the changes might have been huge- I doubt this means that the average man in the street would have changed his actual religious activity that much. Vedic Hinduism was big on ceremony and this really mainly concerned the upper classes. Buddhism was attractive because it was much more inclusive and at the same time didn't change things much for the man in the street. Think about how the combination of Buddhism with other religions worked elsewhere. In Japan, China and SE Asia the folk beliefs/Hinduism/Shinto/Taoism tended (or still tends) to govern day to day life (e.g. You pray at the Buddhist temple fo enlightenment and to gain merit but if your child is sick you go pray to the local godling) while Buddhism was seen as overarching and of more importance in the ultimate destination of the soul. I see no reason why the same wouldn't have been true of India before the advent of Brahminical Hinduism which regained the subcontinent from the Buddhist path.

As truth is life says, the Reformation made huge changes to doctrine and a whole lot of Protestants didn't see Catholics as true Christians and vice versa. The distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism is one which is relatively recent and which through much of the Hindu-Buddhist world simply wouldn't have existed unless you were an actual priest or had some other religious role.
 

maverick

Banned
I can't believe someone actually brought up the "Buddhists are Pacifists" cliche:rolleyes:

Interesting thread all around,though.
 
Top