In 516 BCE, Darius embarked on a campaign to India and marched through Bactria to Taxila in modern-day Pakistan. Darius spent the winter of 516–515 BCE in Gandhara, preparing to conquer the Indus Valley. Darius conquered the lands surrounding the Indus River in 515 BCE. This was around the same time in which Siddhartha Gautama become Buddha in Eastern India. What if Buddha went to Indus Valley and met Darius converting to his new religion ?
Buddha converts Darius to Buddhism
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
And would he be even able to meet the shah anyway? You just not walk to his office and begin talk about new religion what you have just invented.
"You there, sitting lotus-style beside the road! Come here and tell me about this land I'm in the midst of conquering. Especially the local religions."
"Gladly, O great conqueror; but military might is a mere illusion and the desire for it only brings suffering..."
Last edited:
I dont think it would be possible for Buddha to convert Darius right off the bat, but I could see the persian king taking interest on a indian prince turned beggar preacher, Marco Polo anyone? Meaning he could have taken him to his campaigns out of curiosity and desire for entertainment, while granting the guy the privilege of being able to preach to his troops
Then later either against a indian king or idk Alexander he could have a close call but survive due to butterflies, resulting in a Constantine moment where he personally decides to sponsor Buddhism but does not make it the imperial religion
Though I also personally think that Alexander and his Empire spreading Buddhism is more interesting
And hey there's a TL about that!
Then later either against a indian king or idk Alexander he could have a close call but survive due to butterflies, resulting in a Constantine moment where he personally decides to sponsor Buddhism but does not make it the imperial religion
Though I also personally think that Alexander and his Empire spreading Buddhism is more interesting
And hey there's a TL about that!
Ahura mazda won't be pleased, the point is even if in the remote possibility that Darius converts to Buddhism, nothing probably would happen? Would be a interesting foot note? Mazda worshiping ( not zoroastrianism) by late 800 bce was popular amongst the western Iranic tribes who settled on the Iranian plateau, you're not going to get those people to convert into a obscure Indic religion.
As for Buddhism under the Buddha, it did not have the organisation that it had, following his death. The appeal of Buddhism is its ability to provide social safety net. From food to old age care to orphanages.....these functions during the Vedic age were performed by the community, atleast the Indo Aryan tribes and the Elaborate rituals of the Vedic age which required you to provide feast, religious services, donation etc to you fellow tribesmen. These informal network began to break down when India/south asia began to urbanize and began to have long distance trade within the subcontinent, the monetization of the economy etc had the effect of breaking up these old social norms and in some places, the rich began to establish charities to the poor, as a form of a donation which was a part of the newly emerging hindu faith, which was unpopular ( remember Hinduism is a indo European religion where sacrifice holds important role, the donation of land money etc is part of the cosmic cycle of taking and giving) Buddha basically said all this is nonsense and began to innovate and borrow ideas from the numerous competing creeds around him. He made the Buddhist Sangha the centre of his new religion and this Sangha was open to all.
That is why Buddhism is popular in areas that has good agriculture/ pastoral economy and urbanization (which generate wealth by trade and manufacturing) because you need the surplus generating agricultural lands that can be appropriated by the monasteries ( by way of land grant or purchase from the farmer) which then is redistributed amongst the poor who lived mostly in urban India . Did Iran have this situation back in 500 bce? Afaik the old elites still had power and Persians had come in contact with a urban cultures of near East that had solved the urbanization problem differently.
No He did convert Emperor Bimbisara and Emperor Ajatshatru of Shishunaga Empire.
Why not ? followers of Buddha are "supposed" to gain
(1) a man-slave was honoured by the king after his ordination!
(2) a farmer who paid taxes to the king was honoured by the latter after he became a monk
(3) To show the higher advantages of monkhood, the Buddha referred to the life of a man of either low or high caste who had heard His Teaching, inspired with faith, he became a monk and practiced the (a) lower morality, (b) medium morality and (c) higher morality. Then he guarded his senses, developed mindfulness, easily contented, rejected hindrances; he gained the seperation from desire for sensual pleasure and other unwholesome states
(4) born of concentration, inner tranquility, unification of mind
(5) equanimous and mindful and
(6) the freedom from pleasure and pain
(7) Still making further progress he attained insight-knowledge
(8) psychic powers
(9) supernatural powers
(10) the divine-ear
(11) penetrative knowledge of the mind of others
(12) remembrance of former existences
(13) knowledge of the dying and reappearance of other beings
(14) extinction of all mental intoxicants .
Thus, they gain as the present advantages of sacred life the eight kinds of progressively higher, extraordinary knowledge
- This was the response the Buddha gave to Emperor Ajatshatru of Shishunaga Empire who asked why should he be followed
Last edited:
He didn't. Buddhist texts claim they are followers of Buddha. However Jain texts claim that they are followers of Mahavira. It's most likely that they patronized many religions at same time and Buddhist texts are just exaggerating.
The tradition of governance of by gone empires like Neo Assyrian empire, Neo Babylonian empire, the elamites etc etc, the Persians had no shortage of inspiration and ideas on urban management to draw from
Persia did religious toleration. Buddhism might become more widespread in the Achaemenid Persian empire, but they probably would not fully convert to it, but would be fine with its existence as long as it didn't cause trouble.
I think this is quite right. Vedism was elitist, Buddhism was universalist. Zoroastrianism doesn't have the same problem as Vedism. It took time to bring in converts. I don't think anyone has yet mentioned Ashoka several centuries after the Lord Buddha. He was a ruthless conqueror who converted late and did a lot to spread Buddhism both within and beyond India.
I do not know if the Achaemenid empire would officially promote Buddhism, but a interesting possibility to mull over is the Sassanians tolerating Buddhism giving Buddhism a chance to integrate far more fully into Persian society and culture, and maybe even spread into Central Asia, Mesopotamia, and maybe even the eastern coast of Arabia (the UAE, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, ).
Think both suffered from the same problem, thing is back in 500 bce Iranian plateau wasn't as urbanized as the Indian subcontinent, urbanization in Iranian plateau emerged only after the silk road and the spice trade rose up and there by you needed cities to facilitate this flow of goods and people. Indian subcontinent urbanized much earlier and went into decline around the same time as Europe de urbanized after the fall of Rome. And this time period roughly corresponds to the golden age of Buddhism in south Asia. It's a urban phenomenon. Since Iranian plateau urbanized later, the flaws of Mazdayasna didn't really emerge until you had large scale urbanization which happened during the Sassanid era which is when you had zoroastrians questioning their religion.
The rituals of Vedic religion served to establish and enhance the patron client relationship and social network of the tibe hence the elaborate rituals, to strengthen tribe solidarity and leadership of the elite, if you stop looking Vedic religion as a universalist religion and see it as a religion of a particular tribal confederation along the upper reaches of the declining Saraswati river and later Ganga Yamuna doab, the religion makes perfect sense, it's the religion of the kuru tribe and their allies or tributaries nd parts of the rig Veda are composed with reference to a particular family and clan of the purus.
Zoroastrianism, just doesn't have that specific context and has a universalist message but the rituals and modes of worship was the same as Vedic religion because both emerged within the same social context, that is in a society of semi nomadic pastoral economy with rapidly expanding agriculture which is operating in a tribal economy that is to say social network is more important than money.
At the end of the day both suffered from the same problem which is why you had Buddhism replacing zoroastrianism in Afghanistan and south central Asia.
Yes, I was
Yes, I was contrasting the narrower appeal of Vedism with the universalism of Buddhism. Your wider contextualisation of the two interests me though. I used to talk about both and Zoroastrianism somewhat when I taught world history in US colleges.
No it didn't. Persia severely persecuted other religions. Xerxes I in the Daiva inscription boasted about destroying temples of other gods whom he demonized.
Well, it was after several centuries of the growth and development of Buddhism, not at its outset.
Being a sceptic of religion and theology (aka cavarka) I try to find answers to the nature religion and their popularity, their ritual, their theology from a economic and sociological point of view, which isn't accurate in all cases and instances but does help you understand why a particular religion declined and why another one saw a surge in support. As you said it's broad generalization but my theory is backed by facts again in broad strokes