I have recently read a book on Buddhism. The book dealt with the strength of Buddhism that helped it spread its wings far and wide and literally floodlands after lands when Hinduism with roots far deeper and older was existing, though in a weak state. Buddhism is generally regarded as the ‘Ksatriya’ revolt against the preponderance of the ritualistic and caste-based hierarchical, Brahminical religion. Gautama Buddha was himself a descendant of a feudal ruling clan at Kapilabastu in present Nepal. Admittedly, the rulers’ patronage behind the new religion was the principal reason behind its almost meteoric ascendancy in the land now known as India as well as in other countries in the neighborhood. The contribution of Asoka, the great Maurya Emperor, in this matter is beyond question. He sent emissaries far and wide, proclaiming the superiority of Buddhism as an ethical creed and a religious system.
Buddhism reached its acme across India during the Gupta period (320-550AD) in history. Though the Guptas performed Vedic sacrifices to legitimise their rule as they were Hindus they also patronised Buddhism. The military exploits of the first three rulers — Chandragupta-I, Samudragupta and Chandragupta-II —unified vast tracts of lands spread over northern India into a well-knit political-cultural unit. They also expanded trade across the frontiers. With the merchandise went the sterling freshness of Buddhism. Rabindranath Tagore termed the Gupta period as the Age of Tapovana (Forest Hermitage) when the Chinese, the Huns, the Sakas, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans thronged around India.
Some scholars are, however, of the view that purity involved in Buddhism declined fast because of its royal association. The kings, instead of the true teachers, remained in the van of the Buddhist movement. It is opined that if kings and emperors left Buddhism to those people who were really spiritual it would have been much better for real Buddhism to flourish. The scholars cite the instance of the king of Norway killing the people who were not Christians and thus succeeding in establishing Christianity. The same is supposed to have happened to Mohammedanism. When it succeeded, the followers of the Prophet became Khalifas. Subsequently, the true religion declined. It is also said that Asoka made the whole thing mechanical with the inner truth lost.
The differences of Buddhism with Hinduism are clear. The former was an organised religion with a founder and well-defined creed with stress both on individual salvation and collective welfare. Hinduism is, on the other hand, a compendium of myriad faiths and paraphernalia as varied as can be imagined. There are many ways to salvation, Hinduism proclaims. It has no definite founder, no creed, and no single code to follow. It represents what is called laissez-faire — everything for everyone, given the peculiarity of the stage the individual consciousness has reached in spiritual development.
Yet, in essence, Buddhism seems to be a continuation of the evolution of the Hindu thought that began with the Vedas and attained acme in the Upanishads. Though Buddhism stresses much on ethical aspects of life there are hardly significant differences between metaphysical lookouts on life, except for the fact that while Buddhism considers life as a chronicle of sorrows the Upanishads proclaim life as evolving manifestation of infinite Ananda.
The premise is the same — both consider life, steeped into ignorance, as unreal and evanescent. While Buddha says that the final salvation lies in ending the wheel of cause and effect accruing from Karma and getting lost in the Void or Sunya (non-existence) the Upanishads, on the other hand, stresses on arousing the inmost soul to help it merge in the delight of existence. S Radhakrishnan refused to consider Buddhism as an absolutely original doctrine. According to him, Buddhism is no freak in the evolution of the Indian thought, but a continuation; a discovery, by no means an invention.
It seems that the ethical and simple appeal of Buddhism as contrasted with the metaphysical complexity of the original Hindu thought caught the imagination of the people far and wide. Besides, the Buddha was, as S Radhakrishnan called him, ‘a man, not God, a teacher, not a savior’. He is far more easily approachable and his teaching, more intelligible than the philosophical complexity involved in the Hindu thoughts, particularly the Upanishads.
Buddhism spread far and wide across Far East and Southeast Asia. Yet, it assumed peculiar character in tune with the peculiarity involved in the temperament of the respective country it stepped into.
As for China, Buddhism was supposed to have trickled in instead of coming like a deluge. For, China was rich in pre-Buddhist traditions of its own. This is more or less the same story everywhere, contrary to the long-held view that Buddhism conquered lands bordering India in an unchallenged swipe.