Buddhism in India

Buddhist Civilisation 119

was found was the stupa and carvings at Sanchi, the construction

of which began earlier but was completed during their rule. Similar

claims can be made for literature. Brahmanic religious literature

of course is available from this period: the Upanishads, the

Dharmasashtras, the Arthasashtra and others of its type. The epics

Mahabharataand Ramayanatook their final form in the 1st centuries

CE. Pali Buddhist literature from this period (though surviving only

outside of India) is much greater in extent. Further, much of the

earliest Sanskrit literature was Buddhist (that of Asvaghosha and

early Mahayana); and even other literature is either secular or

Buddhist-influenced, for example the Tamil Sangam period and

kavya literature, covering the period up to the 6th century and the

Maharashtri Prakrit Gathasattasati, and so forth.

Politically, the evidence indicates a strong Buddhist predominance

almost everywhere in the subcontinent. The identification of kings

as ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Hindu’ is somewhat problematic. Apart from

Asoka, no ruler was clearly Buddhist, and most patronised all

religions. Brahmans continued to provide councillors and ministers

for all kings but, as Buddhist literature itself shows, Brahmans were

not necessarily supporters of ‘Brahmanism’, that is of varnashrama

dharmaand the Vedas, and all those who were called ‘Brahmans’

were not necessarily Brahmans by caste. With this in mind, we can

make the following religious–political survey:

The early gana-sanghas cannot be described as either ‘Buddhist’ or

‘Hindu’, though they were most influenced by the samana

tradition in general. The rising monarchies had strong connections

with Buddhism. The early kings of Kosala and Magadha, Pasanedi

and Bimbisara, were Buddhist sympathisers, and even the parricide

son of Bimbisara, Ajatasattu, conqueror of the Vajjian gana-sangha

confederacy, was claimed by the Buddhists as a sympathiser, though

sources also describe him as being influenced by Devadatta (leader of

another samana cult and a major ‘villain’ in the Buddhist tradition).

Chandragupta Maurya, who acceded to the throne in 321 BC fol-

lowing the invasion of Alexander the Great, and initiated the rise of

Magadha to supreme power; is supposed to have become a Jain and

renounced the throne (Keay 2001: 83–86). Strikingly, Magadha was

considered by Brahmanic literature to be amlechha(barbarian) land

where Vedic sacrifices and Brahmanic rituals were not performed.

Chandragupta’s grandson Asoka, whose reign is dated from 272

to 232 BC, ruled over the largest empire known in India up to the

118 Buddhism in India

India has been a great civilisation, but the interpretation of this
civilisation has been unusually contested. The British period insti-
tuted both the ‘Aryan myth’ and the ‘Hindu myth’, with the tradi-
tional European classifications of ancient, feudal and modern periods
being interpreted as ‘Hindu India’. ‘Muslim India’ and ‘British India’.
Indian historians have disputed this, but continue to define their past
as a largely ‘Hindu’ one. Buddhism has been taken as subsidiary,
basically a form of Hinduism that became uninfluential after Asoka.
The contemporary construction of the ‘Hindu’ past also interprets
caste in this light. While the Vedic peoples are seen as having no
caste, the roots of varna are nevertheless seen in the Brahman, the
warrior or rajanya, and the common people or visof the Vedic
tribes. These, it is thought, expanded quite naturally into Brahman,
Kshatriya and Vaishya, with the various absorbed tribal groups
and peoples proliferating to become jatis under the new category of
Shudra. There is little mention of any struggle or conflict being
involved in this process, since most of the historians of India have
in general agreed on the collectivist aspects of caste.
These issues will be taken up in this chapter. In regard to India’s
past, we will argue that the decisive period for the formation of the
continuous ‘thread’ of history was the first millennium BCE, and
that to a very large degree the thousand years after this represent a
civilisation dominated by Buddhism: ancient India was not ‘Hindu
India’ but ‘Buddhist India’. Second, historicising caste, we will
show that the system of varnashrama dharmahad its beginnings
about the same time, but it came to dominate only with the triumph
of Brahmanism. Finally, we will examine aspects of the civilisation
that Buddhism encouraged and conclude with a discussion of the
relationship between religion and economic growth.

Buddhist India

Was ancient India ‘Hindu’ or Buddhist?
Art and architecture testify that it was overwhelmingly Buddhist for
over a millennium. The earliest religious architecture is Buddhist—
vihars, stupas, caves including caitya halls and monasteries, statues.
There is no Hindu temple until the time of the Guptas, and even
these were small. Even in the period of the Guptas, considered to be
the classical Hindu kings, the most magnificent architecture that