Why did kings, warriors, merchants, etc. become Buddhists?

[shuka]

I read this thread. I have a host of questions. I am trying to understand why some persons in ancient India/Asia became Buddhists. I invite DNS, SarathW, DooDoot, Coemgenu, Dhammanando, Mabw and all to participate in this discussion thread.

I think I read a theory somewhere that the masses in India weren't able to comprehend the Dhamma, deep in meaning and practice and so reverted to more folk religion type practices.

Perhaps due to the strong craving. I can see a similar issue in Sri Lanka too. I don't think any of my family members will be able to tell me what is Noble Eightfold Path. They will be struggling with the five precepts. No hopes about the eight precepts at all.
Many Buddist is hanging to Buddhism, not because realising the value of it but due to strong views about Buddhism so they can be hoodwinked by anyone.

There are 535 million Buddhists in the world.

It appears that ordinary Buddhists who lived in places where Buddhism existed in the past did not understand Buddhist philosophy as it was too complex for them. On the other hand, kings, the gentry, the wealthy and some others would have had the means to study the teachings in depth and practice them properly.

1. Was Buddhism a religion of the masses or was it generally followed by some sections (the elite) of ancient Indian society - such as kings, the aristocracy, the wealthy/merchants/businesspersons, the educated, etc.?

2. While it is possible that the Buddhist masses in ancient India moved away from Buddhism to other religious traditions or folk religious practices later, could it be because they could not understand Buddhist teachings? Why would the masses shift to Buddhism if they could not understand it in the first place?

My 2 cents:
-the Brahmanic tradition had lots to offer the state. Treatises were composed on statecraft with rituals for the royalties etc. Buddhism had little to offer in terms of statecraft, not to the sophistication of the other tradition. This is also seen in South East Asia when Hindu Buddhist kingdoms dotted the region. The kings had brahmins in court. Burma had brahmins to conduct abhiseka on the king. check Wiki. Mahayana had something to offer the state. Consequently it had patronage in Japan, and for a time, China. To my understanding, Korean Buddhism also had to adopt a closer relationship to the state to survive.

Fortunately, Ashoka sent his missionaries out far and wide, so that Buddhism had a foothold in SE Asia and beyond. Otherwise, Buddhism could have died out right there in India.

If it is true that Buddhism has less to offer to the state in terms of statecraft and rituals in comparison to other traditions, then probably other religions would have been a more attractive choice than Buddhism. But there were many Buddhist kings.

3. For what possible reasons did these past kings, royalty and warriors (who are neither monastics nor inclined towards renunciation, were expansionists and mostly violent) of ancient India and Asia opt to be Buddhists even though other religions were offering them better worldly services, rituals, and were more condoning of violence than Buddhism? (Buddhist teachings do not condone waging bloody wars and would object many actions that these people or states engaged in.)

- I've mentioned this before, but did not get much traction. Buddhism is focused on its monastics. From the text, I do not get the impression the laity were well versed. If the monastic institution is shaken, then...
- down to daily life, there is little as far as I am aware of Buddhist ceremonies to mark life events such as birth, marriage etc. When you don't have an institution for yourself, others create them for you. The thread on Buddhist marriages confirms this. When Buddhists do not enter the daily life of the laity, strong Indian cultural practices with Brahmanic elements fill the void.

(It is true that Buddhism is focused more on the monastic community as renouncing lay life is a core teaching.)

4. Does Buddhism not have any rituals to mark life events such as birth, marriage, etc.?

5. If the laity were neither interested in studying Buddhist teachings nor had any rituals or celebrations for their life events, then why would did they become Buddhists when other religions in ancient India had these elements they require?

Such believers who love money and materialism are easy converts for other religions.

6. Why did merchants and the wealthy (who usually desire is to amass wealth and increase it) of ancient India/Asia follow Buddhism even though it encourages detachment from material and sensual things?

[DNS]

Just my opinion in the answers below.

1. Was Buddhism a religion of the masses or was it generally followed by some sections (the elite) of ancient Indian society - such as kings, the aristocracy, the wealthy/merchants/businesspersons, the educated, etc.?

Both

2. While it is possible that the Buddhist masses in ancient India moved away from Buddhism to other religious traditions or folk religious practices later, could it be because they could not understand Buddhist teachings? Why would the masses shift to Buddhism if they could not understand it in the first place?

They shifted to Buddhism because it made sense to them and then later moved away.

3. For what possible reasons did these past kings, royalty and warriors (who are neither monastics nor inclined towards renunciation, were expansionists and mostly violent) of ancient India and Asia opt to be Buddhists even though other religions were offering them better worldly services, rituals, and were more condoning of violence than Buddhism? (Buddhist teachings do not condone waging bloody wars and would object many actions that these people or states engaged in.)

Because it's true?

4. Does Buddhism not have any rituals to mark life events such as birth, marriage, etc.?

No. Modern versions of this are new additions, not a part of Buddhism, originally.

5. If the laity were neither interested in studying Buddhist teachings nor had any rituals or celebrations for their life events, then why would did they become Buddhists when other religions in ancient India had these elements they require?

Because they felt Buddhism is true? And maybe that is why some moved away from it.

6. Why did merchants and the wealthy (who usually desire is to amass wealth and increase it) of ancient India/Asia follow Buddhism even though it encourages detachment from material and sensual things?

Because it's true? Also, one can use income and wealth to practice generosity, a core practice in Buddhism.

[SarathW]

Does Buddhism not have any rituals to mark life events such as birth, marriage, etc.?

No.
In Sri Lanka, we do not have birthday rituals (Holly communion, etc) or Chruch-type weddings among Sri Lankan Buddhists.
Now a day the only connection Buddhists in Sri Lanka have is the funeral ceremonies.
Unfortunately, monks like Ven Kiribathgoda Nanananda are trying to stop that as well. The monks in his new sect Asapuwa tradition do not attend funeral rituals.

[sunnat]

In the beginning there was no buddhism. Buddha was not a buddhist. He taught a middle path, a way of life suitable for all irrespective of creed, station in life, race, gender etc. Equally suitable for an atheist, agnostic or theist slave or monarch. Some people were conditioned to understand the Dhamma because of their past kammas. Others needed to start doing the right things and so at some point in their future present find they have been conditioned to understand the Dhamma.

At some point this way of life became a religion, full of the delusions and rituals that go with religions. Yet the true teachings, the Dhamma is eternal and the same process of coming to understand it is still there, guiding rulers and plebs alike.

[DooDoot]

Such believers who love money and materialism are easy converts for other religions.

6. Why did merchants and the wealthy (who usually desire is to amass wealth and increase it) of ancient India/Asia follow Buddhism even though it encourages detachment from material and sensual things?

Hi, the Buddha was from royal class and obviously very inspiring; so he was venerated by many, similar to say how the Dalai Lama is venerated today by clueless groupies who are attracted to his metta.

Also, while the Buddha was like a rock star or movie star, he was not particularly morally demanding on those who worshipped him like a god or as fad. We can read in the suttas (DN 2) how a King who killed his own father was not treated sternly by the Buddha. Or King's spoke to Buddha then said to him they have to depart and fight a war. Or Kings went to the Buddha (DN 16) and said they are planning to start a war and asked if they will succeed. So these groupies are typical worldly people who follow religion as a cultural fad rather than as a moral practise, similar to many Sri Lankans today, who might post on Buddhist internet forums while they are drunk on alcohol or watching porn.

But I imagine it was after the Buddha when King Asoka brutally conquered India, began to feel remorse for his deeds and converted to Buddhism. It probably was King Ashoka who transformed Buddhism into a major Indian religion and I would personally suggest all of the doctrinal corruptions that ultimately lead to Buddhism's demise or loss of uniqueness were introduced under King Ashoka.

Kind regards

[SarathW]

[who might post on Buddhist internet forums while they are drunk on alcohol or watching porn./quote]
lay people are only expected to refrain from consuming alcohol.

[DooDoot]

[who might post on Buddhist internet forums while they are drunk on alcohol or watching porn.

lay people are only expected to refrain from consuming alcohol.

The suttas say about when the mind is full of sensual desire, such as when watching porn and manically posting on Buddhist forums at the same time:

[At Saavatthii the Brahman Sangaarava asked the Buddha:] "Why is it, good Gotama, how does it come about that sometimes sacred words I have long studied are not clear to me, not to mention those I have not studied? And how is it too that sometimes other sacred words that I have not so studied are clear to me, not to mention those I have studied?"

Well, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires, and does not know, as it really is, the way of escape from sense-desires that have arisen, then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, nor can he know and see what is to the profit of others, or of both himself and others. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.

Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .wlsh.html

[SarathW]

The suttas say about when the mind is full of sensual desire, such as when watching porn and manically posting on Buddhist forums at the same time:

These are two diffrent actions with diffrent Vipaka.

[DooDoot]

These are two diffrent actions with diffrent Vipaka.

No.

[DooDoot]

These are two diffrent actions with diffrent Vipaka.

No. Murdering a person with a Dhammapada in my pocket won't save me. Such an idea is superstition; similar to ISIS screaming out "Allah U Akbar". Generally, most primitive social religions contain such heretical ideas.

[mabw]

If it is true that Buddhism has less to offer to the state in terms of statecraft and rituals in comparison to other traditions, then probably other religions would have been a more attractive choice than Buddhism. But there were many Buddhist kings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devasathan

"Brahmins, generally known as ponna (ပုဏ္ဏား) in Burmese, served as specialists for ritual ceremonies, astrology, and devotional rites to Hindu deities at the Konbaung court.[40] They played an essential role in king-making rituals, consecration and ablution ceremonies called abhiseka (ဗိဿိတ်).[41] Court Brahmins (ပုရောဟိတ်, parohita) were well embedded in daily life at the court, advising and consulting the king on various matters.[42] A social hierarchy among the Brahmins determined their respective duties and functions.[42] Astrologer Brahmins called huya (ဟူးရား) were responsible for determining astrological calculations, such as determining the auspicious moment for the foundation of a new capital, a new palace, pagoda, or assumption of the royal residence, announcing an appointment, leaving a place, visiting a pagoda or starting a military campaign.[43] They also established the religious calendar, prepared the almanac (သင်္ကြန်စာ), calculated upcoming solar and lunar eclipses, identified major festival days based on the lunar cycle, and communicated auspicious times and dates.[43] A special group of Brahmins who performed abhiseka rituals were also selected as pyinnya shi (ပညာရှိ), appointed royal counselors."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konbaung_dynasty

I do not know to what extent these kings were Buddhists or Hindus. It seems to me to be a pretty composite situation. Modern South East Asia is still a mixture of both.

3. For what possible reasons did these past kings, royalty and warriors (who are neither monastics nor inclined towards renunciation, were expansionists and mostly violent) of ancient India and Asia opt to be Buddhists even though other religions were offering them better worldly services, rituals, and were more condoning of violence than Buddhism? (Buddhist teachings do not condone waging bloody wars and would object many actions that these people or states engaged in.)

"The Mahavamsa also describes an account of the Buddhist warrior king Dutugamunu, his army, and 500 Buddhist monks battling and defeating the Tamil king Elara, who had come from South India and usurped power in Anuradhapura (the island's capital at the time). When Dutugamunu laments over the thousands he has killed, the eight arhats (Buddha's enlightened disciples) who come to console him reply that no real sin has been committed by him because he has only killed Tamil unbelievers who are no better than beasts, then go on to say: "thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from the heart, O ruler of men."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_ ... #Sri_Lanka

Sometimes, literature is written to justify violence.

As far as becoming Buddhist, I suppose it's similar to the situation today. Some are genuinely inspired by the teachings. Some for the perceived worldly benefits it brings.

5. If the laity were neither interested in studying Buddhist teachings nor had any rituals or celebrations for their life events, then why would did they become Buddhists when other religions in ancient India had these elements they require?

I suppose some laity were interested, some weren't. For a complex mix of reasons, the religion died out in India. My point in raising those points were not to prove Buddhism is wrong. I am Buddhist. I was merely trying to point some weaknesses organisationally speaking that Buddhists have not overcome: Disconnect between the ordained and laity, inability to make Buddhism a part of daily life, endless bickering and unwillingness to learn from within Buddhist traditions etc.

Not getting much feedback on these issues however. Well, I've done my part for bringing it up. Maybe I got it wrong.

[Sam Vara]

Gombrich's thoughts about the social and economic conditions necessary for the rise and dissemination of Buddhism might be useful in thinking about questions 1 and 3 in the OP. Buddhism rose in the second period of urbanisation in India which entailed the production of an agricultural surplus. Just as in the west, a surplus is required in order to give people the time and leisure to practice religion, but also to give people the opportunity to live lives which were relatively free from oppression by other humans or by natural forces and scarcity. There could be no popularising of the notion of kamma, for example, where all lives are uniformly determined by external circumstance and people can themselves do little about their suffering.

The gahapati (householder) who features so strongly in the suttas was, Gombrich thinks, something like a gentleman farmer, perhaps with a town house. Such people would be receptive to the ideas that one could - in ethics and in religion, as well as in material prosperity - be "self made", the master of one's own fate. The individual who has money as a means of economic exchange has moved from ascribed status to achieved status. He has little need for communal rituals and supernatural appeasement based on clan and caste, and is the type of believer who would look favourably upon ideas of individual agency and ones life-chances being determined by moral worth. They have individual personal responsibility for themselves.

[sphairos]

I have very little time as usual, but in two words: charisma and prestige. German sociologist and historian Max Weber introduced these categories into the analysis of social development, and they are very useful in the present context as well.

[SarathW]

These are two diffrent actions with diffrent Vipaka.

No. Murdering a person with a Dhammapada in my pocket won't save me. Such an idea is superstition; similar to ISIS screaming out "Allah U Akbar". Generally, most primitive social religions contain such heretical ideas.

There are bright Kamma, dark Kamma, and bright&dark Kamma.

[DooDoot]

There are bright Kamma, dark Kamma, and bright&dark Kamma.

A mind muddled with sensuality posting wrong views about Dhamma is not bright kamma.