Academic question- How did Buddhism manage to survive in Myanmar, Thailand and Sri Lanka when it declined in other parts of the globe?

[Falcon@71]

Question for academic purpose. How did Buddhism remain intact for thousands of years in countries like Myanmar, Thailand, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Cambodia when it declined in India, Central Asia, Malaysia, Indonesia and Afghanistan? Is it due to lack of support from the state or due to persecution. Buddhism is also declining in Korea, Japan and China I believe.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Question for academic purpose. How did Buddhism remain intact for thousands of years in countries like Myanmar, Thailand, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Cambodia when it declined in India, Central Asia, Malaysia, Indonesia and Afghanistan? Is it due to lack of support from the state or due to persecution. Buddhism is also declining in Korea, Japan and China I believe.

Almost unique answers for each, although it is so, so tempting to generalise and form categories.

Let's look at them individually, without prejudice to the selection that you have posted.

In Myanmar, there was no earlier, cognate system to resile and weaken the hold of this 'new' religion on society. Remember that in 600 BC, it was a revolution in religion, and militated against its precursor systems of Vedic and the altered form of Vedic Hinduism, Puranic Hinduism. It took no less than 14 centuries to dislodge Buddhism from its moments of domination in India.
In Myanmar, there was no such underlying, or preceding religious system that sought to recover lost ground. So Buddhism was an attractive and complete social mandate for individuals, families and kinship groups, and it lasted.

In Thailand, it was so similar to Myanmar that it is redundant to adumbrate a separate explanation for that country (as it is now constituted; its national boundaries, like those of so many other pre-Westphalian states, fluctuated significantly in bygone times).

I believe that each of the countries you have named can be analysed socially and we can find evidence to explain the present religious situation of that country.

Does this sound reasonable, and should we continue?

 

[Falcon@71]

Almost unique answers for each, although it is so, so tempting to generalise and form categories.

Let's look at them individually, without prejudice to the selection that you have posted.

In Myanmar, there was no earlier, cognate system to resile and weaken the hold of this 'new' religion on society. Remember that in 600 BC, it was a revolution in religion, and militated against its precursor systems of Vedic and the altered form of Vedic Hinduism, Puranic Hinduism. It took no less than 14 centuries to dislodge Buddhism from its moments of domination in India.
In Myanmar, there was no such underlying, or preceding religious system that sought to recover lost ground. So Buddhism was an attractive and complete social mandate for individuals, families and kinship groups, and it lasted.

In Thailand, it was so similar to Myanmar that it is redundant to adumbrate a separate explanation for that country (as it is now constituted; its national boundaries, like those of so many other pre-Westphalian states, fluctuated significantly in bygone times).

I believe that each of the countries you have named can be analysed socially and we can find evidence to explain the present religious situation of that country.

Does this sound reasonable, and should we continue?

But how did Buddhism disappear from Central Asia especially Afghanistan and from Malaysia and Indonesia? This is a sort of controversial issue because we don’t know the proportion of Buddhism in these areas. For example, Syria and Egypt was majority Christian which became Muslim. Iran was a Zoroastrian majority which became Muslim. However, In Central Asia including Afghanistan religions like Zoroastrianism, Tengrism, Hinduism, and Shamanism were as equally popular as Buddhism. Even the center of Zoroastrianism was Balkh in Afghanistan. Same In Malaysia and Indonesia, Hinduism was as popular as Buddhism and it is difficult to estimate the proportion of Buddhists in relation to the overall population.
As a result, many scholars put different theories. Some say that lack of state support caused decline in Buddhism, some say Buddhism was weaker in these places before Islam and so it became vulnerable to Islamic conversion. What do you think?

 

[Joe Shearer]

But how did Buddhism disappear from Central Asia especially Afghanistan and from Malaysia and Indonesia? This is a sort of controversial issue because we don’t know the proportion of Buddhism in these areas. For example, Syria and Egypt was majority Christian which became Muslim. Iran was a Zoroastrian majority which became Muslim. However, In Central Asia including Afghanistan religions like Zoroastrianism, Tengrism, Hinduism, and Shamanism were as equally popular as Buddhism. Even the center of Zoroastrianism was Balkh in Afghanistan. Same In Malaysia and Indonesia, Hinduism was as popular as Buddhism and it is difficult to estimate the proportion of Buddhists in relation to the overall population.
As a result, many scholars put different theories. Some say that lack of state support caused decline in Buddhism, some say Buddhism was weaker in these places before Islam and so it became vulnerable to Islamic conversion. What do you think?

Wait, wait!

 

[Joe Shearer]

But how did Buddhism disappear from Central Asia especially Afghanistan and from Malaysia and Indonesia?

Again, we need to look at them separately?

For example, Syria and Egypt was majority Christian which became Muslim.

These have their own stories; you just told it.

Iran was a Zoroastrian majority which became Muslim.

Same old, same old. Iran has its own story.

However, In Central Asia including Afghanistan religions like Zoroastrianism, Tengrism, Hinduism, and Shamanism were as equally popular as Buddhism.

Can we club all these together?

But how did Buddhism disappear from Central Asia especially Afghanistan and from Malaysia and Indonesia? This is a sort of controversial issue because we don’t know the proportion of Buddhism in these areas. For example, Syria and Egypt was majority Christian which became Muslim. Iran was a Zoroastrian majority which became Muslim. However, In Central Asia including Afghanistan religions like Zoroastrianism, Tengrism, Hinduism, and Shamanism were as equally popular as Buddhism. Even the center of Zoroastrianism was Balkh in Afghanistan. Same In Malaysia and Indonesia, Hinduism was as popular as Buddhism and it is difficult to estimate the proportion of Buddhists in relation to the overall population.
As a result, many scholars put different theories. Some say that lack of state support caused decline in Buddhism, some say Buddhism was weaker in these places before Islam and so it became vulnerable to Islamic conversion. What do you think?

So let's look at the neighbouring countries of Myanmar and Thailand; what happened?

First, Cambodia. It remains Buddhist, having come to it through a period of mixed Hindu-Buddhist society. One factor behind all three is the very strong common ethnic bond - a very large majority ethnic population and a single language - although Myanmar is racked by insurrections of the tribes on the fringes of the sprawling Burmese Empire that was crushed by the British at a particularly weak moment in its history.

Second, Malaysia (and Indonesia - the differences will become clear a while later). Why these two countries turned to Islam is a complicated matter. Both had the same ethnic homogeneity and the language homogeneity as the first three mentioned had, but both turned to Islam, a very moderate form of Islam in general, but verging on the stricter forms in the northern parts of Malaysia, the Malay part, and in the northern tip of Sumatra, in Aceh. However, between them, Indonesia has a form of culture and society that continues to be heavily influenced by the older Hindu-Buddhist legacy of those islands, so much so that many of their names, their proper names, are instantly recognisable by, say, an Indian.

The question is not of what they are today, but why did Buddhism fail, and give way. Could it have been the Bangladesh model, or the Kerala model, where Arab traders, and, in general, heavy trade links with the western portions of the Indian Ocean littoral brought the new religion into focus and persuaded a number of people to convert to Islam? That cannot be a reason by itself, as Cambodia was as heavily connected to trade - more, much more than Malaya (considering it separately from its modern national shape and configuration of Malaysia), although Indonesia, due to being the origin of many very valuable spices, was as heavily invested in international trade as Chittagong in Bangladesh or the Kerala coast and Calicut (Kozhikode) in general.

We may have to return to this question of Malaysia and Indonesia later.