Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism

Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section Two South Asia, Volume 24, Johannes Bronkhorst, Brill (2011)

PREFACE

The book’s content is based on lectures given by the author over the past five years in various international cities.
Several chapters and sections have been previously published as articles in academic journals and edited volumes.
The author finalized the book during a residency at the Liguria Study Center for the Arts and Humanities in Bogliasco, Italy.
Acknowledgements are given to the Bogliasco Foundation and the author’s wife, Joy Manné.

INTRODUCTION: BUDDHISM BEFORE THE NEW BRAHMANISM

1.1 The Original Context

Challenges the common view that Buddhism was a reaction against a dominant Vedic Brahmanism.
Argues that the area where Buddhism arose, “Greater Magadha” (east of the confluence of the Ganges and Jumna rivers), was not brahmanical territory at the time of the Buddha (c. 400 BCE).
Evidence from the Sanskrit grammarian Patañjali (c. 150 BCE) indicates that this eastern region was still considered outside the brahmanical heartland, suggesting Brahmanism spread there later.
The political history of Greater Magadha shows rulers patronizing non-brahmanical movements like Jainism and Ājivikism, not Brahmanism, until around 185 BCE.
Greater Magadha had its own distinct spiritual culture, which included the practice of building round sepulchral mounds (stūpas) and a shared ideology based on rebirth and karmic retribution.
Various movements in the region offered different solutions to the problem of karma:
- Jainism proposed extreme asceticism and the cessation of all activity to stop creating new karma and destroy old karma.
- Another widespread belief was that liberation could be achieved through knowledge of a true self that does not act and is therefore unaffected by karma.

1.2 Interactions

Early Buddhism was acquainted with, but did not accept, the prevalent idea in its region (Greater Magadha) of an inactive, permanent self whose knowledge was thought to lead to liberation from karma.
The Buddha taught that the five constituents of a person (body, feeling, perception, etc.) are impermanent and painful, and therefore cannot be considered the “self”.
The Buddhist path to liberation requires abandoning the preoccupation with a true self, rather than discovering it.
Buddhism also rejected the extreme ascetic practices of other groups like the Jainas, which focused on immobilizing the body and mind.
The Buddhist canon contains contradictions, sometimes recommending practices that are rejected elsewhere. This is likely because early converts brought non-Buddhist ideas and practices with them.
A proposed method to identify the Buddha’s original teachings is to treat ideas that are both rejected and recommended in the canon as probable borrowings from other traditions.
The text refutes the idea that Buddhism is a form of Yoga, stating that classical Yoga was influenced by Buddhism much later, and pre-classical Yoga’s goals were contrary to the Buddha’s teachings.
The earliest Buddhist texts were deeply influenced by the spiritual environment of Greater Magadha, with minimal influence from Brahmanism at that stage.

1.3 Imperial Help

The Nanda and Maurya dynasties created a vast empire in India, with its capital in Magadha, which facilitated the spread of religions from that region, such as Jainism, Ājīvikism, and Buddhism.
Most rulers of these dynasties, with the notable exception of the Buddhist convert Aśoka, favored Jainism and Ājīvikism and held an anti-brahmanical stance.
Aśoka’s inscriptions promote a universal moral code he called Dharma, which is distinct from Buddhist doctrine and does not mention core tenets like saṃsāra or the Four Noble Truths.
Aśoka did not make Buddhism the state religion; he honored all sects, but his policies restricted Brahmanism by forbidding animal sacrifice and criticizing certain ceremonies.
The rise of imperial patronage likely spurred the development of Buddhist monasticism, as early evidence suggests monks were not initially organized to receive large collective gifts like land grants.
The empire’s existence allowed religions to spread; Jainism reached southern India, while Buddhism established strongholds in Sri Lanka and Greater Gandhāra (northwest India/Pakistan/Afghanistan).
In Greater Gandhāra, which was under Greek political and cultural influence after Alexander the Great’s conquests, Buddhism underwent a major intellectual transformation.
Confronted with the Greek tradition of debate, Buddhists in this region developed a systematic ontology, reinterpreting traditional concepts into a new philosophy.
This new philosophy held that only momentary, ultimate constituents called dharmas truly exist, while composite objects are unreal collections given a false sense of existence by words.
The text Milinda-pañha, which depicts a debate between an Indo-Greek king and a Buddhist monk, may reflect the influence of a more Socratic, scholarly style of debate on Indian traditions.

BRAHMANISM

The rise of the Maurya empire under Aśoka was unfavourable to Brahmanism, as Brahmins were excluded from the imperial administration.
The centralized empire replaced traditional local rulers, destroying the economic basis of sacrificial Brahmanism which relied on ritual support for these rulers.
Aśoka’s ban on animal sacrifices further weakened traditional Brahmanism.
Despite these setbacks, Brahmanism did not end; it transformed and recovered.
A millennium later, this transformed Brahmanism became extraordinarily successful, influencing large parts of South and Southeast Asia.

2.1 The New Brahmanism

Vedic Brahmanism was a “primary religion,” tied to a specific culture and language, without universal claims or the desire to convert others. In contrast, religions from Greater Magadha, like Buddhism and Jainism, were “secondary religions” with universal claims to offer a path to liberation for everyone.
The rise of large, non-Vedic empires (Nanda, Maurya) threatened the survival of traditional Vedic Brahmanism by removing its royal patronage system.
To adapt, Brahmins reinvented themselves by broadening their services beyond ritual sacrifice. They offered counsel to kings on statecraft, predicted futures, interpreted signs, and performed simpler rites.
A core part of this new Brahmanism was the promotion of a hierarchical vision of society divided into four classes (varnas): Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras, with Brahmins at the top.
Early non-brahmanical sources, like Aśoka’s inscriptions and the Buddhist canon, do not reflect this four-varna system as a social reality. They mention Brahmins but describe the rest of society differently, suggesting the varna ideology was not widely accepted at the time.
Brahmins created a vast literature—including epics like the Mahābhārata, political treatises like the Arthaśāstra, and legends like that of Cāṇakya—to promote their vision and justify their role as indispensable royal counselors.
The spread of Brahmanical influence was a gradual process of ideological acceptance, not religious conversion. It began with the adoption of its terminology and social framework, even by rulers who also supported other groups like Jainas and Buddhists.
The Sanskrit inscription of King Rudradāman (c. 150 CE), which mentions the varnas, is a key piece of evidence showing that the Brahmanical vision of society and its preferred language were gaining official acceptance.

2.2 The Spread of Sanskrit

The spread of Sanskrit is a manifestation of the spread of Brahmanism, not just a linguistic phenomenon.
Nicholas Ostler’s theory that Sanskrit spread as a lingua franca for trade and cultural promotion is misleading and confuses the spread of Sanskrit with that of other Indo-Aryan vernaculars.
Sheldon Pollock describes a “Sanskrit cosmopolis” (c. 300-1300 CE) where Sanskrit was the primary language for political expression, functioning through “aesthetic power” rather than as a language of trade or administration.
Pollock is critiqued for disconnecting the spread of Sanskrit from the spread of Brahmins and their social vision, particularly by arguing that early Sanskrit inscriptions were commissioned by non-Brahmanical immigrant rulers.
The author counters this by analyzing the inscription of the Kṣatrapa king Rudradāman (c. 150 CE), which uses Brahmanical social terms (like Vaiśya) and expresses partiality to Brahmins, suggesting an adoption of the Brahmanical worldview to legitimize rule.
The spread of Brahmanism is defined not as religious conversion, but as the acceptance of Brahmins as the highest members of society and the adoption of their social order (the varna system).
Extensive epigraphical evidence from Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Cambodia) shows the powerful presence and influence of Brahmins in royal courts, even in Buddhist states, where they served as priests, ministers, and advisors.
In Sri Lanka, despite the dominance of Buddhism and a weak Brahmin presence, Brahmanical texts on statecraft (Arthaśāstra, Manusmṛti) were the primary models for governance due to the lack of a Buddhist alternative.
The author concludes that the spread of Sanskrit is inextricably linked to the spread of Brahmins and their social-political framework, which was adopted by rulers across South and Southeast Asia.

2.3 The Brahmanical Colonization of the Past

Brahmanism reinvented itself after the Maurya empire, becoming a socio-political ideology aimed at establishing Brahmin superiority in all domains, including ritual, politics, and the supernatural.
A key strategy of this “new” Brahmanism was to deny its newness, presenting its culture and language (Sanskrit) as eternal and without beginning.
This “colonization of the past” involved retrospectively claiming that the Maurya empire, which had actually been a disaster for traditional Brahmanism, was created by a Brahmin minister named Cānakya.
The historical reliability of the Cānakya legend is doubtful, as early sources do not mention him, and the story serves a clear propagandistic purpose to promote the importance of Brahmin counsellors to rulers.
The Arthaśāstra, a text on statecraft attributed to Cānakya (also known as Kauṭilya or Viṣnugupta), is not a reliable source for the Maurya period.
Scholarly analysis shows the Arthaśāstra has multiple authors and its current form dates to centuries after Candragupta Maurya, likely between the 2nd and 4th centuries CE.
Recent research suggests that the text’s pro-Brahmin ideology was a later addition to an earlier core text on statecraft which did not heavily feature the Brahmanical social order (varnadharma).
The testimony of the Greek ambassador Megasthenes, who described Indian society as having seven classes instead of the four Brahmanical varnas, supports the idea that the region of Magadha was not yet “brahmanized” during Candragupta’s reign.
The Cānakya legend was a successful Brahmanical reconstruction of history that became widely accepted, even by non-Brahmanical traditions like Buddhism.

2.4 The Brahmanization of Borrowed Features

The Brahmanical hermitage, or āśrama, was not an original invention but an adaptation of a concept borrowed from other religious movements like Jainism and Buddhism.
These other movements received shelters and land grants (monasteries) from rulers, which Brahmins could not initially profit from. The āśrama was created as a Brahmanical equivalent to compete for this patronage.
Brahmanical literature, such as the epics and Kālidāsa’s plays, depicts āśramas as idyllic, peaceful places of intense religious activity and immense spiritual power, thereby encouraging rulers to support them.
Inscriptions, reflecting the donor’s perspective, record land grants known as agrahāras or brahmadeyas given to Brahmins to support their ritual duties, which were seen as a spiritual investment for the kingdom’s welfare.
The text argues that āśramas (the literary ideal) and agrahāras (the inscriptional reality) are two perspectives on the same institution, with the former serving as a justification for the latter.
Chronological evidence from texts like the Mahābhārata and Vedic literature shows that the concepts of both āśramas and land grants to Brahmins are ancient and developed concurrently.
The earliest inscriptional evidence for land/shelter donations is for non-Brahmanical groups (e.g., Ājīvikas, Buddhists), suggesting Brahmins adopted the practice to secure their own patronage.
Land grants often meant that the tax revenue from a village was redirected to the Brahmin donee, with local inhabitants providing the labour, as Brahmins were generally expected not to till the land themselves.

BUDDHISM CONFRONTED WITH BRAHMANISM

3.1 A Courtly Challenge

Brahmanism had advantages over Buddhism in gaining royal support due to its long involvement in state affairs, clear ideas on governance, and willingness to justify military action.
Buddhism’s core focus on escaping society and rebirth made it difficult to offer pragmatic political advice, creating a challenge for Buddhist thinkers at court.
Buddhist teachings on non-violence conflicted with the duties of a ruler, as Buddhism did not have a concept like the Brahmanical svadharma (caste-duty) that permitted violence for a warrior class.
Early Buddhist texts like the Aggañña Sutta critiqued the divine origin of the Brahmanical caste system but accepted the social reality of the four classes and the king’s role as an enforcer of order.
The ideal of a righteous, non-violent ruler (Dharma-king or Cakkavatti), inspired by the memory of Emperor Aśoka, was promoted in texts like the Cakkavatti-Sihanāda Sutta, which describes a king conquering the world peacefully with a magical Wheel-Treasure.
Buddhist advice to real-world kings, found in texts by authors like Mātrceta and Nāgārjuna, was often impractical, focusing on piety and virtue rather than statecraft, and even suggesting that a king should become a monk if righteous rule proves impossible.
Other Buddhist authors like Āryadeva, Aśvaghoṣa, and Vasubandhu were highly critical of kingship, describing it as a source of negative karma, delusion, and indiscipline.
One text, the Questions of King Milinda, resolves the dilemma by portraying the king as a mere instrument of a criminal’s own karma, thus absolving the ruler of guilt for punishments.
The text proposes that Buddhists effectively conceded certain professional domains to Brahmins, including not only political counsel but also divination, astrology, mathematics, astronomy, and the use of mantras.
Historical examples from Southeast Asia (Thailand, Cambodia) show that even in Buddhist kingdoms, Brahmins were employed at court to advise on statecraft and perform state rituals.
Similarly, the Buddhist kingdom of Sri Lanka consulted Brahmanical Sanskrit texts on politics, and Indian kings like Harṣavardhana supported both faiths simultaneously.
It is suggested that Buddhists may have also relied on Brahmins for personal life-cycle rituals, as noted by the 10th-century philosopher Udayana.

3.2 Science and Religion in Classical India

In contrast to the Christian Middle Ages where mechanical arts like Medicine and Architecture were initially disdained for dealing with “mundane matters,” a similar attitude existed in classical India.
Brahmanical texts, including Vedic literature, Dharmasūtras, and the Mānava Dharmaśāstra, describe the medical profession as impure and despised, excluding physicians from certain rituals and privileges.
Some Brahmanical texts (Purāṇas, Mānava Dharmaśāstra) also expressed a negative view of mathematics, astrology, and astronomy (jyotih), despite it being a Vedānga (“limb of the Veda”).
Buddhist texts list five sciences (vidyāsthāna): the science of the self, logic, words, medicine, and arts/crafts. Notably, astronomy, astrology, and mathematics are absent from this list.
Buddhists did not contribute to the development of jyotihśāstra, viewing it as a typically Brahmanical field of knowledge, as illustrated in the Śārdūlakarnāvadāna.
The Buddhist abstention from these fields stems from early canonical texts where the Buddha rejects practices like predicting eclipses and interpreting omens as “base arts” and “wrong means of livelihood.”
The text suggests a mutual, negative influence: Buddhists rejected these sciences partly because they were associated with Brahmins, and in turn, some orthodox Brahmanical texts adopted a critical stance towards them, possibly influenced by the Buddhist rejection.
Despite this, the development of mathematics and astronomy continued within Brahmanism, but without Buddhist participation.

3.3 A New Language

Buddhists in northwestern India adopted Sanskrit during a transitional period around the 2nd century CE, shifting from regional languages like Gāndhārī.
This adoption is considered a mystery because Sanskrit was the language of their main competitors, the Brahmins, and Buddhists had flourished for centuries using other languages.
Previous explanations, such as Sanskrit being the “language of learning and prestige,” are insufficient as they don’t explain why this shift occurred specifically at this time after centuries of not using it.
The author argues that the change was driven by political necessity, not a newfound appreciation for Sanskrit.
Around the same time, rulers (like the Śakas and Kuṣāṇas) began using Sanskrit in political inscriptions to align themselves with the Brahmanical elite and their socio-political order.
Brahmins had made themselves indispensable at royal courts through skills in political advice, astrology, and calendrical systems, making Sanskrit the official court language.
As Buddhist monasteries grew and became more dependent on royal patronage, they needed to defend their interests (e.g., property, donations) at court.
To participate in legal and philosophical debates at court, Buddhists were compelled to adopt Sanskrit, the language of administration and power.

Appendix to Chapter 3.3: Jainism, Mathurā and Sanskrit

While early influence was from Jainism to Buddhism, this reversed later, with Sarvāstivāda Buddhism influencing Jainism, likely in Mathurā during the Kuṣāna period.
Jainism adopted Sarvāstivāda philosophical ideas, including the atomic nature of matter and the concept of pudgala.
Evidence from the large Jaina stūpa in Mathurā and carved stone plaques (āyāgapatas) suggests that Jains once practiced relic and stūpa worship, similar to Buddhists.
Jainism later discontinued this practice, possibly to distinguish itself from Buddhism in a competitive religious environment.
Later Śvetāmbara texts explain this discontinuity by stating that the gods took the bodily remains of the tīrthankaras, making them unavailable for worship.
Other historical breaks in Jainism include the adoption of strict vegetarianism, which contradicts some early canonical texts that mention eating meat.
These discontinuities may be linked to a major crisis in Mathurā—a 12-year famine that led to a council to reconstitute the Jaina scriptures.
Unlike Buddhists, who adopted Sanskrit to gain royal patronage, the Jains of Mathurā continued to use Prakrit for their canon.
This was likely because northern Jainism was supported by the middle classes (traders, artisans) and was not dependent on royal courts.
The Tattvārtha Sūtra, an early Jaina text in Sanskrit, was an exception likely composed in South India.
The use of Sanskrit in the South suggests southern Jains were more dependent on royal support, possibly due to owning property like monasteries and land endowments.

3.4 Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, the Original Language

Many religious traditions, including Brahmanism, Theravāda Buddhism, and Jainism, considered the language of their sacred texts to be the original, universal language.
The followers of the Vedic tradition viewed Sanskrit as the only correct and eternal language, with other languages being corruptions of it.
Theravāda Buddhists claimed their sacred language, Māgadhī (Pāli), was the original language of all beings, from which all other languages, including Sanskrit, were derived.
Jainas held a similar belief about their sacred language, Ardha-Māgadhī, considering it the source of Sanskrit and other languages.
Buddhists who used Sanskrit but had sacred texts in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS) faced a situation similar to the Vedic Brahmins, whose sacred Vedic texts differed from classical Sanskrit.
The Brahmins solved this by insisting that Vedic and classical Sanskrit were essentially one and the same eternal language, and any lack of understanding was the fault of the listener, not the language.
Some Buddhists adopted a similar solution for BHS, treating it as fundamentally identical to Sanskrit. The grammarian Kumāralāta classified BHS forms as ārṣa (of the sages), akin to Vedic forms, and the philosopher Candrakīrti used Pāṇini’s rules for Vedic grammar to explain BHS irregularities.
However, a passage in Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya suggests that other Buddhists may have held the opposite view: that their sacred language (BHS) was the original source from which Sanskrit was derived.

3.5 Buddhism Sanskritized, Buddhism Brahmanized

The Buddhist adoption of the Sanskrit language was accompanied by the absorption of Brahmanical cultural and societal norms, leading Buddhists to accept a “watered down” version of the Brahmanical worldview.
Sanskrit works by authors like Aśvaghoṣa (Buddhacarita, Saundarananda) depict the Buddha’s father as an ideal Brahmanical king who performs Vedic rituals, employs a Purohita (priest), and wages war, a sharp contrast to non-Sanskrit biographies.
Āryaśūra’s Sanskrit Jātakamālā, while critical of Brahmanical statecraft (nīti), still portrays the ideal king (the Bodhisattva) as following Brahmanical principles, such as pursuing the three aims of life (trivarga) and mastering the Vedas. This differs from the Pāli Jātakas.
Other evidence of Brahmanization includes stories being altered to give key figures Brahmanical parentage, the 7th-century Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang observing that Indian Buddhists followed the caste system, and Buddhist authors using Brahmanical concepts to praise the Buddha.
The author argues that Brahmins “framed the debate” on society; their sophisticated terminology became the standard, forcing even opponents to use it and thereby reinforcing the Brahmanical worldview.
Buddhists adopted the term “yoga” from Brahmanism to describe their own meditative practices. This term was not used in this sense in early Buddhist texts but became common in later Sanskrit and Pāli literature.
This process created a widespread but historically incorrect understanding of Buddhism as being secondary to and arising from Brahmanism, which weakened the religion from within.
The Brahmanical victory over Buddhism was complete: it either disappeared from India or, as in the case of Newar Buddhism in Nepal, survived by fully adopting Brahmanical structures like the caste system.

3.6 Philosophical Encounters

Buddhists were highly skilled in philosophical debate, which compelled Brahmins to develop their own coherent ontological systems, primarily Vaiśeṣika and Sāṃkhya.
A fundamental difference existed for centuries: Buddhist philosophers argued that the common-sense world is not ultimately real, while Brahmanical philosophers maintained that it is.
This divide may be linked to their social roles; Brahmins were political advisors dealing with practical realities, while Buddhists focused on higher spiritual truths, downgrading the ordinary world.
An asymmetry existed in conversion: Brahmins could convert to Buddhism, but Buddhists could not become Brahmins (a status determined by birth). Historical examples show that Brahmins who converted to Buddhism often retained their social status.
The royal court was the ideal venue for philosophical debates, where participants sought patronage, honours, and the potential conversion of the king.
Kings, however, were often more interested in other skills like poetry or astronomy, and debates sometimes involved miraculous feats rather than pure logic.
The structure of these debates was linked to legal court procedures, where disputes were settled before the king to determine which doctrine was correct.
Debaters used various rhetorical, psychological, and even magical tactics to win.
Brahmanical texts like the Laws of Manu show a distrust of pure logical reasoning, especially when it contradicted scripture, whereas Buddhists appeared more confident in logic as a tool to defend their doctrine.
The Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna advanced the debate by arguing that the phenomenal world is self-contradictory and thus unreal, forcing Brahmanical schools to reformulate their positions.
While direct textual evidence of confrontation is scarce before the 6th century CE, the philosophical developments show continuous interaction.
Around the 6th century CE, a new Brahmanical philosophy, Advaita Vedānta, emerged, which accepted the Buddhist position that the phenomenal world is an illusion, marking a significant shift possibly linked to the collapse of the Gupta empire.

Relic Worship

Buddhist relic worship conflicted with Brahmanical ideas of purity, which considered dead bodies impure.
The practice of building round sepulchral mounds (stūpas) for bodily remains predated Buddhism in the culture of Greater Magadha and was also found in Jainism.
Under pressure from Brahmanical ideas, Buddhist veneration shifted away from direct contact with bodily relics.
The focus of worship moved from the relics to the stūpa itself, which came to be seen as a personification of the Buddha.
The Buddha’s teaching (dharma) was identified as his true body (dharmakāya), leading to the veneration of written texts (dharmaśarīra) placed in stūpas.
Buddha images later began to replace stūpas as the primary objects of veneration.
In regions with little or no Brahmanical influence, such as Sri Lanka, China, and ancient Gandhāra, bodily relics were more openly displayed and directly venerated.

What Happened to the Body of the Buddha?

While modern scholarship accepts the historical account of the Buddha’s cremation and the distribution of his relics, the author proposes a re-examination of this narrative.
The text draws a parallel between Buddhist stūpas and the Hindu tradition of burying renouncers in tombs called samādhis, suggesting a shared origin in the pre-Brahmanical customs of Greater Magadha.
The canonical account of the Buddha’s funeral contains inconsistencies, such as placing the body in an oil-filled tub (a method of preservation) before putting the entire tub on the funeral pyre.
A hypothesis is proposed: the original story involved preserving the Buddha’s uncremated body in oil and entombing it in a single stūpa.
This story was later modified to include cremation because ashes and bones can be divided, justifying the widespread cult of relics in thousands of stūpas across the Buddhist world.
The Buddhist legend of Mahākāśyapa being entombed in a mountain and the concept of “solid” relics of past Buddhas that could not be divided may be traces of an earlier, non-cremation tradition.

Appendix to chapter 3.7: What happened to Mahāvīra’s body

Jainism has stūpas, but relic worship is not a central practice, unlike in Buddhism.
The dominant Jain tradition states that the relics of the Jina Mahāvīra were taken to heaven by the gods to be worshipped there.
An analysis of the oldest canonical account of a Jina’s funeral suggests that the story of the relics being taken to heaven was a later insertion.
The original narrative likely described the Jina’s remains being placed in a stūpa on earth.
It is argued that Jainism modified its tradition for the opposite reason to Buddhism: to justify the absence of a widespread relic cult by explaining that the relics were no longer on earth.
The earliest practice may have been entombment without cremation, with the cremation story itself being a later development.

3.8 Adjustment to Political Reality

Buddhism was initially at a political disadvantage compared to Brahmanism, as it offered little practical advice for rulers or for laypeople living in society, focusing instead on monasticism.
The development of the Bodhisattva ideal, inspired by the Jātakas (stories of the Buddha’s past lives), allowed committed Buddhists to remain in society, seek wealth, marry, and accumulate merit while pursuing enlightenment.
This new framework helped reconcile Buddhist ethics with the practical duties of rulers, with some Mahāyāna texts justifying killing enemies of the faith or using force to impose virtue, a stance also found in some Theravāda texts.
By presenting rulers as Bodhisattvas, Buddhism could compete with Brahmanism for the role of royal counsellor and began to adapt brahmanical manuals on statecraft.
To counter Brahmanism’s advantage in providing magical protection, Buddhism increasingly incorporated rites and spells, a development known as tantric Buddhism, which was heavily influenced by Śaivism.
Tantric rituals were used for state protection, helping Buddhism gain influence in royal courts in India, Cambodia, China, and Japan, and making it an attractive “export commodity” to regions like Tibet.
Despite these adjustments, South Asian Buddhism remained indebted to Brahmanism, adopting its political models, Vedic concepts, and even the caste system in some tantric texts.
The text concludes that while these adaptations did not ultimately save Buddhism in India, the tantric form that provided ideological and ritual support to political power was the version that survived and spread elsewhere.