English role

Source: TW

I do think that religiosity has deeper biological(broadly including para-genetic transmission) roots and the expression of religiousity is monophyletic among extant humans. That said natural religions (e.g. H dharma), as opposed to counter-religions e.g. Abrahamisms, are slow in defining themselves in clearly demarcated terms or giving themselves a name. They have certain sense of universality in that they see the religiosity of the other as just a manifestation of their own (even if an inferior one). Often they develop the sharp demarcation when confronted by a counter-religion. Thus, the narrow sense H boundary developed when confronted with jaina & bauddha. It was amplified in the conflicts with the 3rd & 2nd Abrahamism. If anything the English played a role in that sense rather than anything else. One place where they did seem to have created a schism by definition was with the abrahamized H cult of the sikhs.

Mohammedan free-thinkers who were attracted by H & B ideas in the rejection of Abrahamism certainly distinguished H and B.

The one place where I would differ from R.Khan’s perspective is that “Turanian B is clearly not H”. That certainly was not the case. There was actually quite H & “syncretic” H & B presence right down to the fall of those polities to the Islamic assault. The navavihAra bauddha like the barmAkids who played a major role in the Khilfat had ties some very H-ized bauddha groups. I doubt beyond knowledge transmission any religious ideas survived inside Islam barring the free thinkers rejecting it. Some of that is mentioned here .