user289: Between the time of the historical Buddha and state support by emperor Ashoka, were Buddhist monks evangelical?
In other words, did Buddhism spread through enthusiastic recruitment by the sangha, or did it spread more due to state support or something else?
Background
This personally occurred to me after living a life as a crypto-Buddhist. There were not many Buddhists around me and no one knew I was a Buddhist. This is despite nominally believing in the Bodhisattva vow, which to my ears, sounds rather evangelical.
I'm trying this question out on Stack Exchange to see if it fares better than it did on a forum, where pretty much people only could agree that they really didn't like Christians knocking at the door and that just about any form of promoting the Dharma to someone not already inclined towards Buddhism (or possibly already a self identifying Buddhist) was a grave violation of respect for autonomy, i.e. forcing one's religion on someone else. And that sentiment sounds like the value system of contemporary ex-Christians in the US more than whatever the earliest Buddhists might have thought.

user121: "Go forth, o bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the good, for the happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by one way. Preach the doctrine that is beautiful in its beginning, beautiful in its middle, and beautiful in its ending. Declare the holy life in its purity, completely both in the spirit and the letter." ~ Mahavagga, Vinaya Pitaka."
I'd imagine it spread much the same way as other religions. In many cultural centers of the ancient world you would have places where multiple beliefs congregated to talk to those who walked by about their faith.  
Imagine going to the mall today and in center court you had a Christian,  Hindu, Buddhist,  Jewish, Muslim, and taoist all speaking of their doctrines?  
You get a glimpse in the Kalama sutta of the time of the Buddha being one where teachers and traditions were numerous and they wandered about teaching their doctrines. 
"As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"
So it is obvious that Buddhism was spread much the same way as other traditions in ancient times.  What makes Buddhism mostly different is that there are almost no examples of buddhism involving forced conversation. 
There is no doubt that king Asoka did for Buddhism what King Constantine did for Christianity hundreds of years later.  Once it became a religion of the dominant Kingdom its spread was assured as it went from one of many doctrines to the official state doctrine.
  

user135: Adding to Jayantha's very good answer:
One needs to look at Indian society at the time of the Buddha. There were many masters profounding various siddhāntas(established and accepted view of a particular philosophical school). It is called an 'established conclusion' but that view is final and definitive for the one who has settled on it. It does not necessarily mean that the person will never abandon that view, but for now that person thinks it is final. 
The masters continued transmission of their siddhāntas through paramparās(lineage of followers). These masters had great respect among people and many went to different masters seeking guidance and became a follower of a siddhānta. Often, one paramparā was challenged by another paramparā with philosophical arguments. The victor persisted. Thus we could consider that at that time, every master was a missionary. This answers your question if all early Buddhists were missionaries. 
But there is a difference in the kind of missionary religion Buddhism is. As Dr. Arvind Sharma puts it:
"Buddhism is indeed a missionary religion, it possesses a feature which distinguishes it from Christianity and Islam as missionary religions. When one converts to these two religions, one is supposed to break from one’s previous religious past and then substitute Christian or Islamic beliefs and practices for the old ones, which are now abandoned. Buddhism, however, does not insist on such a break and conversion to it need not entail the abandonment of one’s religious past. In other words, we have another dichotomy here, between those religions which require one to abandon one’s previous religious loyalties upon conversion, and those which do not."‡
References:

‡ Sharma, Arvind. "Of Conversion and Reversion." OPEN Magazine.
N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Perdue, Daniel. "Reasoning within the Buddhist Context." The Course
in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate: An Asian Approach to Analytical
Thinking Drawn from Indian and Tibetan Sources. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N.
pag. Print.


289: <p>Between the time of the historical Buddha and state support by emperor Ashoka, were Buddhist monks evangelical?</p>

<p>In other words, did Buddhism spread through enthusiastic recruitment by the sangha, or did it spread more due to state support or something else?</p>

<p><strong>Background</strong>
This personally occurred to me after living a life as a crypto-Buddhist. There were not many Buddhists around me and no one knew I was a Buddhist. This is despite nominally believing in the Bodhisattva vow, which to my ears, sounds rather evangelical.</p>

<p>I'm trying this question out on Stack Exchange to see if it fares better than it did on a forum, where pretty much people only could agree that they really didn't like Christians knocking at the door and that just about any form of promoting the Dharma to someone not already inclined towards Buddhism (or possibly already a self identifying Buddhist) was a grave violation of respect for autonomy, i.e. <em>forcing</em> one's religion on someone else. And that sentiment sounds like the value system of contemporary ex-Christians in the US more than whatever the earliest Buddhists might have thought.</p>
 121: <p>"Go forth, o bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the good, for the happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by one way. Preach the doctrine that is beautiful in its beginning, beautiful in its middle, and beautiful in its ending. Declare the holy life in its purity, completely both in the spirit and the letter." ~ Mahavagga, Vinaya Pitaka."</p>

<p>I'd imagine it spread much the same way as other religions. In many cultural centers of the ancient world you would have places where multiple beliefs congregated to talk to those who walked by about their faith.  </p>

<p>Imagine going to the mall today and in center court you had a Christian,  Hindu, Buddhist,  Jewish, Muslim, and taoist all speaking of their doctrines?  </p>

<p>You get a glimpse in the Kalama sutta of the time of the Buddha being one where teachers and traditions were numerous and they wandered about teaching their doctrines. </p>

<p>"As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, "Lord, there are some brahmans &amp; contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound &amp; glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, &amp; disparage them. And then other brahmans &amp; contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound &amp; glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, &amp; disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain &amp; in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans &amp; contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"</p>

<p>So it is obvious that Buddhism was spread much the same way as other traditions in ancient times.  What makes Buddhism mostly different is that there are almost no examples of buddhism involving forced conversation. </p>

<p>There is no doubt that king Asoka did for Buddhism what King Constantine did for Christianity hundreds of years later.  Once it became a religion of the dominant Kingdom its spread was assured as it went from one of many doctrines to the official state doctrine.</p>

<p>&nbsp; </p>
 135: <p>Adding to Jayantha's very good answer:</p>

<p>One needs to look at Indian society at the time of the Buddha. There were many masters profounding various siddhāntas(established and accepted view of a particular philosophical school). It is called an 'established conclusion' but that view is final and definitive for the one who has settled on it. It does not necessarily mean that the person will never abandon that view, but for now that person thinks it is final. </p>

<p>The masters continued transmission of their siddhāntas through paramparās(lineage of followers). These masters had great respect among people and many went to different masters seeking guidance and became a follower of a siddhānta. Often, one paramparā was challenged by another paramparā with philosophical arguments. The victor persisted. Thus we could consider that at that time, every master was a missionary. This answers your question if all early Buddhists were missionaries. </p>

<p>But there is a difference in the kind of missionary religion Buddhism is. As Dr. Arvind Sharma puts it:</p>

<p>"Buddhism is indeed a missionary religion, it possesses a feature which distinguishes it from Christianity and Islam as missionary religions. When one converts to these two religions, one is supposed to break from one’s previous religious past and then substitute Christian or Islamic beliefs and practices for the old ones, which are now abandoned. Buddhism, however, does not insist on such a break and conversion to it need not entail the abandonment of one’s religious past. In other words, we have another dichotomy here, between those religions which require one to abandon one’s previous religious loyalties upon conversion, and those which do not."<sup>‡</sup></p>

<p><strong>References:</strong></p>

<ul>
<li><p>‡ Sharma, Arvind. "Of Conversion and Reversion." OPEN Magazine.
N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.</p></li>
<li><p>Perdue, Daniel. "Reasoning within the Buddhist Context." The Course
in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate: An Asian Approach to Analytical
Thinking Drawn from Indian and Tibetan Sources. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N.
pag. Print.</p></li>
</ul>
