Why did Jainism decline in India?

Mar 2019
1,463
KL
#22
Let's say the Turk Bakhtiyar Khilji destroyed Nalanda although it was still functioning in later days and there were also other ransacked universitie
no, khilji only ransacked odantapuri, not nalanda, the colonial scholarship blamed nalanda burning on muslims, but i dont think that enough proof has been found that nalanda was destroyed, only ashes from one monastery was recovered not others, other scholars have contested the colonial asusmption that nalanda was destroyed by khilji. There were also agreement between buddhists and muslims that ther schools will not be ransacked, beforehand, if khilji had ransacked nalanda it simply would not have remained functioning in the later periods and would have been immediately abandoned.

regards
 
Apr 2019
233
India
#23
no, khilji only ransacked odantapuri, not nalanda, the colonial scholarship blamed nalanda burning on muslims, but i dont think that enough proof has been found that nalanda was destroyed, only ashes from one monastery was recovered not others, other scholars have contested the colonial asusmption that nalanda was destroyed by khilji. There were also agreement between buddhists and muslims that ther schools will not be ransacked, beforehand, if khilji had ransacked nalanda it simply would not have remained functioning in the later periods and would have been immediately abandoned.

regards
Khilji also ransacked Vikramshila which had valuable collection of manuscripts. He didn't have good motive. I think we will agree on this point. Neither he strikes as kind of person who will keep his promise after achieving his motive. There must be a reason why
most of the conversions happened in the places which had large Buddhist population.
I'll not falsley accuse anyone but I see no reasons for protecting image of the medieval foreign intruders because they have themselves delightfully recorded the bloodbath of the subcontinent. Almost all of them had no class.
 
Likes: Zanis
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
#24
muslims didn't destroy nalanda, only odantapuri, naland kept functioning till fifteen hundreds and i have seen buddhist statues from mughal periods as well, buddhism just didn't survive in india, it should be noted that mahabodhi temple was converted into vishnu temple as well.

regards
after khalji's sacking,nalanda was a shadow of its former past with only few people ever doing anything there,this clearly shows nalanda was badly damaged if not destroyed and later rebuilt a bit after muslim invasion to the area.
 
Apr 2019
233
India
#25
No, Kamayani. Buddha was not nihilist.

People around Indus and East of it were named Hindus by Central Asian Aryans mong whom Zoroaster was born.

That is only one definition of 'astika'.

Why should you condemn Hindus?

The distance between the two religions was not great.

Don't be quick to condemn people.
Buddha never wrote any book so we exactly can't tell what he thought. But in it's ancient form Buddhism had nihilistic tendencies. Later sects softened their stance.

Yes I know we are called Hindu since ancient time but I think it was more of a cultural identity not a religious one.

Yes I forgot that word 'nastika' has several meaning. It can also mean someone who doesn't like decipline!

I mean if Hindus do/did something bad then I'll not whitewash them. Everyone is equal in my eyes.

Yes there is not much distance between them. Actually many Buddhist monks used to teach Nyaya and Mimansa at the universities. But as I've said before Buddhism was an urban religion which was totally dependent on the patronage of rich and influential people unlike 'Hindu' gurukulam/ashram which mostly operated in villages/forests and their teachers lead minimalistic lives.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,396
New Delhi, India
#26
I do not think you are correct here. That way there is no way to the original sayings in ANY religion at all. Buddha did not dwell on that, he had different POV. He mentioned these things as imponderbles (Acinteyya).
Geographical, cultural and religious identity, all combined.

I get these meanings for 'nastika' from spokensanskrit.de:
नास्तिक adj. nAstika atheistical
नास्तिक m. nAstika atheist
नास्तिक m. nAstika unbeliever
नास्तिक adj. nAstika infidel
नास्तिक m. nAstika atheist or unbeliever
नास्तिक m. nAstika freethinker

and these for 'astika':
आस्तिक adj. Astika believing
आस्तिक adj. Astika faithful
आस्तिक adj. Astika having faith in God
आस्तिक adj. Astika one who believes in the existence

and this from Monier-Williams:
1 nAstika mf(%{I})n. atheistical , infidel ; m. an atheist or unbeliever (opp. to %{A7stika} q.v.) Mn. MBh. &c. ; %{-tA} f. (MW.) , %{-tva} n. (W.) disbelief , atheism ; %{-kya} n. id. (with %{karmaNAm} , denying the consequence of works) Mn. iii , 65 ; %{-mata} n. an atheistical opinion MW. ; %{-vRtti} mfn. leading the life of an atheist or receiving sustenance from an athñatheist Vishn2.

I did not find your definition of 'nastika' in these places. Oh yes, I am also one of those who would call a spade a spade. I do not think Hinduism needs apologists.
Buddhism reached far and wide in history, I do not think it was restricted only to the rich. Indian populace could understand difficult philosophies. We delight in religious discussions even in villages.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,456
India
#27
no, khilji only ransacked odantapuri, not nalanda, the colonial scholarship blamed nalanda burning on muslims, but i dont think that enough proof has been found that nalanda was destroyed, only ashes from one monastery was recovered not others, other scholars have contested the colonial asusmption that nalanda was destroyed by khilji. There were also agreement between buddhists and muslims that ther schools will not be ransacked, beforehand, if khilji had ransacked nalanda it simply would not have remained functioning in the later periods and would have been immediately abandoned.

regards
it is well documented in Minhaj e Siraj about Bhakhtiyar Khilji destroyed Nalanda (Bihar Sharif) and beheading numerous Buddhist monks. The destruction of Nalanda is also documented in Tibetan sources.
 
Mar 2019
1,463
KL
#29
Khilji also ransacked Vikramshila which had valuable collection of manuscripts. He didn't have good motive. I think we will agree on this point. Neither he strikes as kind of person who will keep his promise after achieving his motive. There must be a reason why
most of the conversions happened in the places which had large Buddhist population.
I'll not falsley accuse anyone but I see no reasons for protecting image of the medieval foreign intruders because they have themselves delightfully recorded the bloodbath of the subcontinent. Almost all of them had no class.
relying on colonial scholarship will lead indian history to no where, even today Archaeological survey of india, which should base its facts on archaeology and not myths propagated by colonists should be the base of the indian history. The muslim historians only document the destruction of one university which has been evidenced by odantapuri university ruins, and it is clearly mentioned that odantapuri was destroyed for being mistaken for a fortress, nalanda ruins doesnt show any destruction, all its statues have been found in intact position showing no signs of deliberate damage.

based on few skeleton remains found from mohejo daro colonial scholarship declared it as evidence of aryan invasion but such a notion was debunked by investigation of subsequent scholarships, but vested agendas are not trying to debunk the myth of nalanda destruction by turkic or muslim invasions.

It should be noted that buddhists have written about nalanda destruction by the hand of the hindus as well.


1554843809331.png
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions