Why did Jainism decline in India?

Mar 2019
1,463
KL
#31
Easy for the loosing religion to claim persecution. Convenient to predator religions of later times.
who is the winner and the loser in vedic religion vs present day hinduism? its no secret that even the vedic religion died and was replaced/engulfed by present day hinduism, the only vedic followers surviving today are in state of kerala. Even hindus get surprised when kerala south indian vedic religion followers visit their holy sites in haryana.

regards
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,396
New Delhi, India
#32
Vedic religion merged with Hinduism. They cannot be counted as two. During our yajnas/havans/homas, we worship the Vedic deities as well. Our worship generally starts with the 'Hiranyagarbha' sukta.

hiraṇyagharbhaḥ samavartatāgre bhūtasya jātaḥ patirekaāsīt l
sa dādhāra pṛthivīṃ dyāmutemāṃ, kasmai devāyahaviṣā vidhema ll
The Rig Veda in Sanskrit: Rig Veda Book 10: Hymn 121
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,497
USA
#33
who is the winner and the loser in vedic religion vs present day hinduism? its no secret that even the vedic religion died and was replaced/engulfed by present day hinduism, the only vedic followers surviving today are in state of kerala. Even hindus get surprised when kerala south indian vedic religion followers visit their holy sites in haryana.

regards
Vedic religion died? Hmmm, that's a tall claim.
 
Apr 2019
233
India
#34
Easy for the loosing religion to claim persecution. Convenient to predator religions of later times.
I can't believe it that someone is doing this to defend medieval tyrannicals.

OK for Ashok Maurya, let's suppose bad Hindus prosecuted good Buddhists in the cities but what about the villages? Why don't we find any traces of them in village myths and temples? Why are there zero monastic order of Buddhists in India unlike Hindus who have thousands of them and they have survived all kind of odds against them? Why did Buddhist monks not live in forests like monks ought to do? Why did Buddhist monks used to live luxurious lives? Why did Buddhism has to survive on someone eles's charity? Why Buddhist monastic orders were not self-efficient?
The thing was Buddhism was never as much wide-spread in India as people believe it to be. It died beacuse people stop patronising them.

Their last vestige must have been bitter because nobody was bestowing gifts/money on them like earlier time. Neither they seem of the type that will survive in the forests living on roots and fruits like 'sadhus' do.

But still I've always found positive portrayal of Buddhist monks in contemporary 'Hindu(by Brahmins) literature.

One more thing at the time general perception of ascetics(regardless their religious affiliation) was just not positive.
Also in India there was tradition in which the teachers used to change their orders after failing in public debates. The pupils used to follow the suit.

Whatever political motives can be of people trying to create a rift between Hindu-Buddists or to portray Hindus as barbarians the truth is there is no vast difference between both of sects. True seekers don't fall for such gimmicks neither it is ldeal of these 'religions'.

And even if there is a dispute between these two sects it's internal matter of Dharmic traditions and they will solve it on their own. No outsiders are allowed to intrude.
See how those evil Hindus give shelter to Tibetan Buddhists without any evil Brahmin conspiracy. How evil Hindus don't make fuss about other people's faith (unless they try to proselytise or malign them).
 
Likes: hansolo

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,396
New Delhi, India
#36
I study Vedas(though It's hard to understand them). I didn't know it's a 'dead religion'. It's a news for me.
It is not hard to understand Vedas if you do not look for 'divine voice' in it.
I can't believe it that someone is doing this to defend medieval tyrannicals.

Their last vestige must have been bitter because nobody was bestowing gifts/money on them like earlier time. Neither they seem of the type that will survive in the forests living on roots and fruits like 'sadhus' do. But still I've always found positive portrayal of Buddhist monks in contemporary 'Hindu' (by Brahmins) literature.

One more thing at the time general perception of ascetics (regardless their religious affiliation) was just not positive. Also in India there was tradition in which the teachers used to change their orders after failing in public debates. The pupils used to follow the suit.

Whatever political motives can be of people trying to create a rift between Hindu-Buddists or to portray Hindus as barbarians the truth is there is no vast difference between both of sects. True seekers don't fall for such gimmicks neither it is ideal of these 'religions'.
Why do you think that I would stoop to something like that? Lord Buddha and Buddhism as well as Mahavira and Jainsim have always been respected among Hindus. I have not come across any convincing record of persecution of these religions. On the contrary, what I have always found is support of Hindu kings for both. You are making the Hindu medieval kings tyrannical without much evidence. The stories of discord are plaints of the loosing religions and in later period, machinations of missionaries.

There are many reasons for decline of Buddhism in India. Buddhist scholars made Buddhism much too difficult for common people to understand it. It became too scholarly. The absence of Gods in Buddhism made a difference. The popularity of various Vedanta doctrines made a difference. Acceptance of Lord Buddha as the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu, even if not whole-heartedly, must have made a difference. Hindu mendicants roamed in forests, while the Buddhists lived in Samghas. Such institutions are more difficult to maintain with dwindling support from the majority which gravitated to revitalized Hindu religious orders. I do not think the perception of religious orders in India at any time was negative.

I do not see any difference between my atheistic view of Advaita and Buddhism. So, I have taken both Buddha and Sankara as my gurus. Buddha, because of 'Kalama Sutta'. That is a gem of an advice.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,463
KL
#38
i do think that vedic religion is dead, its gods no longer worshipped, atleast by most hindus and their temples not erected, its rituals not practiced like soma, agnicayana etc

secondly people who are making statements like tyrannical, foreign invaders etc, have not an ounce of idea what they are even talking about, if you believe is this colonial crap, then what makes you challenge aryan theory, and lots of other colonial theories in the first place, as i said, colonists did concoct a lot of BS for instance aryan invasion using the remains of mohenjo daro, but it was subsequently debunked, there is yet no archaeological evidence which conclusively proves that nalanda was destroyed, if you have proof of that please bring it forth, if you are hell bent on defending such crap rhetoric without archaeological proofs then its just like defending aryan invasion hypothesis propagated by mortimer wheeler.

if nalanda was destroyed, where is the evidence of destruction?

regards
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,396
New Delhi, India
#39
i do think that vedic religion is dead, its gods no longer worshipped, atleast by most hindus and their temples not erected, its rituals not practiced like soma, agnicayana, etc.
Yeah, things change. Change is the only constant. Not only the Vedic religion, but Hinduism too has changed and is changing every monent. What is wrong with that? It should change with time. If something does not change then in time it becomes a discard. Vedics did not need temples, their way was yajnas. But, all over India, we have temples of Lord Vishnu (an Aryan deity), Rudra too (Is Shiva not that?) and Mother Saraswati (Aryan deities). Aryans were not invaders/aggressors in India. They were migrants and trickled in along with their cows and sheep. Of course, later they mixed with the indigenous people, and 'being Aryan' changed into 'being a nice person'. Whether it is birth, mundana, yajnopavita, marriage, bhoomipujan, grihapravesh, start of an enterprise, death or draught; we cannot do without yajna/homa. In what way would you say that Vdic religion is dead? :)
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,497
USA
#40
Yeah, things change. Change is the only constant. Not only the Vedic religion, but Hinduism too has changed and is changing every monent. What is wrong with that? It should change with time. If something does not change then in time it becomes a discard. Vedics did not need temples, their way was yajnas. But, all over India, we have temples of Lord Vishnu (an Aryan deity), Rudra too (Is Shiva not that?) and Mother Saraswati (Aryan deities). Aryans were not invaders/aggressors in India. They were migrants and trickled in along with their cows and sheep. Of course, later they mixed with the indigenous people, and 'being Aryan' changed into 'being a nice person'. Whether it is birth, mundana, yajnopavita, marriage, bhoomipujan, grihapravesh, start of an enterprise, death or draught; we cannot do without yajna/homa. In what way would you say that Vdic religion is dead? :)
Yes Aryans trickled with their cows and sheep and horses from Saraswati region to entire India, as much as they trickled to the West of India.
 

Similar History Discussions