Why did Jainism decline in India?

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,544
USA
#41
It is not hard to understand Vedas if you do not look for 'divine voice' in it.
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.
People who have studied with the intent of finding divine voice have indeed mastered the Vedas, and that has been the tradition in India. What rubbish are you talking?
 
Apr 2019
406
India
#42
People who have studied with the intent of finding divine voice have indeed mastered the Vedas, and that has been the tradition in India. What rubbish are you talking?
And even if someoen can't find 'divine voice' in thr Vedas, he/she can still marvel over their poetic beauty, can rejoice in cracking the symbolism of the verses and most importantly can get the gist of the psyche of our ancient ancestors.

Before discovery of Indus valley civilization the Vedas were branded as product of high-culture in west but afterwards they were labled as verses of marauding nomads.
 
Apr 2018
1,562
Mythical land.
#44
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
unlike for AIT we actually have near contemporary account of nalanda's destruction,like that of dharmasvamin,who mentions that after attack of turks nalanda is now shadow of its past,with only about 2-3 functional areas with less than 100 students in entire nalanda.
 
Apr 2019
406
India
#46
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,


regards
We can't erect a Vedic temple because Vedic Gods are abstract.
Most of Hindu rituals still incorporate Vedic mantras.
Even in earliest days Vedic yajnas were performed only by specific group of people.
We can't expect a religion to remain identical for millennials. Even recent religions like 'Sikkhism' went through humongous change since their inception.
Moreover true value of Vedic religion lies in the study of Vedas not in just performing the rituals.
There are bazzilion methods to be a practicing Hindu so Vedas are destined to be followed by a few.

OK. Whoever destroyed Nalanda. But was B Khilji a gentleman?
Did the central Asian plundrers have good intentions towards this country or it's culture?
Did they add any value to this country?
As an Indian why should I have soft stance on an outsider who had bad intention towards this country's culture(Mughals after Humayun are excluded since they were born in this country and they gave much needed political stability to the country)?

Colonial crap? I never believe in that.
Those colonial people deindustrialized our country and are responsible for many famines and loss of lives(which were unheard in India). Can't even forget social engineering this country went through.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,652
New Delhi, India
#47
Vedic people were well settled. Only placed they ever moved to was the bank of Ganga(from Indus-Saraswati plane).
Welcome, I subscribe to AMT.
Moreover true value of Vedic religion lies in the study of Vedas not in just performing the rituals.
No problem about study of Vedas, but I think mny people will differ with that. Rituals, traditions are an important part of Hinduism. Sure, they can be modified when required.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2015
1,133
India
#48
Jains:

Jains were always few in number in my view. However, they were a rich minority because they were in activities like trading, money-lending, assessing jewels etc. Since they were relatively rich, we find many beautiful Jain temples built by them.

Secondly, their temples did not suffer as much destruction from Muslims kings as those kings found them as useful, if not indispensable. For example, Ala-ud-din Khilji employed Jains to assess the value of jewels he got thru various means. Aurangzeb also took loans from Jain money lenders in Ahmedabad to fight some of his Deccan wars.

Shahjahan allowed building of a Jain temple inside walls of Delhi which was built in 1655 [1], provided it did not look like a temple. [2] This meant that the temple did not have a 'sikhara' (or spire) above the sanctum sanctorum). Permission was a huge dilution of Islam which did not allow building of new temples (except perhaps during Akbar's reign). Thus there was a gap of 450 years between the demolition of Jain & Hindu temples to build the mosque in Qutub Complex (c. 1192 CE) and construction of this temple, the first inside Delhi after centuries. [3]

On the other hand, building of Hindu temple had to wait further till Marathas conquered Delhi.

Decline of Buddhism in India:

When I read Fa-hien's travels in India (c. 400 CE), one of the observations was that Buddhist Monks lived outside the city walls while Brahmin priests inside the city walls. They came into the city or villages only to beg for alms. This put them at an disadvantage.

The scenario suggests that Brahmin priests were better integrated into periodic religious & social ceremonies of the citizens as well as kings. Ceremonies like marriage, birth of a child, performing yajnas etc provided a regular income to the Brahmin priests giving them means of survival. Brahmins priests were similarly more involved in things like coronation of kings and large yajnas. On the other hand, fa-hien sometimes depicts king going to Buddhist stupa or monastery to offer his respects and/or worship.

Better hold / involvement of Brahmin priests with citizens and kings should have contributed to gradual decline of Buddhism.

References:

[1] Sri Digambar Jain Lal Mandir - Wikipedia
[2] Jainism in Delhi - Wikipedia
[3] Earlier I remember reading that Aurangzeb allowed building of this temple.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions