Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by Dhammanando »

Bankei wrote:Hi

I have been wondering. Why do you think it was only Buddhism that died out in India while other religions such as Brahmanism or Hinduism or Jainism survive?

Surely the Muslim invasion should have wiped out the other 'idolatrous' religions too.
In the case of Jainism, its survival is largely attributable to its very strict teachings on nyāyopattadhana, the Jain version of right livelihood. Since the Jains held that even unintentional activities generate karma, they sought to avoid not only those modes of livelihood that ineluctably and always cause harm, but also any which might do so only incidentally or occasionally.

From Christopher Capple’s Jainism and Ecology:
livelihood.jpg
livelihood.jpg (175.92 KiB) Viewed 4316 times
Eventually Jains came to largely eschew agriculture in all its forms and to specialise chiefly in mercantile occupations, with the most favoured ones being jewellery-making and money-lending (I believe this is still the case today; the Indian banking system, for example, was at its inception largely a Jain creation). The Jains became very accomplished in these two fields and ended up doing rather well for themselves.

Now in Muslim conquests everywhere, one recurrent feature is that the wealthiest people in the population are not encouraged to convert to Islam, for it’s more profitable to let them keep their own religion and then compel them to pay the infidels’ tax. And so since the richest people in India happened to be the Jains, their conquerors turned a blind eye to their ‘idolatry’ and didn’t go out of their way to make Muslims of them.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
dagon
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by dagon »

Dhammanando wrote:
Bankei wrote:Hi

I have been wondering. Why do you think it was only Buddhism that died out in India while other religions such as Brahmanism or Hinduism or Jainism survive?

Surely the Muslim invasion should have wiped out the other 'idolatrous' religions too.
In the case of Jainism, its survival is largely attributable to its very strict teachings on nyāyopattadhana, the Jain version of right livelihood. Since the Jains held that even unintentional activities generate karma, they sought to avoid not only those modes of livelihood that ineluctably and always cause harm, but also any which might do so only incidentally or occasionally.

From Christopher Capple’s Jainism and Ecology:
livelihood.jpg
Eventually Jains came to largely eschew agriculture in all its forms and to specialise chiefly in mercantile occupations, with the most favoured ones being jewellery-making and money-lending (I believe this is still the case today; the Indian banking system, for example, was at its inception largely a Jain creation). The Jains became very accomplished in these two fields and ended up doing rather well for themselves.

Now in Muslim conquests everywhere, one recurrent feature is that the wealthiest people in the population are not encouraged to convert to Islam, for it’s more profitable to let them keep their own religion and then compel them to pay the infidels’ tax. And so since the richest people in India happened to be the Jains, their conquerors turned a blind eye to their ‘idolatry’ and didn’t go out of their way to make Muslims of them.
In addition it got around the problem of money lending / and borrowing for interest.
The rules lie in the principles of Islam's shariah law, taken from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, (the way) referring to the way in which the prophet Muhammad lived his life.

Central to Islamic finance is the fact that money itself has no intrinsic value, it is simply a medium of exchange. Each unit is 100% equal in value to another unit of the same denomination and you are not allowed to make a profit by exchanging cash with another person. A Muslim is not allowed to benefit from lending money or receiving money from someone
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/j ... micfinance

metta
dagon
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by DNS »

Dhammanando wrote: Eventually Jains came to largely eschew agriculture in all its forms and to specialise chiefly in mercantile occupations, with the most favoured ones being jewellery-making and money-lending (I believe this is still the case today; the Indian banking system, for example, was at its inception largely a Jain creation). The Jains became very accomplished in these two fields and ended up doing rather well for themselves.
Hi Bhante,

I have noticed that too. Many are very wealthy. How do they reconcile that with the Jain precept of Aparigraha (non-possessiveness) ? It is sort of like the Buddhist teachings against attachment but appears to take it much further with their ascetics not even owning clothes. How then can (some) Jain lay people have such high levels of wealth?
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by Kusala »

greenjuice wrote:
Bankei wrote:Why do you think it was only Buddhism that died out in India
Just read this:

"Udayana assumed, with the Vaiseshika, that the world was formed by atoms, from which physical bodies also derived. But he was equally concerned with the mind and its right apprehension of objects in nature. His vigorous thinking was set forth in the Nyāya-Kusumānjali and the Bauddhadhikkāra, the latter an attack on the atheistic thesis of Buddhism. Living in a period of lively controversy with the Buddhists, Udayana defended his belief in a personal God by resorting to the two natures of the world: cause and effect. The presence of the world is an effect that cannot be explained by the activity of atoms alone. A supreme being had to cause the effect and regulate the activity of the atoms; hence, according to Udayana, God exists. In a debate with Buddhists in India he was the final victor. After him no Buddhist philosopher undertook again a debate with Nyāya."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udayana

:reading:
The Conflict between the Buddhist and the Naiyayika Philosophers: A Brief Survey http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/colle ... -03_05.pdf

"...from the 10th century the struggle for existence of the Buddhists in India due to Muslim aggression over the Buddhist education centres was the main cause of unproductiveness of a brilliant philosophical literature for them. But the gradual fall of Buddhism in India was noticed much before.

Dr. Stcherbatsky writes, 'Notwithsanding the great scope and and success of his propaganda he(Dharmakirti) could only retard, but not stop the process of decay which befell Buddhism on its native soil. Buddhism in India was doomed. The most talented propagandist could not change the run of history.

The time of Kumarila and Sankaracarya, the great champions of Brahmanical revival and opponents of Buddhism, was approaching. Tradition represents Dharmakirti as having combated them in public disputations and having been victorious. But this is only an afterthought and a pious desire on the part of his followers. At the same time it is an indirect confession that these great Brahmin teachers had met with no Dharmakirti to oppose them.'
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by Dhammanando »

David N. Snyder wrote:Many are very wealthy. How do they reconcile that with the Jain precept of Aparigraha (non-possessiveness) ?
I think the typical lay Jain doesn't entertain any serious expectations of becoming a kevalin/arhat in the present life and so is little concerned with developing aparigraha or the other characteristic qualities valued in Jain ascesis (with the exception of ahiṃsā, which is a major concern for layman and renunciate alike). Like many a lay Buddhist, the Jain layman’s chief activity is providing material support to his religion’s ascetic virtuosos, thereby acquiring merit and participating vicariously in the ascetics' successes, with his own success being postponed to some future life. For someone with such an outlook getting rich wouldn't be perceived as a problem and might even be regarded as a benefit in that a rich man can offer more bountiful support than a poor man.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by Dhammanando »

In my first post I limited myself to the issue of how Jainism survived Islam. How it survived absorption into Hinduism and why Indian Buddhism failed to do so is another question. The attached article by the prakritist and Jain scholar P.S. Jaini proposes four reasons:

1. The Buddhist sangha, unlike Jain monastics, were neglectful of the laity.

2. Buddhist polemicists, unlike those of Jainism, responded ineffectually to the rise of the Hindu devotional movements and so failed to prevent desertion of the laity into the bhakti fold.

3. On account of its anattā doctrine Buddhism elicited greater hostility from proponents of Hindu orthodoxy than did Jainism (which had a soul theory of its own).

4. The eclipsing of the Buddha’s importance subsequent to the rise of the Mahāyāna’s cult of mythical Bodhisattvas, and the absence of any analogous degeneration in Jainism.


P.S. Jaini, The disappearance of Buddhism and the survival of Jainism: a study in contrast
Jaini 1.pdf
(303.62 KiB) Downloaded 140 times
I have had to split the file into three because of its size. This is the first part.
Last edited by Dhammanando on Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by Dhammanando »

Second part.
Jaini 2.pdf
(345.98 KiB) Downloaded 131 times
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by Dhammanando »

Third part.
Jaini 3.pdf
(354 KiB) Downloaded 120 times
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
greenjuice
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by greenjuice »

I don't know which one, but I think I remember reading that only in the one of the two Jain denominations those professions are barred. The other one has 6 permitted professions- asi (sword) soldiers, police, security; masi (ink) communications, administration; krsi agriculture; vanijya trade; silpa (manual labor) medicine, carpentry, construction, artisanship in general and similar; vidya teaching- and they are restricted only by other precepts, e.g. trading in slaves or animals for food, or working as a soldier-mercenary in conquering armies- is not allowed because it breaks the ahimsa vow, trade in indoxicants is not allowed because it breaks the bhogaopabhoga vow, etc.

As far as aparigraha and wealth is concerned, aparigraha means primarily non-possivness of the fourteen moods (mithyatva- false belief, krodha- anger, mana- pride, selfishness, maya- deceitfulness, lobha- greed, hasya- laugful contempt, rati- pleasure, arat- suffering, bhaya- fear, soka- sorrow, jugupsa- disgust, pumveda- male sex-urge, striveda- female sex-urge, napumsakaveda- effeminate sex-urge) ,and secondary, for a layperson, to set a limits to possession of Kshetra-Vastu Land and Houses, Hiranya-Suvarna Silver and Gold, Dhana-Dhanya Cattle and Corn, Dasi-Dasa Female and Male servants, and Kupya-Bhanda Clothes and Furniture.

Also, concerning Jain laypeople and moksha, Jainism has somemething similar to the Hindu ashrama progression, only with 14 stages, and the idea is that a layperson should progressively become more and more like a monk as he grows older.
mahat
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by mahat »

That pretty much means people who had no knowledge of the Dhamma were becoming monks and didn't really care about the Dhamma nor did they fully understand the unique qualities of the Buddha's teachings. Lay people completely stopped identifying with Buddhism and were told that Buddhism doesn't believe in self defense or working -- there were no lay disciples left.
User avatar
Anagarika
Posts: 915
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Why did Buddhism (and not Jainism etc) die out in India?

Post by Anagarika »

Dhammanando wrote:Third part.
Jaini 3.pdf
Interesting article, Bhante, thank you for posting.

Some interesting parallels with what is occurring in Asian Buddhism and what is developing currently in the west. The author Jaini mentions the emergence of debased practices such as fortune telling by the monks ( seen in modern Thailand at times) as well as "the development of the heavenly bodhisattvas theory, and indeed that of the entire Mahayana in Buddhism, can perhaps be ultimately traced back to the celebrated "silence (avyiikrta) of the Buddha." The idea that the Buddha's Dhamma was 'usurped' by the Mahayana rendering the Buddha silent and forgotten, seems a tragic quality of Buddhism in the west, in some areas. How often do we now see mindfulness being reduced to a corporate practice to enhance productivity, stripped of its ethical foundations (see http://www.mcmindfulness.com , for example) as well as the sheer lack of focus on the Buddhadhamma in favor of practices and sutras that emerged in medieval Japan. Is the Buddha being forgotten as we move forward with "Buddhism" in the west? Instead of Hinduism absorbing Buddhism, will corporatism, monetization, and new agey sentiment dilute the Dhamma into anonymity?

Prof. Jaini's article is an excellent explanation of why Buddhism failed to survive intact in India, and the same causes and conditions that lead to this erosion are arguably emerging today.
Post Reply