Why wasn't Jainism eliminated from India along with Buddhism?

Factual Questions
1

Jainism and Buddhism, while quite different, share a lot in common. They both arose about the same time (sixth century BC), both rejected Brahmanical Hinduism and its priesthood and caste system, both are nontheist, and both are focused on getting liberated from karma (although there are significant differences between their approach to that).

Buddhism grew to dominate most of India beginning with the reign of Asoka (3rd century BC). But Hinduism had a resurgence during the early centuries AD and by the year 1000 Buddhism was almost completely eliminated from India (it had already spread to and flourished in many other Asian countries). Today there are scarcely any Buddhists in India at all, except for Tibeto-Burman peoples in the Himalayan areas.

But Jainism, while it never grew all that big, has continued in India all along and still thrives there in the same places where it originally arose. If the Hindus managed to reconvert all the Indian Buddhists to Hinduism, how come that didn’t happen with Jains?

2

Wouldn’t this be an ideal time to use the B.C.E. / C.E. convention in dating? Sure, we’re still referring to a Christian-oriented calender, but given that we’re referring to different religions entirely, wouldn’t the Common Era be appropriate?

3

Thanks, TheeGrumpy, I’m indifferent as it makes no difference to me whichever convention you use.

Now, as to the actual question… ?

4

I think the answer may be that Jainism never grew big enough to be a political threat.

5

I found this website which offers comparative histories of various religions in India. I don’t know whose website it is, or what their religious affiliation is, but they don’t seem like crazies with an ax to grind.

Basically, when quickly reading their section on Buddhism they make two points; 1) The Muslim invasion in the 11th century CE effectively quelled the spread of buddhism, and 2) most Buddhists reconverted back to Hinduism eventually because Hinduism and Buddhism hold almost identical beliefs. The new teachings of Buddha simply became part of the Hindu teachings.

I suspect much the same holds true for the Jains. They share many of the same beliefs and practices as Buddhists and Hindus, so there is no need to go around converting them (see Padeye’s comment). Modern Jains are very well respected in India, and if I remember correctly make up about 2% of the population. Considering that the Indian population will soon top a billion, that’s still a lot of Jains.

Also, Buddhism was not eliminated, it’s just that most of the pure practioners were absorbed back into Hinduism. I believe they still make up about 2% of the population as well, comparable to Jains. I think they are mostly Sri-Lankans and Tibetan refugees, etc.

In all, its refreshing to know that different religions can coexist peacefully and respect each other. What a novel concept.

6

I’m only on the first chapter of The Joy of Sects, but fortunately for you that chapter is about Hinduism. :smiley:

There’s an interesting paragraph and it might indicate one reason why Jainists are still around.

7

According to Adherents.com, India is something like 80% Hindu, 12% Islamic, 0.5% Jain, and 0.7% Buddhist.

So, it seems like Jainism was eliminated approximately as well as Buddhism was.

8

Hmm, douglips, your statistics really put things in context. In that light, Padeye’s suggestion (as well as my implication saying that Jainism never grew all that big) is on the right track. Maybe it’s just a question of scale. Buddhism looks like it shrunk drastically in India mainly because at one time it was huge. Jainism, on the other hand, has always been relatively small in numbers, so it doesn’t give the appearance of having suffered any major setback.

But the statistics you cited do not give the complete picture. As Space Otter noted, the Buddhists of India today are non-Indian (Sri Lankan and Tibetan/Bhutanese/Sikkimese/Ladakhese or other Tibeto-Burman peoples). But I bet you could find hardly any Indian peoples with a Hindu background among these Buddhists.

My point was that among the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian peoples of India, Buddhism was once very big. Among these same peoples today, it’s practically nonexistent. In other words, those with a Hindu background are the ones who dropped Buddhism and reverted to Hinduism.

One historical factor that some credited with this reconversion is Adi Sankaracarya and his Advaita Vedanta crew who honed their debating techniques against Buddhists and successfully defeated them in arguments.

Another explanation, put forward by Will Durant in The Story of Civilization, is that the Muslims specifically targeted Buddhist monastic institutes because they made easy targets. This prompted Buddhists to be reabsorbed back into the Hindu matrix where they had more security.

Personally, I think both these explanations are inadequate. As for the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism are so similar, that depends. The original doctrine that Buddha taught could most definitely not be assimilated with Hinduism, since his teaching was an unequivocal rejection of essential Hindu principles such as the âtman, godhood, and Brahmanical priesthood. However, Will Durant made the point, which may be closer to the mark, that as Indian Buddhism through the centuries adapted to its Hindu environment, it gradually took on more and more Hindu-type characteristics to the point that it wasn’t much different from Hinduism any more.

My own view is that Hinduism between the years 500 and 1000 experienced a resurgence of vitality originating in the Dravidian lands of South India. Sankaracarya, a Brahmin born in South India, is the usual poster boy seen as leading the charge, but there was a lot more going on: the Tantric and Bhakti movements also arose in South India about that time and revitalized the decrepit Vedic system with a surge of fresh energy. They then spread to North India. In the process, “Hinduism” reinvented itself and wound up something very different from the system that Buddha had revolted against! Now there was no more animal sacrifice; vegetarianism was introduced, because of Jaina and Buddhist influence; and the focus of the Hindu religion turned from an external ritualism to an inner transformation of the self. Again, Buddhism had led the way in this.

So as Hinduism absorbed Buddhist characteristics and strengthened itself thereby, and meanwhile Buddhism had become more theistic, thus coming to resemble Hinduism (if Will Durant is correct about this), perhaps combined with external pressure from Muslims (I’m not sure if this is an accurate explanation), all these processes taken together led to the reabsorption of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian Buddhists.

My original question is why the Jains—who are Indo-Aryan and Dravidian peoples in the heartland of India itself—didn’t succumb to tendencies to reabsorb into Hinduism. Perhaps (contrasting Jainism with the historical development of Buddhism) 1) Jainism remained conservative and held close to the original teachings of Mahavira without picking up a lot of Hindu influence, so the dividing line wasn’t blurred over; 2) they never grew very big, so they didn’t form an obvious target as Buddhism did; 3) namaste, Upala!