I think you are correct, as least as far as the medieval period goes. Not so true of the ancient phase, 500 BCE to 700 ACE. And at no time were there armies of Jains propagating Jainism, waging war in the name of Jainism, or defending Jainism against a reputed attack. Many of those kings and military commanders may have been relatively recent converts from Hinduism, again in the medieval period.

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

Several śramaṇa movements are known to have existed before the 6th century BCE dating back to Indus valley civilization[citation needed]. Samkhya and Yoga are two early and very important philosophies that follow the Sramana philosophy and which had their origins in the Indus Valley period of about 3000-2000 BCE. Yoga is probably the most important Sramana practice to date, which follows the Samkhya philosophy of liberating oneself from the grip of Prakriti (nature) through individual effort. Elaborate processes are outlined in Yoga to achieve individual liberation through breathing techniques (Pranayama), physical postures (Asanas) and meditations (Dhyana).

The movement later received a boost during the times of Mahavira and Buddha when Vedic ritualism had become the dominant tradition in certain parts of India. Śramaṇas adopted a path alternate to the Vedic rituals to achieve liberation, while renouncing household life. They typically engage in three types of activities: austerities, meditation, and associated theories (or views). As spiritual authorities, at times śramaṇa were at variance with traditional Brahmin authority, and they often recruited members from Brahmin communities themselves, such as Cānakya and Śāriputra[3].

Indian philosophy is a confluence of Śramaṇic (self-reliant) traditions, Bhakti traditions with idol worship and Vedic ritualistic nature worship. These co-exist and influence each other.[2] Śramaṇas held a view of samsara as full of suffering (or dukkha). They practiced Ahimsa and rigorous ascetism. They believed in Karma and Moksa and viewed re-birth as undesirable.[3] Vedics, on the contrary believe in the efficacy of rituals and sacrifices, performed by a privileged group of people, who could improve their life by pleasing certain Gods.

Beliefs and concepts of Śramaṇa philosophies:- Denial of creator and omnipotent Gods Rejection of the Vedas as revealed texts Affirmation of Karma and rebirth, Samsara and transmigration of Soul, Later, these practices were accepted into Vedism. Affirmation of the attainment of moksa through Ahimsa, renunciation and austerities Denial of the efficacy of sacrifices and rituals for purification. Rejection of the caste system

Ultimately, the sramana philosophical concepts like ahimsa, karma, re-incarnation, renunciation, samsara and moksa were accepted and incorporated by the brahmins in their beliefs and practices, eg. by abandoning the sacrifice of animals.[5] According to Gavin Flood, concepts like karmas and reincarnation entered mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renounciant traditions.[6]

What is it about jains that makes them the most economically successful religious community of India? Parsis are also very successful but their numbers are so smal: substantially less than 100,000.

Jains number in the millions in India (upto 5 million), and in the USA there are upto 200,000 jains. They constitute a little over 0.4% of the Indian population yet pay almost a quarter of all taxes collected by the government!

It is worth pointing out here that Jainism, like Buddhism, is a sharamanic not a vedic religion. Both these desi religions rejected the Vedas, casteism, vedic animal sacrifices etc. Both have heavily influenced and transformed hinduism to the point that it looks nothing like vedic hinduism, with their shramanic concepts of karma and reincarnation, yoga and meditation, ahimsa and vegetarianism…

Jainism has been unwavering in the first principal of ‘Ahimsa’ since the religion was formed.

Not necessarily. Please read Ahimsa, Anekanta, and Jainism by Tara Sethia. Jains agree with Hindus when we say that a soldier who kills enemies in battle is performing a legitimate duty. Therefore, Bhagavad-Gita-style “just war” is not explicitly ruled out. Historically, Jain communities have not hesitated to use military power as a form of self-defense. There have been Jain soldiers, Jain military commanders, and Jain kings.

i also thing that the ‘services’ that ‘higher religions’ provide are insulated from disconfirmation. e.g., the local shaman or witch gives you a palliative for your illness (demonic possession?) and it doesn’t work right. what do you do? you might get angry. in contrast, the priest intercedes on behalf of god, but, if it doesn’t work perhaps you are a sinner and this is all part of god’s plan? what i’m saying is that religious ideas have evolved to become more and more insulated from disconfirmation through a darwinian process.

I agree, but this movement towards disconfirmation has a flip side. For example, if you have two local shamans, and one promises unconditional efficacy, and the other makes vague promises, who would you go to? Christianity and Islam have often had advantages in terms of having large monopolies, and also that of state support, which renders authority to the local pastor/ulema. So the religious leader need not be a ‘miracle worker’, and in fact it is advantageous for him not to be one, as you argue.

But in the case of an open competition between religions, it is often important that the gods/priests show their power in some concrete way. Buddhism, for example, an extremely abstract religion with no conception of magic/miracles, flourished in India only during the reign of Asoka, when royal approval granted it authority to its leaders. It declined after it lost that power, and people went back to their local priests or village dieties(ishtha devatas), who promised not nirvana but concrete protection to a particular clan/village. A more contemporary example in this regard is that of the Sai Baba, who derives much of his authority from working miracles, and whose popularity far exceeds that of the Shankaracharya, or any recognized head of a recognized hindu institution. In fact, there is a strange dichotomy in India between hinduism as the recognized religious bodies describe it and hinduism as it is practised. The reason, IMHO, is that hinduism never had the kind of monopoly or strong centralized institutions where it could afford to force a more abstract view of religion on the laity.

in any case, i am not making a case for monotheism per se. the tendency to shift from magic i think you will find in all religions as societies modernize and religious choice becomes more normal.

I’d agree generally, but I think the shift from magic has more to do with the popular acceptance of a religious institution, so that religious leaders can derive their power from something other than personal charisma. For example, in India where such hierarchies are weak, such leaders often depend on astrology, or the power to see the future.

i don’t think that the philospophical differences between ‘higher’ religions matter much, i think they are different names given the same general psychological concepts.

I strongly agree. That may be the reason why so few people feel a need to convert.

Their arguement is essentialy that you have to give up your current \’pagan\’ Zahilyat…. Which is interesting b/c ancient india, persia, china had IMNHO a more civilized traditions than the middle easterners.

But that is fundamentaly the difference they seek to replace rather than add to a culture.

Polemics were part of Asian culture. If buddhism didn’t create polemics, that would have been strange. The idea of conversion is only relevant to the JC traditions where one God rules. Other traditions just have their preferences with perhaps multiple objects of reverence or intellectual commitments. As far as India is concerned, the six vedic schools, the numerous tantric schools, buddhism, jainism and sikhism get their structure precisely because of polemics. It all depends on who can argue best and bring most clarity. This tradition is still alive in parts of India. The debates are based on reason and logic about the nature of the world and ethics and not about who is the true prophet or son of god (which can only be established by the sword).