The emergence of Buddhism and Jainism in 6th Century BC is seen as the result of the following causes (as given in R.S. Sharma's Ancient India):
- Reaction by Kshatriyas
- The development of new political economy
- Rise in status of Vaishyas
- Transforming society
I want to ask is it necessary to see history as a struggle between existing system (thesis) and the coming one (anti-thesis)? All the causes that are given by dialetical theorists for the rise of Buddhism and Jainism seems more like a respect for their Marxist tradition (I cannot avoid the word "Marxist', though I'm not sure if Marx himself ever vowed to see each and every event in history as a struggle) than the actual reasons (if there were reasons at all). New things can happen in this stream of existence, without presence of any anti-thesis, and thus, thesis. Their argument sounds like one of those given in Caninde "God gave us a nose for spectacles to rest on".