Guest guest Posted August 22, 2002 Report Share Posted August 22, 2002 Vijinuk WROTE: > Most definitely. 1) Christianity is organically connected to Judaism and the Old Testament, but in many respects different. >Since Christianity and Judiasm are different, it does not parellel the Indian situation I disagree. Christianity makes use of the Old Testament, although it interprets it somewhat differently than Jews do. There is certainly an organic connection. 2) Lutheranism (and other Christian sects are definitely different in many respects from Catholicism, but organically connected. 3) Modern Christianity is in many respects very different from forms that were prevalent 100 years ago, although Catholicism is more conservative than Protestantism. > >Unlike Protestant sects which arose by direct repudiation of Catholicism, which itself arose by the repudiation of Nestorianism and other eastern sects, latter day Hinduism did not reject or repudiate vedas or brahmins. Even Sikhism never repudiated vedic connections and the absense of brahmins in Sikhism is merely a reflection of local circumstances Your point about non-rejection is well taken, although I would like to hear from a Sikh directly what he thinks about the Vedas. As far as I know, Sikhs don't regard themselves as Hindus. But otherwise, you are right: Hindus never reject the older layers of their religion, they simply shift their focus, so to speak. Yet a close study of the Vedic religion and Classical Hinduism show important differences in many respect (e.g. the relative unimportance of Indra in later Hinduism as against his great importance in the Rig). >Hence, once can talk of a stronger historical continuity in Hinduism from early days - whenever it was- to the present than in Christianity, where developements take place by a rejection of the past Again, you point to an important difference, although Christian rejection of the past does not always convince me. Christians are supposed to base their faith on the gospels, but all too often they seem to practice Old Testament theology. :-) However, that is their problem, not mine. Lars Martin Fosse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Dear Sir, Jai Jinendra With due respect, Jainism is a different and distinct religion from Hinduism. (It has been officially accorded minority status in various states such as Maharashtra and M. P.) It is not a sect of Hinduism. Jainism has been classified by Hindu scholars as a Nastik Darshan. This is because Jainism does not believe in god's role as creator, preserver and destroyer. You wrote: The Vedic is better understood as the core/the foundation of Hinduism > as sects irrespective of their theological connections to the Vedas > have still sought legitimacy from the orthodoxy. Jainism completely rejects the authoirity of the Vedas. It is built around the edifices of Ahinsa, Karmavaad, Anekant and the rejection of conventional Ishwarwad. Jainism does not believe in god's role as creator, preserver and destroyer. At it's core, Jainism is a religion that promotes asceticism and rejects ritualism. Jain meditation is designed to attain Moksh that is freedom from the cycle of rebirth. Jainism believes that each soul must be the aouthor of its own fate and must find its own liberation. Jainism and Buddhism are both past of the Shraman tradition of Indian thought, and both of them are not only different from each other, but also both of them are distinct from Hinduism. Superficial similarities with the Vedic / Brahaminic systems of religion should not cloud the fact that Jainism is a distinct religion of India, as old as the land itself. Yours in Ahinsa, Manish Modi HINDI GRANTH KARYALAY Booksellers and Publishers http://www.hindibooks.8m.com Hirabaug, C. P. Tank, Mumbai 400004, INDIA Telephone: 00 91 22 3826739 Email: manish.modi On Friday 23 August 2002 18:02, you wrote: > >Your point about non-rejection is well taken, although I would like > > to > > >hear from a Sikh directly what he thinks about the Vedas. As far as I > >know, Sikhs don't regard themselves as Hindus. > > And who would such "Sikhs" be – predominantly western educated ones > who think they're apart from "Hindus" for three reasons : > > 1. The constant brainwashing by Leftists in India as to how Sikhism > is a minority religion apart from "Hinduism" (whatever that might > be!) because it is anathema for Leftists to see any grouping in the > name of religion. > 2. It is profitable for religious groups to get a minority status in > India because it makes such groups eligible for special > reservation/concessions in political/economic/educational spheres – > or to restrict government interference in its affairs (even the > Ramakrishna Mission which today is probably the best source for > reliable translations of traditional "Hindu" texts, has denied > its "Hindu" connections and has claimed minority status). > 3. Malicious Pakistani propaganda which planted seeds of distrust in > the minds of the Sikhs as to how Hindus were discriminating against > them and conspiring to make them second class citizens in India – > which resulted in the Khalistan movement. > > If you go talk with a traditional sikh – preferably one who doesn't > know English – you'll get a totally different perspective on the > subject. > > Western Indologists should get one point clear : it is impossible to > strait jacket Indian religions in the mould of Semitic religions. If > you give one reason as to why Sikhism is different from "Hinduism", > there are ten other reasons where it can be shown Sikhism is not > different from "Hinduism". > > For eg it can be said Sikhs have their own temples – Gurudwaras. But > so do Jains who are generally classified as Hindus. Also here there > are problems when you consider the practices of "normal Hindus" too. > For a Sri Vaishnavite will not visit a Shaivite temple – likewise a > Shaivite will not go to a Vaishnavite temple. But I who am a smartha, > go to all temples and sometimes gurudwaras too (for I like the > bhajans and the vegetarian food served there). > > Punjabi Hindus can identify themselves better with Punjabi Sikhs than > with South Indian Hindus. A Punjabi Hindu friend of mine has a Sikh > guru whose framed photograph he worships daily. He like many north > Indians, even Brahmins, have no clue about the various well defined > sectarian groupings – Advaitins, Dvaitins, Saiva Siddhaantis - in > Southern India and thus can identify with them only on a superficial > level. > > One of the inspirations to Sikhism – Kabir – whose verse dominates > the Guru Granth Sahib, was a muslim who was a devotee of Lord Rama – > metaphysically he was an Advaitin, but slanted towards Raamaanuja in > spiritual practice – he's generally considered as a "Hindu" saint. > > Western Indologists should move away from political definitions of > Indian religions which have little substance and concentrate on that > historical, literary and practical dynamics that define "Hinduism". > > >Yet a close study of the Vedic > >religion and Classical Hinduism show important differences in many > >respect (e.g. the relative unimportance of Indra in later Hinduism as > >against his great importance in the Rig). > > The flaw here lies in trying to compare "Vedic religion" > with "Hinduism" using such simplistic arguments. The Rg Veda is a > Vedic/"Brahmanical" text. At any point in time it was in use only in > select circles. The masses always had their own popular deities – the > Bhaagavatha, the Pancharaatra, the Saiva, the Jainaa sects are of > hoary antiquity. The same is the case even today. There was a > popular "Hinduism" then even as it is now. Likewise there was an > esoteric Vedic religion then even as it is today - yesterday we Yajur > Vedis had aavani aavattam – the yearly ritual to change the sacred > thread – we propitiated to Vedic gods – Indra included. > > Probably in older times the esoteric was much more prominent due to > royal support - but that doesn't necessarily mean that > popular "Hinduism" was absent then. People who study ancient texts > today get the impression of the prominence of the Vedic religion > fundamentally because detailed texts of the religion are available in > contrast to the lack of it in the adherents of the sects of > popular "Hinduism – this is fundamentally due to the literacy of > brahmins. > > The Vedic is better understood as the core/the foundation of Hinduism > as sects irrespective of their theological connections to the Vedas > have still sought legitimacy from the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy in its > assimilative drive has in most cases has granted these sects > legitimacy by equating their gods with Vedic gods and thus drawing > them into their fold. In some cases the orthodoxy themselves have > joined hands with such sects – eg – the Sivaachaaryaa brahmins in > TamilNadu who are the official representatives of Tamil Shaivism and > the preservers of the teachings of the Saiva Aagamas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 >Your point about non-rejection is well taken, although I would like to >hear from a Sikh directly what he thinks about the Vedas. As far as I >know, Sikhs don't regard themselves as Hindus. And who would such "Sikhs" be – predominantly western educated ones who think they're apart from "Hindus" for three reasons : 1. The constant brainwashing by Leftists in India as to how Sikhism is a minority religion apart from "Hinduism" (whatever that might be!) because it is anathema for Leftists to see any grouping in the name of religion. 2. It is profitable for religious groups to get a minority status in India because it makes such groups eligible for special reservation/concessions in political/economic/educational spheres – or to restrict government interference in its affairs (even the Ramakrishna Mission which today is probably the best source for reliable translations of traditional "Hindu" texts, has denied its "Hindu" connections and has claimed minority status). 3. Malicious Pakistani propaganda which planted seeds of distrust in the minds of the Sikhs as to how Hindus were discriminating against them and conspiring to make them second class citizens in India – which resulted in the Khalistan movement. If you go talk with a traditional sikh – preferably one who doesn't know English – you'll get a totally different perspective on the subject. Western Indologists should get one point clear : it is impossible to strait jacket Indian religions in the mould of Semitic religions. If you give one reason as to why Sikhism is different from "Hinduism", there are ten other reasons where it can be shown Sikhism is not different from "Hinduism". For eg it can be said Sikhs have their own temples – Gurudwaras. But so do Jains who are generally classified as Hindus. Also here there are problems when you consider the practices of "normal Hindus" too. For a Sri Vaishnavite will not visit a Shaivite temple – likewise a Shaivite will not go to a Vaishnavite temple. But I who am a smartha, go to all temples and sometimes gurudwaras too (for I like the bhajans and the vegetarian food served there). Punjabi Hindus can identify themselves better with Punjabi Sikhs than with South Indian Hindus. A Punjabi Hindu friend of mine has a Sikh guru whose framed photograph he worships daily. He like many north Indians, even Brahmins, have no clue about the various well defined sectarian groupings – Advaitins, Dvaitins, Saiva Siddhaantis - in Southern India and thus can identify with them only on a superficial level. One of the inspirations to Sikhism – Kabir – whose verse dominates the Guru Granth Sahib, was a muslim who was a devotee of Lord Rama – metaphysically he was an Advaitin, but slanted towards Raamaanuja in spiritual practice – he's generally considered as a "Hindu" saint. Western Indologists should move away from political definitions of Indian religions which have little substance and concentrate on that historical, literary and practical dynamics that define "Hinduism". >Yet a close study of the Vedic >religion and Classical Hinduism show important differences in many >respect (e.g. the relative unimportance of Indra in later Hinduism as >against his great importance in the Rig). The flaw here lies in trying to compare "Vedic religion" with "Hinduism" using such simplistic arguments. The Rg Veda is a Vedic/"Brahmanical" text. At any point in time it was in use only in select circles. The masses always had their own popular deities – the Bhaagavatha, the Pancharaatra, the Saiva, the Jainaa sects are of hoary antiquity. The same is the case even today. There was a popular "Hinduism" then even as it is now. Likewise there was an esoteric Vedic religion then even as it is today - yesterday we Yajur Vedis had aavani aavattam – the yearly ritual to change the sacred thread – we propitiated to Vedic gods – Indra included. Probably in older times the esoteric was much more prominent due to royal support - but that doesn't necessarily mean that popular "Hinduism" was absent then. People who study ancient texts today get the impression of the prominence of the Vedic religion fundamentally because detailed texts of the religion are available in contrast to the lack of it in the adherents of the sects of popular "Hinduism – this is fundamentally due to the literacy of brahmins. The Vedic is better understood as the core/the foundation of Hinduism as sects irrespective of their theological connections to the Vedas have still sought legitimacy from the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy in its assimilative drive has in most cases has granted these sects legitimacy by equating their gods with Vedic gods and thus drawing them into their fold. In some cases the orthodoxy themselves have joined hands with such sects – eg – the Sivaachaaryaa brahmins in TamilNadu who are the official representatives of Tamil Shaivism and the preservers of the teachings of the Saiva Aagamas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 (Moderator: is this discussion really appropriate for this list?) On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, vpcnk wrote: > And who would such "Sikhs" be – predominantly western > educated ones who think they're apart from "Hindus" for > three reasons : I know and have met many, many Sikhs in India (all India-educated, not "western educated") and have yet to encounter a single one who regards himself as a Hindu. I'm not saying there aren't any, just that if they exist they are a very small minority of Sikhs. > 1. The constant brainwashing by Leftists in India as to > how Sikhism is a minority religion apart from "Hinduism" > (whatever that might be!) because it is anathema for > Leftists to see any grouping in the name of religion. "Leftists" (which you appear to use as a vague term of abuse rather than in any strict sense) don't have the power to collectively 'brainwash' millions of Sikhs (it is hard enough to 'brainwash' the views of one person) and your claim that they do seriously impugns your credibility. > 2. It is profitable for religious groups to get a minority > status in India because it makes such groups eligible for > special reservation/concessions in > political/economic/educational spheres – or to restrict > government interference in its affairs (even the > Ramakrishna Mission which today is probably the best > source for reliable translations of traditional "Hindu" > texts, has denied its "Hindu" connections and has claimed > minority status). Perhaps this is indeed true (though see my previous comments on your credibility). Even if true, however, it doesn't in any way affect the legitimacy of the decision of Sikhs to see (or not to see) themselves as a separate religious community from Hindus. > 3. Malicious Pakistani propaganda which planted seeds of > distrust in the minds of the Sikhs as to how Hindus were > discriminating against them and conspiring to make them > second class citizens in India – which resulted in the > Khalistan movement. So what? Most of the propaganda concerning the misdeeds of King George and his regime was malicious, and much of it was actually untrue. That doesn't change the outcome (the United States is separate from the United Kingdom today). > If you go talk with a traditional sikh – preferably one > who doesn't know English – you'll get a totally different > perspective on the subject. It's interesting how Indo-imperialists have adopted the Anglo-imperialist rhetoric of a century ago ("talk to the simple Indians of the villages, who want nothing to do with Congress seditionist and malcontents and are totally loyal to the mai-bap sarkar"). > Western Indologists should get one point clear : it is > impossible to strait jacket Indian religions in the mould > of Semitic religions. If you give one reason as to why > Sikhism is different from "Hinduism", there are ten other > reasons where it can be shown Sikhism is not different > from "Hinduism". Whether or not Sikhism is identical to Hinduism, in practical terms, is not a matter of whether you can adduce enough arguments on the matter (not that your arguments are particularly good, one way or another) but rather a matter of how Sikhs regard themselves. > For eg it can be said Sikhs have their own temples – > Gurudwaras. But so do Jains who are generally classified > as Hindus. Also here there are problems when you consider > the practices of "normal Hindus" too. For a Sri > Vaishnavite will not visit a Shaivite temple – likewise a > Shaivite will not go to a Vaishnavite temple. But I who am > a smartha, go to all temples and sometimes gurudwaras too > (for I like the bhajans and the vegetarian food served > there). This strikes me as a straw man argument. > Punjabi Hindus can identify themselves better with Punjabi > Sikhs than with South Indian Hindus. A Punjabi Hindu > friend of mine has a Sikh guru whose framed photograph he > worships daily. He like many north Indians, even Brahmins, > have no clue about the various well defined sectarian > groupings – Advaitins, Dvaitins, Saiva Siddhaantis - in > Southern India and thus can identify with them only on a > superficial level. I don't think the question was whether Punjabi Hindus are Sikhs. (Full disclosure, I am a Punjabi Hindu). > One of the inspirations to Sikhism – Kabir – whose verse > dominates the Guru Granth Sahib, was a muslim who was a > devotee of Lord Rama – metaphysically he was an Advaitin, > but slanted towards Raamaanuja in spiritual practice – > he's generally considered as a "Hindu" saint. The roots of many religions are in many ways syncretic. I smell a genetic fallacy here: Christ was a Jew, therefore all Christians are Jews. > Western Indologists should move away from political > definitions of Indian religions which have little > substance and concentrate on that historical, literary and > practical dynamics that define "Hinduism". I think you should first move away from transparent sophistry, and then we may discuss the problems of Western Indologists. Regards, Rohan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2002 Report Share Posted August 23, 2002 Well put. I think the point about the "Vedic religion" being different from the popular religion is well captured. A literate set of people left records, even if it was handed down orally - preserved as the Vedas. The others (I dont mean to say they were illiterate in the real sense, but), let's just say did not find a continuous line of willing carriers of the knowledge. Plus the popular religion was, perhaps, common-place - not worthy of maintaining records (oral or written), while the elite, with their astronomical observations and rituals, made for something special which was, perhaps, worthy of carriage. Those elite few were probably guides to those followers of the popular religion way back as well (as it generally is today), which would have made Vedic religion the core of the then popular religion. Both these factors, could have resulted in the Vedic religion, over the centuries even millenia, becoming the core of what is today known as Hinduism. PS: By "elite" I only mean the select few who practised what has been called the "Vedic religion" in this post, and not that they were special. Regards, Ravindra >"vpcnk" <vpcnk >INDOLOGY >INDOLOGY >Re: SV: [Y-Indology] Challenge to Indologists > > >Your point about non-rejection is well taken, although I would like >to > >hear from a Sikh directly what he thinks about the Vedas. As far as I > >know, Sikhs don't regard themselves as Hindus. > >And who would such "Sikhs" be – predominantly western educated ones >who think they're apart from "Hindus" for three reasons : > >1. The constant brainwashing by Leftists in India as to how Sikhism >is a minority religion apart from "Hinduism" (whatever that might >be!) because it is anathema for Leftists to see any grouping in the >name of religion. >2. It is profitable for religious groups to get a minority status in >India because it makes such groups eligible for special >reservation/concessions in political/economic/educational spheres – >or to restrict government interference in its affairs (even the >Ramakrishna Mission which today is probably the best source for >reliable translations of traditional "Hindu" texts, has denied >its "Hindu" connections and has claimed minority status). >3. Malicious Pakistani propaganda which planted seeds of distrust in >the minds of the Sikhs as to how Hindus were discriminating against >them and conspiring to make them second class citizens in India – >which resulted in the Khalistan movement. > >If you go talk with a traditional sikh – preferably one who doesn't >know English – you'll get a totally different perspective on the >subject. > >Western Indologists should get one point clear : it is impossible to >strait jacket Indian religions in the mould of Semitic religions. If >you give one reason as to why Sikhism is different from "Hinduism", >there are ten other reasons where it can be shown Sikhism is not >different from "Hinduism". > >For eg it can be said Sikhs have their own temples – Gurudwaras. But >so do Jains who are generally classified as Hindus. Also here there >are problems when you consider the practices of "normal Hindus" too. >For a Sri Vaishnavite will not visit a Shaivite temple – likewise a >Shaivite will not go to a Vaishnavite temple. But I who am a smartha, >go to all temples and sometimes gurudwaras too (for I like the >bhajans and the vegetarian food served there). > >Punjabi Hindus can identify themselves better with Punjabi Sikhs than >with South Indian Hindus. A Punjabi Hindu friend of mine has a Sikh >guru whose framed photograph he worships daily. He like many north >Indians, even Brahmins, have no clue about the various well defined >sectarian groupings – Advaitins, Dvaitins, Saiva Siddhaantis - in >Southern India and thus can identify with them only on a superficial >level. > >One of the inspirations to Sikhism – Kabir – whose verse dominates >the Guru Granth Sahib, was a muslim who was a devotee of Lord Rama – >metaphysically he was an Advaitin, but slanted towards Raamaanuja in >spiritual practice – he's generally considered as a "Hindu" saint. > >Western Indologists should move away from political definitions of >Indian religions which have little substance and concentrate on that >historical, literary and practical dynamics that define "Hinduism". > > > >Yet a close study of the Vedic > >religion and Classical Hinduism show important differences in many > >respect (e.g. the relative unimportance of Indra in later Hinduism as > >against his great importance in the Rig). > >The flaw here lies in trying to compare "Vedic religion" >with "Hinduism" using such simplistic arguments. The Rg Veda is a >Vedic/"Brahmanical" text. At any point in time it was in use only in >select circles. The masses always had their own popular deities – the >Bhaagavatha, the Pancharaatra, the Saiva, the Jainaa sects are of >hoary antiquity. The same is the case even today. There was a >popular "Hinduism" then even as it is now. Likewise there was an >esoteric Vedic religion then even as it is today - yesterday we Yajur >Vedis had aavani aavattam – the yearly ritual to change the sacred >thread – we propitiated to Vedic gods – Indra included. > >Probably in older times the esoteric was much more prominent due to >royal support - but that doesn't necessarily mean that >popular "Hinduism" was absent then. People who study ancient texts >today get the impression of the prominence of the Vedic religion >fundamentally because detailed texts of the religion are available in >contrast to the lack of it in the adherents of the sects of >popular "Hinduism – this is fundamentally due to the literacy of >brahmins. > >The Vedic is better understood as the core/the foundation of Hinduism >as sects irrespective of their theological connections to the Vedas >have still sought legitimacy from the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy in its >assimilative drive has in most cases has granted these sects >legitimacy by equating their gods with Vedic gods and thus drawing >them into their fold. In some cases the orthodoxy themselves have >joined hands with such sects – eg – the Sivaachaaryaa brahmins in >TamilNadu who are the official representatives of Tamil Shaivism and >the preservers of the teachings of the Saiva Aagamas. > > > > > > >indology > > > >Your use of is subject to > > ############################################################ # Ravindra Viswanath Phone : 408-433-2825 # # Design Engineer Pager : 888-648-9961 # # Storage ASICs and CoreWare 6489961 # # LSI Logic Corp. Email : pvravi # # Milpitas, CA 95035. Fax : 408-433-7495 # #**********************************************************# # Res: 1474, Sierraville Ave, San Jose, CA 95132 # # Ph: 408-926-7246, Web: http://www.pvravi.net # # Email: pvravi, pvravi # ############################################################ _______________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2002 Report Share Posted August 25, 2002 Response to Manish Modi : >With due respect, Jainism is a different and distinct religion from >Hinduism. (It has been officially accorded minority status in various >states such as Maharashtra and M. P.) It is not a sect of Hinduism. I'm not really aware of regional politics – but at the national level Jainsim is considered as a part of "Hinduism". That's the reason that the chairman of TOI in a recent meeting requested the Indian PM ABV to bestow minority status on Jainism. The PM rejected the request saying it is unwarranted and not supported by historical sources. I also have a friend who's a Rajasthaani Jain – a Bhandaari – he simply told me that he was also only a Hindu. There're also some Jains in prominent positions in the "Hindu revivalist" movement, are they not? >Jainism has been classified by Hindu scholars as a Nastik Darshan. >This is because Jainism does not believe in god's role as creator, >preserver and destroyer. Please take the effort to understand the full dynamics of what makes a darshana as naastika. Even aastika schools like Saamkhya and Purva Miimaamsaa didn't accept a creator God. Advaitins hold that there's no creation at all and the soul itself is the God – though they have a different metaphysical interpretation of what a soul is. But still all these schools are considered as aastika or orthodox. >Jainism completely rejects the authoirity of the Vedas. Please show me a quote from Mahaaveera's teachings that the teachings of the Vedas are false. If Jainaa opposition to the Vedas is that its teachings are not absolute but only relative or that the teachings of other saints are also as authoritative, there're numerous schools within the aastika fold itself which hold the same stance. Advaitins consider the Vedas to be of relative value only for even it is in the realm of ignorance. Saiva Siddhaanta considers the Saiva Aagamas to be more authoritative than the Vedas. For the Visishtadvaitins the Naalaayira Divyaprabandham is considered as authoritative as the Vedas. All non- Miimaamsic aastika darshanas at best pay only lip service to the authority of the Vedas. The Naiyaayikas will accept anything proved by logic. The Saamkyas consider the teachings of sage Kapila to be scripture. >It is built around the edifices of Ahinsa, Karmavaad, Anekant and the >rejection of conventional Ishwarwad. Even as the great Mimaamsika Kumaarilla Bhatta noted in his Tantravaartika that most Buddhist concepts are derived from the Upanishads - even with respect to Jainaa philosophy there's nothing that cannot be found in the Upanishads. Jainaa philosophy was without doubt influenced by Saamkhya in its metaphysics. In its epistemology (syaadvaada) it is influenced by the Maadhyamika school of Buddhism – though it gives a positive turn to relativity unlike the negativity of the Maadhyamika. >Jainism does not believe in god's role as creator, preserver and >destroyer. As noted before neither does the Saamkhya nor the Purva Miimaamsaa. >At it's core, Jainism is a religion that promotes asceticism and >rejects ritualism. So did Saamkhya and Yoga. The Naiyaayikaas too didn't pay too much attention to rituals – but they were mostly householders. Advaita too places greater emphasis on asceticism and knowledge than rituals. Also it might be an exaggeration to say Jainsim rejects ritualism. Don't Jainaas have rituals when they get married? Don't they have any rituals for the funeral? >Jain meditation is designed to attain Moksh that is freedom from the cycle of rebirth. So are the paths of all other philosophical schools – aastika or naastika. >Jainism and Buddhism are both past of the Shraman tradition of Indian >thought, No denying that. >and both of them are not only different from each other, Sure. >but also both of them are distinct from Hinduism. But this is where the problem is. Because "Hinduism" is itself a dubious entity – even as Naagaarjuna would say : "we cannot find Hinduism in either all its constituents together or individually". For what defines one school to be "Hindu" is contradicted by another which is also classified as Hindu. Also many of the reasons that are given to prove the individual identity of Buddhism and Jainism apart from "Hinduism" are also true for many schools which are part of "Hinduism". To this end certain factors like opposition to the brahmin or non- acceptance of the Vedas in the shramanic traditions are exaggerated. But we find the Buddha and Naagaarjuna openly declaring that it is a virtue to give alms to Brahmins; also the Vedas and other aastika darshanas were taught in Buddhist universities like Nalanda and Taxila. >Superficial similarities with the Vedic / Brahaminic systems of >religion should not cloud the fact that Jainism is a distinct religion >of India, as old as the land itself. Sure – but so are Saamkhya, Vedaanta, Nyaaya etc. Only if you club these into "Hinduism" does it get difficult for you not to get drawn in. Maybe in the time of Manu such distinctions like aastika and naastika were meaningful. But with the rise of the Vedaantic schools such distinctions have become diluted. That's one of the main reasons that most schools including Buddhism disappeared from India. Likewise note that historically Jainism too has disappeared from most parts of India where it was once dominant – TamilNadu for instance. So the point is if you want to call yourself a Jain, likewise call me an Advaitin. But don't call me a "Hindu" and distinguish between me and you as "Hindu" and "Jain". Yours in assimilation, Nandakumar Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2002 Report Share Posted August 27, 2002 Dear Shri Chandranji, Jai Jinendra You wrote: "I'm not really aware of regional politics but at the national level Jainism is considered as a part of "Hinduism". That's the reason that the chairman of TOI in a recent meeting requested the Indian PM ABV to bestow minority status on Jainism. The PM rejected the request saying it is unwarranted and not supported by historical sources." The constitution of India accepts Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists as separate religions of India. Please read the Constitution of India, Article 22. The Prime Minister is not the one to decide whether any religion is in the minority or not. The constitution of India does not vest him with that authority. There is no question of regional politics. The State Govts. that have conferred the minority status officially have doen so after conferring with the High Court and chief Justices. It is not out of any political or regional consideration. Besides, the monirity statues is not like an award that has to be bestowed. The minority status only recognises a fact that has been in existence for a long time. That Jainism is a separate religion from Hinduism. You wrote: "I also have a friend who's a Rajasthaani Jain a Bhandaari he simply told me that he was also only a Hindu. There're also some Jains in prominent positions in the "Hindu revivalist" movement, are they not?" Your friend is merely misinformed. Or maybe he is confused by the various definitions of Hinduism that crop up from time to time. Like, "all Indian origin religions are Hindu". Or, "anyone who is not a Muslim, is a Hindu." Besides, I have lost of friends who are Hindus and they descrien themselves as Bengalsi, Marathis, Brahmins, Kshatiryas. etc. They do not call themselves as Hindus. Does that mean that they are not Hindu? The religious knowledge of the followers, and indeed their conduct can never be a benchmark to determine the uniqueness of any religion. Else, I can show you millions of Hindus who have no clue of what Hinduism is all about. That is no way to determine the uniqueness of the tenets of their religion. You wrote: "But still all these schools are considered as aastika or orthodox." Yes, and Hindu scholars qualify Jainism as a Nastik Darshan. It is because Jainism completely rejects the Vedas, the Geeta, the Upanishads, the Shatpath Brahmans, the Puranas, etc. You wrote: "Please show me a quote from Mahaaveera's teachings that the teachings of the Vedas are false." Please refer to the Acharang Sutra, the the Uttaradhyan Sutra and the Dashavaikalik Sutra. You might to do well to read Acharya Samantbhadra's "Aptamimansa". I think reading the book will clear your opinion in this matter. You wrote: "If Jainaa opposition to the Vedas is that its teachings are not absolute but only relative or that the teachings of other saints are also as authoritative, there're numerous schools within the aastika fold itself which hold the same stance. Advaitins consider the Vedas to be of relative value only for even it is in the realm of ignorance. " The Jains reject the Vedas completely. You wrote: "even with respect to Jainaa philosophy there's nothing that cannot be found in the Upanishads. Jainaa philosophy was without doubt influenced by Saamkhya in its metaphysics. In its epistemology (syaadvaada) it is influenced by the Maadhyamika school of Buddhism though it gives a positive turn to relativity unlike the negativity of the Maadhyamika." You are wrong. The Jain philosophy has come from the teachings of the omniscient Tirthankars. There have been 24 Tirthankars in this time phase. Bhagwan Rishabhdev was the first, and Bhagwan Mahavir the last. Jain philosophy, metaphysics, logic and epistemology are original and unique. They stem from the divine discourses of the omnsicient Tirthankars. A great Hindu scholar like Lomanya Tilak has gone on record to state that that, "Ïn ancient times innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifices. Evidence in support of this is found in various poetic compositions such as Meghaduta but the credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the Brahmanical religion goes to the share of Jainism". Bombay Samachar, (10-12-1904) Right from ancient times, Jainism and the Vedic / Brahmanic school of thought have been two different streams of theism. Jainism and Buddhism are both part of the Shraman Sanskriti, while Hinduism is the representative of the Vedic Sanskriti. You wrote: "To this end certain factors like opposition to the brahmin or non- acceptance of the Vedas in the shramanic traditions are exaggerated." They are not exaggerated. Jainism has never given any credence to the Vedas and brahmins. You wrote: "But we find the Buddha and Naagaarjuna openly declaring that it is a virtue to give alms to Brahmins;" Mahavir never said that. Mahavir classified the recipients of alms in order of how much merit it would earn to give them alms. The Uttam Patras were the Jain monks and nuns. The Madhyam Patras were the householders with additonal vows, the "Pratima Dharis". The Jaghanya Patras were the Jain householders with Anu Vrats. There is no mention of Brahmins anywhere. You wrote: "also the Vedas and other aastika darshanas were taught in Buddhist universities like Nalanda and Taxila." How that make Jainism a part of Hinduism? You wrote: "So the point is if you want to call yourself a Jain, likewise call me an Advaitin. But don't call me a "Hindu" and distinguish between me and you as "Hindu" and "Jain"." We are both Indians first. Both of us owe a duty of patriotism to our motherland. We both belong equally to India. I belong to a separate religion and therefore am perfectly correct in calling myself a Jain, not a Hindu. So, you are a Hindu, and I am a Jain. You signed off as: "Yours in assimilation," True assimilation demands that you accept that I am a Jain and that you are a Hindu. Jai Jinendra Yours in Ahinsa, Manish Modi Hirabaug, C. P. Tank, Mumbai 400004, INDIA Telephone: 00 91 22 3826739 Email: manish.modi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2002 Report Share Posted August 27, 2002 At 12:48 PM 08/25/2002 Sunday +0000, you wrote: >Response to Manish Modi : > >So the point is if you want to call yourself a Jain, likewise call me >an Advaitin. But don't call me a "Hindu" and distinguish between me >and you as "Hindu" and "Jain". Dear Mr.Nanda Chandra, You got it. This is precisely the problem. Instead of calling many Indians as Advaidin, Saiva, Vaishnava etc, this omnibus description of the term "Hindu" has confused the whole lot of followers, scholars and others, except one set of politicians. You know who they are and India will understand the issue one day. With regards, RM.Krishnan >Yours in assimilation, >Nandakumar Chandran > > > > > >indology > > > >Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 In this argument there are three fundamental questions : 1. Can Jainism be independently established as a religion apart from "Hinduism"? 2. Because many of the reasons given to assert the individual identity of Jainism is also true for many schools that constitute "Hinduism". So either there's a problem in considering Jainism as a separate religion or in the way "Hinduism" itself is defined. 3. Also in this argument "Hinduism" is equated with the Vedic religion and then Jainism is contrasted with the Vedic religion to prove its individual identity. But such an equation of "Hinduism" with the Vedic religion is not mine. I'm talking about a dharmic substratum of which even the Vedas are a part too. It is this dharmic mother of whom I consider the Vedic religion, Buddhism and Jainism as off springs. The Vedas are not the starting point of Indian religion – they're merely the oldest surviving religious texts of India – but there was dharma even before the compilation of the Vedas. And each religious stream is an inheritor of this dharmic heritage. Thus the relevance of all streams - even the Buddha and Mahaaveera - claiming "Arya" status and the unity in their religious/spiritual fundamentals. Whether aastika or naastika all schools are agreed on certain fundamentals : salvation is escape from the cycle of rebirths; the validity of karma; dharma is a life of control of the psycho/physical faculties, compassion and charity is essential for spiritual effort; Reality is something inherent in man and it is knowledge of this reality which brings about liberation. It is these factors that constitute the underlying dharmic substratum. One another important factor to consider in this issue is even if Vardhamaana and Siddhaartha did establish new spiritual streams, still you've to take their fundamental cultural identity into consideration. Both were born "Hindu" Kshatriyas. There's little evidence that right after their embarking on their new spiritual enterprise they absolutely discarded their original identity. For the Buddha was careful to identify himself by his gotra name Gautama, instead than his actual name Siddhaartha. Vardhamaana's gotra was Kaashyapa. Both these gotra names are Vedic. Also there's been a trend in the religions established by both, where the followers in cognizance of the Vedic varna identities of their founders, have harped on the superiority of kshatriya birth over Brahmin birth. This is hardly the attitude of those who reject their Vedic heritage. So are the Buddha and Mahaaveera quarrelling with the Vedas or the Brahmanical interpretation of it? >Your friend is merely misinformed. Or maybe he is confused by the >various definitions of Hinduism that crop up from time to time. Like, >"all Indian origin religions are Hindu". Or, "anyone who is not a >Muslim, is a Hindu." Besides, I have lost of friends who are Hindus >and they descrien themselves as Bengalsi, Marathis, Brahmins, >Kshatiryas. etc. They do not call themselves as Hindus. Does that mean >that they are not Hindu? It is to be noted that nowhere in the sacred texts of the "Hindus" do we find any mention about "Hinduism". Only after the advent of Islam in India did the natives of the sub continent identity themselves as "Hindu" – only in contrast to the adherents of alien religions. The Muslims too regarded them as so – here can you show me evidence of Muslims identifying Jains differently from Hindus? Also historically "Hindus" never referred to their religion as "Hinduism". "Hinduism" is a word concocted by European historians to refer to the myriad streams of religious faiths in the sub continent. Anyway AFAIK Jainism or Buddhism or Vedaanta have historically been referred to only as schools of spiritual philosophy by the adherents themselves - darshana or a siddhaanta – as in Maadhava's Sarva Darshana Samgraha or Shankara's Sarva Siddhaanta Saara Samgraha or the Jainaa Haribhadraa Suri's Sad Darshana Samuccaya. So how is that we are interpreting them as "religions" today? >Jainism completely rejects the Vedas, the Geeta, the Upanishads, the >Shatpath Brahmans, the Puranas, etc. Can you show me a relevant quote from any historical Jainaa text to this effect? >Please refer to the Acharang Sutra, the the Uttaradhyan Sutra and the >Dashavaikalik Sutra. >You might to do well to read Acharya Samantbhadra's "Aptamimansa". I >think reading the book will clear your opinion in this >matter. It would be meaningful if you could quote the relevant verses and also give some historical information about these texts. >The Jains reject the Vedas completely. See, this "rejection" can be a double edged sword. Sure the Jains have historically claimed distinction from brahmanical streams on this point. But as I pointed out before there's nothing in Jainaa philosophy – relativity, plurality, atomism - which cannot be found in the texts of the Vedic scriptures or to schools older than Jainism like Saamkhya or Vaisheshika. So if Vardhamaana were to come and say "the Vedas are false", then the natural question to him would be : "If the Vedas are false then how come you're teaching doctrines present in the Vedas"? It is this very double-speak that caused Buddhism and Jainism to disappear over a period of time in most parts of India. Quite like Jainism with its "anti absolutism", Buddhism deliberately remained ambiguous on the nature of reality talking of it only in phenomenal terms : the end of suffering, elimination of kleshas etc. But with the passage of time due to increasing criticism from its rivals and evolving philosophy there were forced to concede bit by bit – the end result is Yogaacaara Buddhism is almost identical to Vedaanta. Likewise with Jainism - its "anti absolutist" stand cannot withstand logical scrutiny. Even as Mahaayaana is very similar to Advaita, so is Jainism very similar to Dvaita Vedaanta. That's the reason Jainism which once dominated Southern India has totally disappeared from the region. >You are wrong. The Jain philosophy has come from the teachings of the >omniscient Tirthankars. There have been 24 Tirthankars in this time >phase. Bhagwan Rishabhdev was the first, and Bhagwan Mahavir the last. But do you have any texts original left by them to say : "this is what the Tirthankaraas taught"? At best the association of Jainism with the historical Tirthankaras is only due to Vardhamaana claiming that he was only following their tradition. But the Thirthankaraas, who earliest mention is found in the Vedas, never claimed to have started "Jainism" – nor do we have any historical text of theirs to prove so. The Vedas too don't speak of any "Jainism" in connection with the Thirtankaraas. The association of Thirthankaraas to Jainism is similar to Saiva Siddhaanta claiming association with the Saiva bhakti saints who preceded them by atleast a thousand years. But we also find the Shankaraachaarya of Kaanchi claiming that the bhakti saints taught only Advaita – so who's to say who is right? The Thirtankaraas as with many sages mentioned in the Vedas represent the dharmic substratum – each tradition used their teachings to assert their own validity. Today even I can start a new tradition based on the "teachings of the Thirtankaraas" – for they are as much my cultural ancestors as anybody else's. >Jain philosophy, metaphysics, logic and epistemology are original and >unique. Nobody can make such a claim about any school in Indian philosophy for historically each school developed only in relation to its opponents – thus either directly or indirectly each school was influenced by the doctrines of other schools. Indological opinion is firm that both Saamkya and Vaisheshika are older than Jainaa philosophy. So it is only natural that the concepts of the plurality of souls and atomism were borrowed from these "orthodox" schools – though Jainaas modified these concepts in their own way. Jainism has no text before Naagaarjuna (2nd century CE) which teaches syaadvaada. So it is to be inferred that the "relativity" doctrine was borrowed from the Maadhyamikas - though given a positive twist. Check out Chandradhar Sharma's "Critical survey of Indian philosophy" for an analysis on this issue. >Jainism has never given any credence to the Vedas and brahmins. I hear that there's a priestly class in Buddhism – some even call them Brahmins. Jainaa priests are said to be only from these select families who claim to be descendants of the Brahmin disciples of the Jinaa. >"also the Vedas and other aastika darshanas were taught in Buddhist >universities like Nalanda and Taxila." >How that make Jainism a part of Hinduism? Only to show the neither being naastika nor shraamanic makes one anti- Vedic. >I belong to a separate religion and therefore am perfectly correct in >calling myself a Jain, not a Hindu. So, you are a Hindu, and I am a >Jain. This dogmatic stand is hardly in the spirit of the relativity of the Jainaa philosophers. A true Jainaa would say "Relatively I'm a Jainaa (spiritually), relatively I'm a Hindu (geographically and culturally)". Let us please leave out "I'm a Jain, you are a Hindu" line of argument. Let us try to treat the issue objectively talking about Jainism/Jains and Hinduism/Hindus, rather than "you and me". >True assimilation demands that you accept that I am a Jain and that >you are a Hindu. True assimilation rests on the ability to reconcile seemingly opposed doctrines based on reason - and not give in to dogmatic assertions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2002 Report Share Posted August 29, 2002 INDOLOGY, Manish Modi <manish.modi@b...> wrote: Nanda Chandran wrote: >> "But still all these schools are considered as aastika or orthodox." > > Yes, and Hindu scholars qualify Jainism as a Nastik Darshan. It is > because Jainism completely rejects the Vedas, the Geeta, > the Upanishads, the Shatpath Brahmans, the Puranas, etc. > NC wrote: >> "Please show me a quote from Mahaaveera's teachings that the >> teachings of the Vedas are false." > > Please refer to the Acharang Sutra, the the Uttaradhyan Sutra > and the Dashavaikalik Sutra. You might to do well to read > Acharya Samantbhadra's "Aptamimansa". I think reading the book > will clear your opinion in this matter. > NC wrote: >> "If Jainaa opposition to the Vedas is that its teachings are not >> absolute but only relative or that the teachings of other saints are >> also as authoritative, there're numerous schools within the aastika >> fold itself which hold the same stance. Advaitins consider the Vedas >> to be of relative value only for even it is in the realm of >> ignorance. " > > The Jains reject the Vedas completely. > In the Tamil texts of Saiva and Vaishnava sects from about midlle of the first millennium, the Jain rejection of both vedas and brahmins is often mentioned. For example, in the Pandyan court of Madurai, jnAnasambandhar says these reasons, and asserts that they hav to be driven out. One example from Cologne Tamil Texts database: Qtev3x47x1 \BT kATTu mA atu urittu uri pOrttu uTal Qtev3x47x1 \BT nATTam mUn2Ru uTaiyAy uraiceyvan2 nAn2; Qtev3x47x1 \BT vETTu vELvi ceyyA amaNkaiyarai Qtev3x47x1 \BT OTTi vAtu ceyat tiru uLLamE Regards, N. Ganesan Nanda Chandran wrote: >> "To this end certain factors like opposition to the brahmin or non- >> acceptance of the Vedas in the shramanic traditions are >> exaggerated." > > They are not exaggerated. Jainism has never given any credence to >the Vedas and brahmins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2002 Report Share Posted August 30, 2002 Dear Shri VPCNK, Jai Jinendra Thanks for your thoughtful posting. Here is my answer. Jains are strictly enjoined not to worship Kudev, Kuguru and Kudharma. This stricture is found in all Jain scriptures, right from the Sutrakritang Sutra, Vyakhya Pragyapti Sutra, Moolachar, the Bhagwati Aradhna, the Uttaradhyayan Sutra, and all other Jain books. Kundakunda lived and wrote in the 2nd century. He was very clear about not following any Kudev, Kuguru and Kudharma. The 4th century "Ratnakaranda Shravakachar" by Samantbhadra clearly outlines that: Who is the true Dev, true Guru and true Dharma? Arihant Tirthankar - true Dev Nirgranth Muni - true Guru The Dharma taught by the Kevalis, Jin Pranit Dharma, Jain Dharma - true Dharma No Hindu deites fall under the classification of Tirthankars. Hence Jains are not Hindus. Likewise, for Hindu Gurus and Hindu Dharma. The Jain definition of Shastra is that which is based on the teachings of the Tirthankars. Since the Hindu / Vedic / Brahmanic / Upanishadic scriptures are not based on the teachings of Bhagwan Mahavir and his predecessing Tirthankars, these Shastras are not Jain Shastras and Jains do not follow them. 1. The other schools of thought you mentiioned, Advait, Dvait, Sankhya, Yog etc. are just Darshan. They do not represent a religion. They are merely Darshans. Jainism is not just a Darshan, it is a full-fledged religion. 2. Jainism is as ancient as India is. 3. Both Hinduism and Jainism are seperate systems of spiritual thought emerging from the same soil. 4. Jainism has a distinct philosophy, the Karma Siddhant, which is not found in the Vedas. 5. Swami Dayanand Sarasvati, one of the greatest Vedic scholars of modern India also treated Jainism as a seperate religion from Hinduism. 6. Islam, Judaism and Christianity emerged in the same culture and geographical location. Many of their social customs are similar. Names like Abraham, Isa, Adam and Sarah are found in the followers of all three faiths. Yet, they are unique religions, distinct from each other. 7. All three, Islam, Judaism and Christianity believe in the creator god concept. This does not justify clubbing them under one umbrella. 8. Jews and Muslims both practise the "khatna" or male circumcision. Does that make Islam and Judaism the same religion? 9. Anekantvad and Syadvad are unique to Jainism. If there are similar concepts in the Upanishads and others books, maybe they were borrowd from Jainism. 10. Bhagwan Rishabdev is a cultural deity for all Indians, just as Ram is a hero for all Indians, Kabir is India's philosopher hero and Guru Bobind Singh is India's martial hero. Yes, but he was the first Jain Tirthankar. If there is find corroborating evidence about him in the Vedas, then it conclusively proves my point no. 2. That Jainism is as ancient as India is. Jainism as preached by all 24 Tirthankars is essentially the same. So Jain concepts are ancient, and if there is similarity in other schools of Indian thought then obviously the concept has been borrowed from Jainism, and not the other way round. 11. You are right when you say that Indian culture predates the Vedas. One of the streams of that culture is Jainism. 11. Jainism is one of the world's oldest living religions. 12. There is no preistly class in Jainism. Any Jain is allowed to perfom Puja in a Jain Mandir. Casteism is championed by the Hindus. Not by the Jains. 13. The Tirthankars were born in warrior families. Not in Hindu families, but in warrior princely families following the Jin Dharma. Today most Jains are either involved in agriculture, commerce or educatiion, but once upon a time, there were many ruling families which were Jain. The famous King Chandragupta Maurya was a Jain. 14. This mail is not meant to show any disrespect to any other religion, but having respect for other faiths does not mean accepting them. I have respect for all the faiths in the world, but I am a Jain. Not a Hindu. Not a Muslim. Not a Parsee. Not a Christian. 15. You wrote: "Let us please leave out "I'm a Jain, you are a Hindu" line of argument. Let us try to treat the issue objectively talking about Jainism/Jains and Hinduism/Hindus, rather than "you and me"." You are right. I apologise. 16.Wasn't it Shankaracharya the first who said that one should rather be crushed under an elephant's feet than enter a Jain temple? (I think it was a Shankaracharya who said that.) Would Shankaracharya have said that if Jainism were a part of Hinduism? No. He said it because Jainism is a distinct and seperate religion from Hinduism. Shankaracharya was a champion of Hindu revival and saw Jainism and Buddhism as the strong rivals of Hinduism. History says that Shankaracharya did succeed in his efforts of ousting Jainism and Buddhism, and placed Hinduism firmly on the pedestal as India's major religion. But even he did not claim that Jainism was a part of Hinduism! He strongly opposed Jainism. In India today Jainism is a minority religion. The constitution recognises this fact. Time all of us recognised this. Its followers and adherents are far fewer in number than those of Hinduism. Yet, that should not take away from its stature as an independent religion. Distinct from Hinduism. 17. Religious assimilation in modern India is beginning to sound ominously like annihilation of all dissenting voices. 18. You wrote: "True assimilation rests on the ability to reconcile seemingly opposed doctrines based on reason - and not give in to dogmatic assertions." You are right. So let us reconcile ourselves to the fact that Jainism and Hinduism are two distinct, emerging from the substratum of Indian theology. Hinduism is followed by the majority of Indians, therefore it is the majority religion of India, while Jainism is followed by very few Indians. Hence, it is a minority religion of India. 19. You wrote: "A true Jainaa would say "Relatively I'm a Jainaa (spiritually), relatively I'm a Hindu (geographically and culturally)". A true Jain would say that while I am a Jain, I am an Indian first. And before that, I am a human being. Even before that, the true Jain would realise that he is an embodied soul. In order to attain supreme bliss as an unembodied unencumbered soul, he ought to attain Kaivalya. And for that he should walk on the path that the Tirthankars trod. Follow the teachings of the Tirthankars. That is his Dharma. Following Mahavir's teachings is the true Dharma of every Jain. Namo Vitragay Yours in Ahinsa, Manish Modi HINDI GRANTH KARYALAY Booksellers and Publishers http://www.hindibooks.8m.com Hirabaug, C. P. Tank, Mumbai 400004, INDIA Telephone: 00 91 22 3826739 Email: manish.modi On Thursday 29 August 2002 16:34, vpcnk wrote: > In this argument there are three fundamental questions : > > 1. Can Jainism be independently established as a religion apart > from "Hinduism"? > 2. Because many of the reasons given to assert the individual > identity of Jainism is also true for many schools that > constitute "Hinduism". So either there's a problem in considering > Jainism as a separate religion or in the way "Hinduism" itself is > defined. > 3. Also in this argument "Hinduism" is equated with the Vedic > religion and then Jainism is contrasted with the Vedic religion to > prove its individual identity. But such an equation of "Hinduism" > with the Vedic religion is not mine. I'm talking about a dharmic > substratum of which even the Vedas are a part too. It is this dharmic > mother of whom I consider the Vedic religion, Buddhism and Jainism as > off springs. The Vedas are not the starting point of Indian religion – > they're merely the oldest surviving religious texts of India – but > there was dharma even before the compilation of the Vedas. And each > religious stream is an inheritor of this dharmic heritage. Thus the > relevance of all streams - even the Buddha and Mahaaveera - > claiming "Arya" status and the unity in their religious/spiritual > fundamentals. Whether aastika or naastika all schools are agreed on > certain fundamentals : salvation is escape from the cycle of > rebirths; the validity of karma; dharma is a life of control of the > psycho/physical faculties, compassion and charity is essential for > spiritual effort; Reality is something inherent in man and it is > knowledge of this reality which brings about liberation. It is these > factors that constitute the underlying dharmic substratum. > > One another important factor to consider in this issue is even if > Vardhamaana and Siddhaartha did establish new spiritual streams, > still you've to take their fundamental cultural identity into > consideration. Both were born "Hindu" Kshatriyas. There's little > evidence that right after their embarking on their new spiritual > enterprise they absolutely discarded their original identity. For the > Buddha was careful to identify himself by his gotra name Gautama, > instead than his actual name Siddhaartha. Vardhamaana's gotra was > Kaashyapa. Both these gotra names are Vedic. Also there's been a > trend in the religions established by both, where the followers in > cognizance of the Vedic varna identities of their founders, have > harped on the superiority of kshatriya birth over Brahmin birth. This > is hardly the attitude of those who reject their Vedic heritage. So > are the Buddha and Mahaaveera quarrelling with the Vedas or the > Brahmanical interpretation of it? > > >Your friend is merely misinformed. Or maybe he is confused by the > >various definitions of Hinduism that crop up from time to time. > > Like, >"all Indian origin religions are Hindu". Or, "anyone who is > not a >Muslim, is a Hindu." Besides, I have lost of friends who are > Hindus >and they descrien themselves as Bengalsi, Marathis, Brahmins, > > >Kshatiryas. etc. They do not call themselves as Hindus. Does that > > mean >that they are not Hindu? > > It is to be noted that nowhere in the sacred texts of the "Hindus" do > we find any mention about "Hinduism". Only after the advent of Islam > in India did the natives of the sub continent identity themselves > as "Hindu" – only in contrast to the adherents of alien religions. > The Muslims too regarded them as so – here can you show me evidence > of Muslims identifying Jains differently from Hindus? > > Also historically "Hindus" never referred to their religion > as "Hinduism". "Hinduism" is a word concocted by European historians > to refer to the myriad streams of religious faiths in the sub > continent. > > Anyway AFAIK Jainism or Buddhism or Vedaanta have historically been > referred to only as schools of spiritual philosophy by the adherents > themselves - darshana or a siddhaanta – as in Maadhava's Sarva > Darshana Samgraha or Shankara's Sarva Siddhaanta Saara Samgraha or > the Jainaa Haribhadraa Suri's Sad Darshana Samuccaya. So how is that > we are interpreting them as "religions" today? > > >Jainism completely rejects the Vedas, the Geeta, the Upanishads, the > >Shatpath Brahmans, the Puranas, etc. > > Can you show me a relevant quote from any historical Jainaa text to > this effect? > > >Please refer to the Acharang Sutra, the the Uttaradhyan Sutra and the > >Dashavaikalik Sutra. > >You might to do well to read Acharya Samantbhadra's "Aptamimansa". I > >think reading the book will clear your opinion in this > >matter. > > It would be meaningful if you could quote the relevant verses and > also give some historical information about these texts. > > >The Jains reject the Vedas completely. > > See, this "rejection" can be a double edged sword. Sure the Jains > have historically claimed distinction from brahmanical streams on > this point. But as I pointed out before there's nothing in Jainaa > philosophy – relativity, plurality, atomism - which cannot be found > in the texts of the Vedic scriptures or to schools older than Jainism > like Saamkhya or Vaisheshika. So if Vardhamaana were to come and > say "the Vedas are false", then the natural question to him would > be : "If the Vedas are false then how come you're teaching doctrines > present in the Vedas"? > > It is this very double-speak that caused Buddhism and Jainism to > disappear over a period of time in most parts of India. Quite like > Jainism with its "anti absolutism", Buddhism deliberately remained > ambiguous on the nature of reality talking of it only in phenomenal > terms : the end of suffering, elimination of kleshas etc. But with > the passage of time due to increasing criticism from its rivals and > evolving philosophy there were forced to concede bit by bit – the end > result is Yogaacaara Buddhism is almost identical to Vedaanta. > Likewise with Jainism - its "anti absolutist" stand cannot withstand > logical scrutiny. Even as Mahaayaana is very similar to Advaita, so > is Jainism very similar to Dvaita Vedaanta. That's the reason Jainism > which once dominated Southern India has totally disappeared from the > region. > > >You are wrong. The Jain philosophy has come from the teachings of > > the > > >omniscient Tirthankars. There have been 24 Tirthankars in this time > >phase. Bhagwan Rishabhdev was the first, and Bhagwan Mahavir the > > last. > > But do you have any texts original left by them to say : "this is > what the Tirthankaraas taught"? > > At best the association of Jainism with the historical Tirthankaras > is only due to Vardhamaana claiming that he was only following their > tradition. But the Thirthankaraas, who earliest mention is found in > the Vedas, never claimed to have started "Jainism" – nor do we have > any historical text of theirs to prove so. The Vedas too don't speak > of any "Jainism" in connection with the Thirtankaraas. > > The association of Thirthankaraas to Jainism is similar to Saiva > Siddhaanta claiming association with the Saiva bhakti saints who > preceded them by atleast a thousand years. But we also find the > Shankaraachaarya of Kaanchi claiming that the bhakti saints taught > only Advaita – so who's to say who is right? > > The Thirtankaraas as with many sages mentioned in the Vedas represent > the dharmic substratum – each tradition used their teachings to > assert their own validity. Today even I can start a new tradition > based on the "teachings of the Thirtankaraas" – for they are as much > my cultural ancestors as anybody else's. > > >Jain philosophy, metaphysics, logic and epistemology are original > > and >unique. > > Nobody can make such a claim about any school in Indian philosophy > for historically each school developed only in relation to its > opponents – thus either directly or indirectly each school was > influenced by the doctrines of other schools. > > Indological opinion is firm that both Saamkya and Vaisheshika are > older than Jainaa philosophy. So it is only natural that the concepts > of the plurality of souls and atomism were borrowed from > these "orthodox" schools – though Jainaas modified these concepts in > their own way. > > Jainism has no text before Naagaarjuna (2nd century CE) which teaches > syaadvaada. So it is to be inferred that the "relativity" doctrine > was borrowed from the Maadhyamikas - though given a positive twist. > Check out Chandradhar Sharma's "Critical survey of Indian philosophy" > for an analysis on this issue. > > >Jainism has never given any credence to the Vedas and brahmins. > > I hear that there's a priestly class in Buddhism – some even call > them Brahmins. Jainaa priests are said to be only from these select > families who claim to be descendants of the Brahmin disciples of the > Jinaa. > > >"also the Vedas and other aastika darshanas were taught in Buddhist > >universities like Nalanda and Taxila." > > > >How that make Jainism a part of Hinduism? > > Only to show the neither being naastika nor shraamanic makes one anti- > Vedic. > > >I belong to a separate religion and therefore am perfectly correct > > in >calling myself a Jain, not a Hindu. So, you are a Hindu, and I am > a >Jain. > > This dogmatic stand is hardly in the spirit of the relativity of the > Jainaa philosophers. A true Jainaa would say "Relatively I'm a Jainaa > (spiritually), relatively I'm a Hindu (geographically and > culturally)". > > Let us please leave out "I'm a Jain, you are a Hindu" line of > argument. Let us try to treat the issue objectively talking about > Jainism/Jains and Hinduism/Hindus, rather than "you and me". > > >True assimilation demands that you accept that I am a Jain and that > >you are a Hindu. > > True assimilation rests on the ability to reconcile seemingly opposed > doctrines based on reason - and not give in to dogmatic assertions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2002 Report Share Posted August 30, 2002 > 1. Can Jainism be independently established as a religion apart > from "Hinduism"? Yes. See, for example, _THE JAINS_ by Paul Dundas (Routledge, 1992). As for the other remarks of this long message, the sense in which a term like "Hindu" was relevant through the centuries to describe what we know as Hinduism (today--the acknowledged faith of most Indians) is indeed a challenge to Indologists. I doubt that many *scholars* will be satisfied with any answers generated by speculative remarks or by any kind of theological/philosophical discourse. best wishes, Tim Cahill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2002 Report Share Posted August 31, 2002 > In the Tamil texts of Saiva and Vaishnava sects from about > midlle of the first millennium, the Jain rejection of > both vedas and brahmins is often mentioned. As noted before we have to be clear about the level of "rejection" - is it absolute or relative? > For example, in the Pandyan court of Madurai, jnAnasambandhar > says these reasons, and asserts that they hav to be driven out. When talking about such issues we've to learn to distinguish the founder of a religion from his followers. The followers for multiple reasons can deviate from the spirit of the teachings of the founder - even as we can see in modern politics and films in India, the followers have exaggerated faith/devotion to their masters which is not really true to their masters capabilities or spirit. For instance even in Buddha's dialogues we find him rebuking Ananda for such an attitude. The Buddha was quite tolerant of "Hinduism" - but we see many later Buddhists like Naagasena or Chandrakirti who are more opposed to "Hinduism". But again there're scholars like Naagaarjuna or Asanga or Bhaavaviveka who are as tolerant as the Buddha. So "Jaina rejection of the Vedas and brahmins" can vary at different levels - master and disciples can all stand for different things at different points in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.