Talk:Dharmic tradition/Archive 1

message: Legalese 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court of India 

message: Please change the article on Abrahamic religionS and let the Dharmic religionS article be as it was. There is no one single Dharmic religion, just as there is no one single Abrahamic religion.IAF
What is it with the singular Dharmic religion ? Its childish like Polymer, Animal, Monument, and whatever else. Just because somebody in all his wisdom changed Abrahamic religions to Abe religion, it doesn't mean you change the article of Dharmic religions also.IAF
:It's simply Wikipedia official policy: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). —Lowellian (reply) 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plurality

message: Formatting here is pretty atrocious.  Can someone please help address this?
--1000Faces 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: Legalese 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Scholarly Opinion 

message: Legalese 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to IAF's methodology and approach 

message: Legalese 19:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Fair 

message: Legalese 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Legalese, you say that you leave this article to its fate and I should smile. I'm crying, because its me who has let it go to the dogs already (I haven't reverted your and Anishshah's edits since the past few days).
So I guess its you who should be smiling, coz your edits stand.
You do have the tendency to veer away from the actual discussion to discussing me---dissecting each and every sentence, line and punctuation  when I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say. Anyway, I give up on the legalese.
AnishShah19 : I'll reply to you on/after Sunday. Indian_Air_Force
AnishShah19, whatever that you have stated are actually Jain orthodox beliefs. Even Hindus believe that Lord Rama came about in 10,000 B.C. etc.
* Ram Prasad Chanda's reference that you gave, never says that the Indus Valley seal or edict that has a man showing Yogic postures (again a Hindu science), is Lord Rishabha. He merely states that that posture is like that of Rishabha. As I told you earlier, the Puranas are a much later occurence than the Vedas and even the Upanishads. The Puranas mention Jain tirthankars numerous times.
I hope that you understand that the Indus Valley script is as yet undeciphered. We do not know their language or their script.
Again, Magadha and eastern Indian states came at far much later dates than the earliest Vedic sites. Sure, the tirthankars may have lived/preached there but that doesn't mean that they predated Hinduism.
* The Ikshvaku dynasty dates its lineage to Manu who was an eccentric king who lived around 1 A.D., who wrote the Manu Smriti
* According to this site on Jain Agama literature, the earliest known Jain literature can be traced back to a time after Lord Mahavira's death. The Purvas themselves are a part of the 12th series that comprise that literature. So when they cam later than Mahavira (i.e. later than 500 A.D.) how can they be older than Vedic literature ?
* Moksha means liberation of the Soul from the endless cycle of rebirths. This idea is clearly Vedantic if not wholly Vedic. Now whether the soul perches itself on top of the Universe, or merges itself with the Brahmaan are minor bifurcations. Even within various Hindu cults there are many theories and opinions.
Just like a generic medicinal compound which is marginally different in composition from the original, can't be granted a patent, Jainism's Moksha can in no way be claimed to be unique. In this regard I'm frank and don't mean to hurt feelings. I'm only reciting historical facts.
* Kālidāsa is said to have lived between the 1st cen BC to 5th cen AD. The concepts of Karma, Dharma and Moksha (note : all of these are Sanskrit words) are not not only defined for the first time in Hindu scriptures but are defined precisely and unambigously. That there are different viewpoints within subsects and cults does not imply loose definitions.
You said, "In fact, in Rig Veda Song of Creation, questions the omnipotence and omniscience of God, and perhaps even the existence of any entity like God. This is a concept borrowed from Jainism. This proves that Rgveda is later than Jainism. "
Can't I turn the tables and say likewise for Jainism, that since the RV questions the omnipresence and omnipotence of God, so it must be that Jainism borrows these concepts from Hinduism ?
Besides, please do note that there are various godS in the RV. In the last verse of the Creation there is an allude to the surveyor of the highest heaven or the Supreme Being.
The Creation verses are tremendously profound thoughts, because they are probably the first recorded ideas about the origins of space and time.
* Pray tell me how my arguments are thrashed by Scholars. You interpret the statements of scholars from your own prism; like Ram Prasad Chanda's statement which nowhere even slightly suggests that the Indus Valley seal depicts Rishabha (just the posture is a Yogic one).
And I remind you about Sanskrit's exclusivity to the Vedic literature  and that it is the oldest language known to the sub-con. You can refer to the articles on Prakritic languages in wikipedia itself which say that they got created around the time of Buddha to record his teachings. They are more recent than Sanskrit. These are not empty comments, but historical facts. You know what this means for Jaina literature.
We also have to discuss about the cohesion that exists between Hindus and Jains of today (in culture and even religion). Indian_Air_Force(IAF)
* I am restating a scholarly comment from the article on the Upanishads (I have posted it earlier also) : The philosophical edifice of Indian religion viz., Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism is built on the foundation laid by the Upanishads.ref.
Indian_Air_Force
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IAF, You told Legalese that you feel like crying. Why ? We are not insulting Hinduism or Vedic religion by claiming it that it is 2nd oldest religion or it is offshoot of Jainism. On the other hand anyone ignoring the originality of Jainism is definitely on a wrong track. Just because the Hindus are in majority, one cannot subvert the facts. This happened because Jainism was ignored by Western Scholars for long. However this wrong has been now rectified. How much ever galling and difficult to accept it may seem, it is the truth. It requires an open mind and a paradigm shift to admit that hundreds of years of belief are proving wrong.
In fact what you are saying are Hindu Orthodox beliefs because you have not been able to substantiate your claims with necessary scholarly references. Upto now the history was written by the majority. Last Hundred years or so thanks to Western Scholars as evidenced by Indian scriptures, it has been conclusively proved that Jainism is a different and oldest religion that Vedic religion. This view is also now seconded by Indian Scholars. In fact Rigveda also mentions Arishtanemi the 22nd Tirthankar. So even the 22nd Tirthankar predated Rigveda. You have also not provided any new arguments except resorted to hair-splitting arguments on the language used by the scholars. Out of dozen or so more scholars, you have atleasted managed to find objection on the language used by one of them. Also some of the comments are irrelevant such as “hope that you understand that the Indus Valley script is as yet undeciphered” . I hope that you understand that it has not prevented the scholars from predicting the nature of Indus valley civilization. Thanks for providing the link to Jain Agams. But you have not researched properly. If you had carefully read it, it clearly saya that Purvas are lost. The word purva means “prior knowledge”.  You have conveniently taken what fits your preconceived notions and ignored the rest.
Yes I admit there is a strong cohesion between Hinduism and Jainism. If you are talking of a scholarly discussion without preconceived notions I am all for it.
--Anishshah19 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On IAF's response of 10 times clarifying 

message: Legalese 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Rules 

message: Legalese 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inviting Discussion on MSN Encarta's Entry 

message: Legalese 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrast-Encyclopaedia Britannica 

message: Why is Greenland black on the map?  Most of them are Lutheran according to Wikipedia. --irrevenant [ talk ] 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Greenland black on the map? 

message: IMHO the article needs to be reorganised to follow a similar pattern to the Abrahamic religion article ie:
# Intro
# Commonalities
# Shared Themes
# History and development
# Links to the articles on each religion
Cosnahang 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of the article 

message: Do we really need this section? It just seems to mirror information found in Dharma - which is linked to extensively in this article. Sfacets 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a short summary and a wikilink. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Necessity for the "What is Dharma" section

message: First off, Jainism and Buddhism are not non-aryan. That is a fabricated lie by bias scholars working around odd race theories. 
Also, you would have to answer why  the word Aryan is mentioned much more in Buddhism and Jainism then in Hinduism. Odd considering they are supposed to be of so called non aryan origin. Don't refute me on this, read yourself, it's all public knowledge. Anyway, I don't think the word Aryan ever applied to a race in the spiritual sense, but many here do.
Jainism and Buddhism do not solely reject caste.  Many of their scriptures work around caste although they don't normally propagate it with their teachings. All Jain Thirtankaras have been Kshathriya. So was Buddha. All of the Boddhisatvas have been Brahmin or Kshathriya. Brahmins have also played a large role within Jainism, just as much as in Hinduism (Vedic). So this is all modern poltical propaganda on behalf of Jains (and some Buddhists) who have all jumped on the band wagon to seperate themselves from Brahmins (see anti-Brahminism). Equally as odd considering that Brahmins have played such a crucial role in the development of both religions (Jainism and Buddhism)since the time of their origins.
Also, i'm not a Brahmin so think twice before you come back and accuse me of bieng pro "Aryan" or Brahmin or something of that sort.. 
Vedanta is a part of the Vedas but a move away from the ritual aspect and more into the philosophical aspect. Jainism and Buddhism are also a movement away from the Vedic rituals and animal sacrifice. Jainism is extreme ascetism, which Buddha and Hindus never believed in.
Ahimsa may have came from Jainism but had a lot of influence on both Hinduism and Buddhism.
Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism are all a mixture of the Aryan, Tribal and Animist beliefs and traditions that the so called "native" and "aryans" formed together. Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism share many concepts, symbols and dieties such as Brahma and Nagas (especially Buddhism and Hinduism).
So what really seperates Hinduism from Buddhism and Jainism? Hinduism always accepted the Vedas and a higher eternal creator while Buddhism and Jainism rejected both.  
Hinduism clerly evolved along Vedic thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is there any point to this comment, and why is it in boldface? Fwiiw, most of what you say is correct, except for the part on "fabricated lies" of course. --dab (𒁳) 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I like to hear some voice of reasonableness. You are right, out of Hinduism and Jainism which came first we never know, scholars can only speculate and come to either conclusions. I think this topic should be left to scholars. The word Karmas, Moksha, Ahimsa etc were neither strictly vedic nor shramanic and each developed the concepts differently albeit influencing each other. I have given sources from scholars that "Jainism pre-dates Vedas" to prove to certain people here who are repeating the hackneyed misconceptions that Hinduism is the oldest religion, and others are an offshoot of it. There is nothing farther than truth. Hinduism is a continuation of Vedic tradition and Jainism a continuation of Shramanic tradition. Period. However there were a lot of influences on each other. However anyone who claims that Jainism was "offshoot of Vedic religion" I have shown dozens of proof that it wasnt.--Anish Shah 06:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is funny. The article has been deleted but the discussion continues. May be you can continue to discuss somewhere else e.g. on user talk page. Andries 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on Mutual Influences between Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism