---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: SV: [Y-Indology] Challenge to Indologists
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:48:17 +0530
From: Manish Modi <manish.modi@...>
To: INDOLOGY@yahoogroups.com, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@...>


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.