Talk:Karma in Jainism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Karma in Jainism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
June 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Jainism (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. Please participate by editing the article Karma in Jainism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Religion (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Spirituality (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Philosophy (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.

Archived discussion[edit]

Beautifully written intro[edit]

I've just copyedited the intro. I love the clarity of the sentences and the wealth of content in them. I have done a fair bit of reordering, however, so that the logic breaks down into three sub-sections with related material collected together and building up sentence by sentence. Please let me know if this injures your fine work Anish, and change things back to reflect sources better if need be. My work, although done directly in the article, is done so merely for convenience, it is a proposal offered for your expert approval, not more than that. Looking forward to copyediting the next section. Warm regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent tweaking and reordering! Am I glad to see you here. Please carry out the changes directly on the article. It was be better and faster.--Anish (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I am worried about copyright for the image of the Buddha: it is signed by a thai artist and dated. Is the date 5-6-98? I expect there are more public domain photographs of statues of the Buddha, or of older paintings. Perhaps you could scout around. Perhaps also one image could be moved up to the lead, or another could be found. Finally, I also recommend we seek a couple of quality external links, preferably Jain sites that have a head office (not a post office box) and an editor-in-chief, those are basic requirements for reliability of websites, though they are not guarantees of reliability. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes Image is a big issue for Jain articles. I am talking to a few publishers to release a few of their images to public domain, although the response is not quite encouraging. I am not very conversant with these image creating softwares. I thought I had done a due diligence on the Buddha image. But you saw what I missed out. I will try to find other images. By the why do you need external for Jain websites?--Anish (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Types of karma[edit]

In case it helps us, here is a quote from the New Dictionary of Religions (1995), the "karma (Jain doctrine)" article.
"Like Hinduism and Buddhism, Jainism teaches that action (karman) has consequences and that the parameters of existence of all creatures can be explained by their behaviour in past lives. In its very earliest phase, Jainism took a rigorous attitude towards karma, claiming that all actions of body, speech and mind, spontaneous or otherwise, set up negative consequences, with the task of the committed ascetic being to mute the physical and psychological behaviour as much as possible. However, this approach gradually became modified to take into account the influence of the intention lying behind any action. Uniquely, Jainism envisages karma as a material substance attracted to each soul (Jiva) through vibrations brought about by activity and then, somewhat mysteriously, clinging to it, thus impeding the soul's innate qualities.Jain karma theory became highly complex by the medieval period. Its basic structure involves two varieties of karma, the ‘harming’ and the ‘non-harming’, each divided into four types. The former impedes the soul's perception, knowledge and energy respectively, and also brings about delusion, while the latter is responsible for the reborn soul's physical and mental circumstances, longevity, spiritual potential and experience of pleasant and unpleasant sensations."
Alastair Haines (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good quote....a bit cynical though in the starting. I think I will use the end part.--Anish (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As per Alastairs suggestion I have incorportaed the above quote as follows:

"According to Jain texts, there are eight main types of karma—categorized into the ‘harming’ and the ‘non-harming’, each divided into four types. The harming karmas (ghātiyā karmas) impedes the soul's perception, knowledge and energy, and also brings about delusion. They are known as darśanāvaraṇa (perception obscuring karma), jñānavāraṇa (knowledge obscuring karma), antarāya (obstacles creating karma) and mohanīya (deluding karma) respectively. The non-harming category (aghātiyā karmas) is responsible for the reborn soul's physical and mental circumstances, longevity, spiritual potential and experience of pleasant and unpleasant sensations. They are known as nāma (body determining karma), āyu (life span determining karma), gotra (status determining karma) and vedanīya (feeling producing karma) respectively."[1] [2]

If agreeable, we can incorportae the same in the main body of article in Experiencing the effects section.--Anish (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the architect here Anish. You have a feel for the subject I cannot have. Once I've finished detailed copyediting, I'll understand the subject better and keep pace with you more. I'm also scouting out a few more reliable sources, as you have seen. I'm impressed with how clear and logical the doctrines are. The article progressess very well to my mind so far.
I'm just side-tracking a little to make a stub for the International Journal of Jaina Studies, a key resource for you and I into the future, God and/or karma willing, my friend.
PS I just found this online too: Singh, Narendra, ed., (2001). Encyclopaedia of Jainism. Anmol Publications. ISBN 81-261-0691-3
Alastair Haines (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are scouting for more relable references. It takes pressure off me. I am glad you are happy with the flow of article upto now. If you feel there is some logical inconsistency do point it out. Karma doctrine is too technical even for Jains. It has taken me a lot of time to study it and simplify it. Still, wherever you find over usage of technical terms and concepts, we will change it. I appreciate you creating supportive articles also. It will be quite helpful.--Anish (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tirthankara[edit]

Scholars normally translate Tirthankara as "Ford Maker" i.e. one who builds bridge to cross the ocean of suffering (that is samsara). Check out P. Jaini [1], Dundas [2] and A concise dictionary of Indian philosophy: Sanskrit terms defined in English By John A. Grimes [3]. I would say it would be better to keep Ford-maker rather than prophet. Because Prophet means messenger of God, esp. in Abrahamic religions and is likely to be misunderstood in this context.--Anish (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore Scholars prefer to use capital "T" while usage of word Tirthankara. [4] --Anish (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very happy to concede to you on the basis of reliable sources. The concept of Tirthankara is, indeed, quite different to that of prophet, there really is no equivalent. Capitalisation is fine too, if that is usual in Indic studies. When used as a title, "saint" can be capitalised. The word prophet is not used as a title for biblical prophets. I'm still comparing the typographic preferences of sources and thinking through whether those need adaptation at Wiki. Direct quotes should always use original typography; because of that, we may want to follow general trends from sources in article text also, irrespective of Wiki MoS guidelines. However, there is also a case for sticking to the MoS.
There are other issues, reliable sources do not follow Wiki MoS in typographical conventions. There is no "right" solution to this, but we really should document the differences, and suggest a reasonable way of reconciling them, for the sake of future editors. What's bugging me at the moment is that religious works in contemporary English publishing (and by Wiki MoS) are normally capitalised without italics, because they are important proper nouns, not just literary works: Bible, Qur'an, Tanakh. Shouldn't Rgveda and other Indic scriptures, right up to the Guru Granth, have the same convention? But this is not the practice of reliable sources in Indic Studies. There are far more Indic scriptures, and canonicity is not so clearly defined.
Anyway, let's run with the capital, and describe with a sentence, the kind of person a Tirthankara actually is. A one or two word gloss will not do here, and "ford-maker", will not mean anything to a reader not already familiar with the idea. Thanks for challenging this, I wasn't entirely happy with my tweaking there myself. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've borrowed a copy of Dundas from a library. He uses lower casing for tirthankara, which does seem more natural in English usage, and from a non-Jain and academic. Jains, including Jain scholars, when using English, may demonstrate different practices, of course. Dundas freely uses "fordmaker" as an English calque for tirthankara. I think we would be wise to follow him; though it must be understood that "fordmaker" still needs explanation in English at first usage, it translates only the literal root-words, nothing of the metaphysical sense of the compound word. An English-only reader will not be aided by this calque alone: it will raise tangential questions, not answer core ones.
For this article, explaining what a tirthankara actually is, makes a great deal of sense, since it is a practical example of an understanding of karma and its historical impact on human life. It could be most efficient and concise to explain tirthankara in terms of karma first, then provide the "fordmaker" calque (which makes sense after that context), and finally introduce Mahavira as a great historical example.
It is interesting that Dundas' The Jains chapter one is called "The Fordmakers". His first English gloss is not "prophets", but "teachers", though he does note (p. 11. of my 1992 edition) that early Jain literature speaks of a prophecy regarding the passing of Mahavira!
So, I have three proposals:
  1. we add a short section prior to introducing material about Mahavira, that explains the role of the tirthankara within the karma cosmology;
  2. we introduce the calque "fordmaker" there; and
  3. we spell both with lower case letters, for reasons of early 21st century English typographic style and neutrality, not lack of respect.
I imagine the last will be of most concern to you. Personally, I am perfectly happy with upper case for both, but even if you and I agree to that, it is only a matter of time before someone will present good arguments from reliable sources, neutrality and MoS, to use lower case. Appealing to a prior "consensus" (you and I now) or attempting (in the future) to rally a majority of editors in favour of capitalisation would be strategies doomed to ultimate failure (in my opinion). Please think about this. However, I will not use lower case until I have your consent. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. A short section on tirthankaras role in karma cosmology. It is a difficult job in the sense that a tirthankara has practically no role to play in karma cosmology. It is the other way round; it is karma which makes the tirthankara. For example, Mahavira became a tirthankara because he acquired tirthankar-nam-and-gotra-karma due to pious acts in previous lives. The role of tirthankara is to preach the dharma and establish the fourfold order of monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen. Tirthankara shows the way by himself practicing the way. He cannot influence anyone’s karma excepting his own and by this he teaches how karma can be destroyed. In the view of the foregoing, putting up a para on tirthankara will deviate the focus from the main purpose of this article i.e. Karma. So, what I suggest is this — we put a foot note on tirthankara at the end of the article. I don’t know whether you have seen it (as you have not commented on it). I would think that a footnote would be sufficient to explain to the readers the meaning of fordmaker as well as tirthankara. Plus we have a wikilink of tirthankara; readers are free to explore more of wikipedia.
  2. Agreeable. This is better than prophet or a teacher.
  3. You have made a very convincing agreement to a lowercase letter; I am convinced. I appreciate your trouble to go to library and doing some research on it. Very few would take so much trouble for improvement of an article.
--Anish (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

A list of some key resources for general Wikipedia work on Jainism.

tertiary sources (crude)
monographs (OK)
essay collections (good)
individual journal articles (better)
scholarly societies and their whole journals (best)
online resources (hmmm)

Please feel free to expand this list. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Glossary section[edit]

Below is a summary record of words used in this article (or prior revisions) of non-English origin: in verifiable IAST form, with recommended standard glosses (feel free to edit), brief definitions (ditto), internal links, and external links to reliable sources where helpful (feel free to add). Alastair Haines (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

karma specific[edit]

cosmological terms[edit]

ethical terms[edit]

persons[edit]

  • Yājñavalkya
  • Umāsvāti
  • Rāma
  • Kṛṣṇa

literary works[edit]

Is Karma pre-Aryan in origin?[edit]

Writers such as Glasenapp, G.C. Pande and Padhmanabh Jaini are of the view that the concept of Karma or moral causation was perhaps pre-Aryan in origin. However, other scholars such as Surendranath Das Gupta, Kshiti Mohan Sen, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Radhakrishnan, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer and Swami Abhedananda trace the origins of Karma to the Brahmanic world view itself as it developed over the centuries between the origin of the Samhitas and the development of the Upanishads. In that sense, the doctrine of Karma developed across Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism at around the same time. It is not clear therefore that a 'most scholars' interpret the concept of Karma as pre-aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin. Academic opinion is divided on the issue. If this article is to insist that 'most scholars' are of the view that the concept of Karma is pre-aryan, then it needs to be cited.

I tend to be uncomfortable with the concept of 'Aryan' and 'pre-Aryan' when both Buddhist and Jain texts use the word 'Aryan' quite often to illustrate the origins and teachings of their founders i.e. the 'Aryan Eightfold path', the '4 Aryan truths' etc. In fact, the modern Indian word 'ji' comes from the Jain prakrit 'Aaji' which in turn means 'Arya'. The issue of Aryan vs pre-Aryan tends to instead fall within the Germanic school of Indian history but may not tally entirely with the facts. What is Aryan? What is pre-Aryan? Unless this is sorted out, care needs to be exercised in the flippant use of such terminology.

--Dipendra2007 (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dipendra, the persons that you have mentioned are sound scholars in doctrine and philosophy but they are simply following the Hindu orthodox beliefs. We have to be careful in quoting such people. You will find hundreds of such quotes that reflect the Hindu orthodox beliefs. Infact even a few decades ago sound scholars wrongly believed Jainism to be “off-shoot” of Hinduism. With due respect to Swami Vivekanand, howsoever sound scholar and great man he may be, even he committed the mistake of classifying Jainism as an vedic offshoot. Then, there are current lot of pseudo-scholars (like Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak, and David Frawley) who are now influenced by Hindutva ideology who try to pass off tall claims as scholarly research. I know it is difficult for most Hindus—indoctrinated since childhood of Hindu orthodox beliefs—to come in terms with new scholarly researches and opinions. In the same way, there are many Jain orthodox belifes (like Lord Rishabha had a life span of 84 million years) that stretch credulity and although part of many books, cannot be used as a reference in wikipedia. Having said that let me address you concerns and prove my edits:

1. Karma, Samsara and re-birth are not mentioned in Vedas – Have you ever read Vedas? Well I have. They do not mention karma and re-birth or even any similar concept. This is what the scholars say–

  • Hinduism: Past and Present By Axel Michaels, Barbara Harshav, Published 2004 Princeton University Press ISBN:0691089523:– “The legacy of vedic religion in Hinduism is generally overestimated. The influence of the mythology is indeed great, but the religious terminology changed considerably: all the key terms of Hinduism either do not exist in Vedas or have completely different meaning. The religion of Vedas do not know ethicized migration of soul with retribution of acts (karma), the cyclical destruction of the world, or the salvation during ones lifetime (Jeevanmukti, moksa, Nirvana); the idea of the world as illusion (maya) must have gone against the grain of ancient India, and an omnipotent creator God emerges only in the later hymns of Rgveda.” Page 38 “In Rgveda we do not yet find the doctrine of transmigration of soul or a fateful repeated retribution for acts committed. But from the end of the second epoch the idea arose that the kind of place in next world or the future location of the individual soul depends on the acts in the earthly life. At first it was hardly ethicized: the Good or the wise came to the world of the eternal Gods, the bad or the ignorant through the rain went back into the food chain and to a new life.” Page 156

2. Karma is non-brahminical theory. This fact is many times mentioned in Upanishads and Hindu Texts.

  • Zydenbos, Robert J. (2006). Jainism Today and Its Future. München: Manya Verlag. http://www.manyaverlag.de/jtaif.html – The most intriguing is the fact that two early Upanishads, (the Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya) mention that the theory of Karma and rebirth , this perhaps the most Indian of all religious idea, was first taught to the Brhamin priesthood by a non-brahmin : a king, a Ksatriya. Had this theory been a vedic and thus a Hindu origin, one would have expected it to have originated among the Brahmins, who were the religious authorities, the only persons who were allowed to teach and explain the Vedas. But the texts testify that the theory was first taught to the brhamins by a ksatriya, that is to say: by a member of the same social class in which the most prominent personalities of the Jaina and Buddhist history, Mahavira and Buddha were born. P.p 56-7
  • Flood, Gavin D. (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521438780 – “In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad retributive action first appears to be a secret and little known doctrine. ….By later Upanashids (Svetasvatara Upanashid 400 – 200 BCE) the doctrine is firmly established.” Page 86
  • Jaini, Padmanabh (2000). Collected Papers on Jaina Studies. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 81-208-1691-9. –“ Yajnavalkya’s reluctance and manner in expounding the doctrine of karma in the assembly of Janaka (a reluctance not shown on any other occasion) can perhaps be explained by the assumption that it was, like that of the transmigration of soul, of non-brahmanical origin. In view of the fact that this doctrine is emblazoned on almost every page of sramana scriptures, it is highly probable that it was derived from them.” Page 51
  • In BrU 6.2.2-8 In a dialogue between king of panchala Jaivali and Brahmin Svetaketu and later his father Gautama, the brahmins admit ignorance of law of Karma. BrU notes that the knowledge of Karma and rebirth was never with Brahmins. The Similar dialogues are repeated in Chandayoga upanisada 5.3-10 where king declares that “Gautama let me tell you, before this the knowledge (of karma) has never reached Brahmins. As a result all the worlds government has belonged exclusively to the ksyatriyas. The king Javali has also argument with another tradition that believes in rebirth and retribution and incorporates it in Upanisads.
  • In BrU 3.2.12-13 Yajnavalkya implies that the doctrine of karma cannot be talked openly as it does not belong to orthodox doctrine.
  • In another section, BU 2.1.15 admits that Gargya the Brahmin comes to king Ajatsatru to learn the unorthodox ideas like Karma and rebirth from the Ksatriya caste. BU mentions that Brahmins have learned the unorthodox ideas from the Ksatriyas in a role reversal. The same class to which Buddha, Mahavira, Pasrva and the 24 tirthankara belonged. King Ajatsatru was a disciple of Mahavira as well as Buddha.

3. Brahmins (Vedics or Hindus) learned of Karma from Sramanas of which Jainism (and Buddhism) is a continuation. So quite apparently the origins of Karma lie in Sramana religions as all scholars are noting:

  • Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150 – “This confirms that the doctrine of transmigration is non-aryan and was accepted by non-vedics like Ajivikism, Jainism and Buddhism. The Indo-aryans have borrowed the theory of re-birth after coming in contact with the aboriginal inhabitants of India. Certainly Jainism and non-vedics accepted the doctrine of rebirth as supreme postulate or article of faith.” Page 37 “We know only this much that the doctrine of karma-samsara-jnana-mukti is first seen in the clearest form in the shramanic tradition. It is now even accepted by orthodox bhramins. This doctrine is not clearly spelled out in Rgvedas and not even in the oldest parts of Upanishads called Chandogya and Brhadaranyaka.” Page 149 “The four pillars of Jainism karma-samsara-jnana-mukti have been assimilated into Hinduism. The Pancamahavrata of Jainism (Satya, Ahimsa…) have been fully adopted by Hinduism though not with the same rigour.” Page 237-8
  • Gavin D. Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press : UK ISBN 0521438780 – “The origin and doctrine of Karma and Samsara are obscure. These concepts were certainly circulating amongst Sramanas, and Jainism and Buddhism developed specific and sophisticated ideas about the process of transmigration. It is very possible that the karmas and reincarnation entered the mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renouncer traditions.” Page 86
  • Robert Zydenbos – In the view of so many basic differences between the two traditions, [Jain and Vedic] it is amazing that there are still people who speak of Jainism as a “heterodox sect of Hinduism” An Impartial study of the literary evidence, both Jaina and Brahamanical, leads to a conclusion that the latter offshoots of the vedic tradition have borrowed a lot from Jainism : the theory of karma and re-birth, the vegetarianism of the higher Hindu castes, perhaps also temple worship. Page 59
  • Govind Chandra Pande, (1994) Life and Thought of Sankaracarya, Motilal Banarsidass ISBN 8120811046 – Early Upanishad thinkers like Yajnavalkya were acquainted with the Sramanic thinking and tried to incorporate these ideals of Karma, Samsara and Moksa into the vedic thought implying a disparagement of the vedic ritualism and recognising the mendicancy as an ideal. Page 135
  • A History of Yoga By Vivian Worthington 1982 Routledge ISBN 071009258X – This ethical doctrine [of karma] seems to have been fairly common amongst all the Sramanic disciplines in pre-vedic times, but has come down to us in its clearest form with the Jains. 32 The idea of re-incarnation, so central to the older sramanic creeds is still new to many people throughout the world. The Aryans of the Vedic age knew nothing of it. When the Brahmins began to accept it, they declared it as a secret doctrine. …..............It will be seen from this short account of Jains, that they had fully developed the ideas of karma and reincarnation very early in history. The earliest Upanishads were probably strongly influenced by their teachings. Jainism the religion, Samkhya the philosophy and yoga the way to self discipline and enlightenment dominated the spiritual life of Indian during the Dravidian times. They were to be overshadowed for over thousand years by the lower form of religion that was foisted on the local inhabitants by the invading Aryans, but in the end it was Sramanic disiplines that triumphed. They did so by surviving in their own right and by their ideas being fully adopted by the Brahmins who steadily modified their own vedic religion…..35 The principle jain idea of reincarnation and karma, and that the ultimate reality is outside the time scale were also borne out by experience in deep meditation. These Jain and samkhya ideas had to some extent been already synthesised and restated in early Upanishads. pg 44

4. Usage of word “Aryan” in Jain texts– In Jain texts the word Arya is used to mean noble and is not reference to race. More specifically arya means those who are capable of learning religion as opposed to anarya i.e. irreligious people.

--Anish (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's outstanding research in reply Anish. Some of this could be incorporated into the article, how much and where might become clearer over a week or so of discussion. In some cases, perhaps, as an outsider, I might be able to offer a "middle way" satisfactory to the two of you should there be lingering issues. I'm afraid I've been distracted this evening by some Wiki politics (welcome back, lol), I won't let that happen too much. At least I've read what you've posted here, and that is important education for me, thank you. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Of course, your input will be welcome and as usual will be valuable.--Anish (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope you will forgive me Anish, but guess who started the Hindu Vivek Kendra article (a long time ago). <blush> They have a lot of good sources, including non-Hindu ones. I have to be neutral, but I'm beginning to really feel why Karma in Jainism is an important article. Would it be fair to say that: Jain writers see karma doctrine existing before Mahavira and the Buddha, but taught by them in contrast to the brahmins of their day; Hindu writers see karma doctrine arising simultaneously in all traditions (or even first among the brahmins); and outsiders "generally" side with the Jain chronology? Have I understood? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you have understood this issue perfectly. In this, there is an underlying problem from right wingers. They cannot stomach this understanding or view, as it will be like admitting that:
  • vedic religion is not the fountain head of all ancient primordial vision that they have gifted to this world. It did not develop Karma but borrowed it.
  • the vedic were not the original inhabitants of ancient India.
  • the original aboriginal non-heterodox traditions (Sramanas and Dravidians) taught and civilized the vedics and not the other way round.
Since they cannot accept these view, they are hell bent on insisting that the concepts of Karma, Ahimsa, Moksa, Samsara were developed by vedics and then others borrowed it. They have set up their own cell for pseudo-research and propaganda. In Search of the Cradle of Civilization is one such book. Then there is problem from apolitical orthodox Hindus for whom eternality and wisdom of Vedas is an article of faith and no amount of scholarly research will convince them. Majority of the people come under this category. It is difficult to argue with such indoctrination. I guess I will stop here before this issue takes political color.--Anish (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Anish,

Thank you for the in-depth, informative and detailed response. This is a solid and I learnt a lot. I intend to follow-up by reviewing your citations over the holidays.

Let me respond though. You have not conclusively established that most scholars view Karma as pre-Aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin. This might well be a definitional issue. I would not dismiss Surendranath Das Gupta, Kshiti Mohan Sen, Radhakrishnan, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer and Swami Abhedananda (not Vivekananda) on the grounds that they were orthodox Hindus. These were rigorous international scholars respected in Ivy League and Oxbridge circles for their academic knowledge perhaps more than several scholars that you highlight.

I would respectfully caution against being selective vis-a-vis the sources one relies on by excluding serious scholarship that one may disagree with. If one were to use your reasoning, then Padmanabh Jaini needs to be excluded since he may be similarly viewed as an orthodox Jain while Robert Zydenbos and Von Glasenapp are specialists on Jain studies, not Hinduism. Further, many of the scholars I cite were hardly orthodox (I am not sure what the word means).

It is clear that the Upanishads represent a Kshatriya philosophical quest much like Buddhism and Jainism. To the extent that the doctrine of Karma is first enunciated in the Upanishads in considerable depth, indicates its kshatriya origins. Most scholarship agrees on that.

But does this make it pre-aryan or even non-Brahmanic. The Kshatriya imprint in the Samhitas - the main text of the Veda - is very significant. Many of the hymns were authored by kshatriyas. The Samhitas with its key Kshatriya contribution provides the pre-eminent legitimating reference point for the Brahmanic worldview. In other words, the Brahmanic worldview encapsulates the kshatriya element. The doctrine of Karma being kshatriya in origin does not make it non-Brahmanic. If this were the reasoning, half of the Rig Veda would be non-Brahmanic!

In short, the question remains unresolved whether the doctrine of Karma evolved over the several centuries (700 to 800 years?) between the compilation of the earlier Samhitas and the enunciation of the Upanishads or whether it was pre-Aryan in origin? Was it a parallel development across the three traditions i.e. the Upanishads, Buddhist and Jain or was it Sramanic in origin that was assimilated into the Brahmanic worldview? Scholarly opinion differs with significant weight on either side. Hence, we can not allege that 'most scholars' view Karma as pre-Aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin.

I would therefore support the compromise wording proposed by Alastair Haines.

The word 'Aryan' always meant 'noble' be it in the Samhitas, Upanishads, the Buddhist texts and Jainism. It did not have racial connotations in the modern sense until the German scholarship of Indic studies in the 1800s. The languages of North India belong to the Indo-European family. But did these languages emerge in India due to the migration of people into the Indian subcontinent or was it due to technological/cultural diffusion? These issues remain under serious scholarly debate. I therefore remain uncomfortable with terms such as pre-Aryan.

Let me end by thanking you for the rigorous response and the citations. I learnt a lot and intend to read them. --Dipendra2007 (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Dipendra, Thanks for your reply....even I am agreeable to Alastairs edit. Please feel free to review the references provided by me and point out the errors, if any. I have reasons to question the use of scholars used by you...its not just because that do not agree to my view point. The reasosn are : 1) Later scholarly research has shown some of their research wrong, 2) Their work proves that they have not done much research on Jainism 3) Most of them have dismissed Jainism as off-shoot of Hinduism. This is biggest their blunder and shows how much knoeledge of Jainism they have. They may be scholars in one area and well respected, but they cannot be quoted here for their off the cuff remarks. Take one example. One would assume National Geographic to be scholarly Magazine (and rightly so)...but some time back in one of its article on Wildlife and photography in India...they had quoted that Jainism and Buddhism are off-shoot of Hinduism in one off the cuff remark. Obviously an article on photography cannot be quoted as reference in Article on Indian religions. Anyway you have tried to discredit some of the scholars quoted by me just becasue I questioned some scholars quoted by you. This is wrong approach. I have done my home work well. I have more such references which I have not quoted here. Robert J. Zydenbos is a well known scholar in not only Jainism but Sanskrit, Indian Philosophy, Buddhism and Kannada. he is known more for his Dravidian studies rather than Jainology. Infact he earned his doctorate in Kannada Literature. At the same time he is a a sound scholar on Jainism. Padmamabh Jaini is a sound scholar on Sanskrit, Pali and Buddhism. He is head of Dept of Buddhist Studies in University of Berkley. Helmuth Von Glasenapp is known more for his work on Vedanta, Upanisads and Buddhism rather than simply on Jainism. I have chosen scholars for references well and after due consideration. It is also amply clear that Karma, Ahimsa, Moksa and Samsara are not mentioned in vedas. They were known only in later Upanasads after the time of Mahavira and Buddha. And you admit its of Kshyatriya Origin then how it be of Brhamanical origin. Itspite of my showing you that Upanishads themselves admitting that its of non-brahmanical origin, you are refusing to believe it. What more can I say? If you feel Alastairs edits are NPOV, even I am agreeable to it and lets leave it to that, rather than proving who came first?--Anish (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Anish,

Thank you for the response. I continue to learn from you. I did not intend to question the rigor of several of the scholars you cite. In fact, I intend to read many of them. Thank you for the lead.

I reiterate however that there are alternate academic points of view of equal rigor that have not been conclusively disproven. Several of the scholars you cite appear solid. The scholars I mention are no less rigorous when it comes to the study of religion. For example, Radhakrishnan and Ananda Coomaraswamy were established scholars of both Hinduism and Buddhism. I concede that none of them were authorities of the Jain tradition per se - but that is besides the point. We are discussing here the origins of Karma.

Your brief description of Axel Michael and Barbara Harshav seems to indicate that neither explicitly establishes that Karma is pre-Aryan in origin. Likewise your citation of Robert Zydenbos and Gavin Flood does not appear to indicate that the latter two conclusively asserts that Karma is pre-Aryan in origin. You cite the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Chandogya Upanishad. The quotes do not of themselves prove a pre-Aryan origin. They only establish the Kshatriya authorship of that particular philosophical discourse.

Buddhist sources describe Ajatashatru as an ardent disciple of the Buddha. Jain sources describe him as fervent follower of Mahavira. Hindu sources (e.g. the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) describe him as a foremost teacher of the higher learning and patron of the Brahmins. Archeological evidence (I refer here to A.L Basham, Romila Thapar and others) indicates that both Ajatashatru and his father - Bimbisara patronized Brahmins, Buddhists, Jains and Ajivikas. The multiple evidence at hand does not of itself indicate that Ajatashatru's teaching is pre-Aryan in origin.

The word Karma is mentioned in the Samhitas. I concede however that these were later insertions if one were to look at the syntax and vocabulary. But the 700 to 800 years between the compilation of the earlier Samhitas and the Upanishads could well be sufficient time for the development of such ideas in the three parallel traditions - i.e. Brahmanic, Buddhist and Jain. It does not necessarily indicate that a reportedly pre-Aryan Sramanic tradition influenced the Brahminic tradition in this one instance. The three traditions drew from the same Indic milieu. While it is not correct to describe Jainism as an offshoot of Hinduism, it remains a parallel tradition belonging to the same family - much like the shared backdrop of Christianity and Islam.

My last point is that the mere fact of Kshatriya antecedents of an intellectual doctrine - such as karma - does not necessarily make it non-Brahmanic when the very essence of the latter was a synthesis to begin with - one that its origins in the earliest of the Samhitas itself with the latter's considerable Kshatriya presence. Lets not forget that the Rig Veda does refer to Rishabha. The Brahmanic can not be exclusively confined to the Brahmin caste. The former can not be reduced to the latter.

An addenda. The Buddhist texts were first put down in writing in the 1st century BCE in Sri Lanka. They were recorded in Pali, a language systematized in the Theravada monasteries of Sri Lanka to be a fit recipient of the Buddhist texts. The Buddha himself spoke the same Magadhi Prakrit as Mahavira did. He did not speak Pali. In fact, no Pali inscriptions have been excavated in Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. Ashoka's inscriptions were in Prakrit.

The Jain texts were first put down in writing perhaps in the 4th century CE in Prakrit. The fact that the texts of the two religions were written down many centuries after their founders had died - itself reflects the possibility that no one tradition antedated the other - but each may well have extracted from the same Indic bedrock. The dating of the different texts is important to realize that Vivian Worthington's theory of Karma and Yoga as Sramanic in origin can be contested.

Let's therefore agree on the suggested wording of Alastair Haines. Best regards. --Dipendra2007 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely tremendous to see Dipendra back again. I think you two sound like you've got both the issues and how to handle them sorted out nicely. The NPOV is inclusive of all major reliable PsOV without evaluating them, say giving them the value of "true" or "false". It can observe what they say, on what evidence, where they agree, where they disagree. Since this article is about karma in Jainism, the Jain POV is obviously stated first. Jain evaluation of Jain theory does not need to be stated because obviously Jains positively evaluate themselves. Critics of Jainism are then described (without evaluation), they evaluate Jainism, but not conclusively. The NPOV offers the reader the final call in deciding between Jainism and its critics. If necessary, and it frequently is, Jain responses to criticisms need to be documented also. In complex issues, with a lot of backwards and forwards, the issue needs a subheading with scholars from both sides cited.
We all understand this, and this is what we will achieve I'm sure. Regards to all. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dipendra…Thanks for your reply. To me what these scholars are saying does establish conclusively that Karma theory is Sramana theory and pre-aryan. For some reasons, you do not agree with it. You are entitled to have your own interpretation. Does not matter, if we put several scholars instead of some scholars or most scholars. I am glad, if we can avoid undue edit warring over some hair-splitting arguments. We will let the scholars do it. Anyway, since this is Karma in Jainism article, I don’t want to mix up debates on Aryanism and Brhamins in this. One good thing that came out was that I was able to do more research on it, for which I need to thank you. But one or two errors that I need to point out, which do not matter much in this article, but nevertheless need to be clarified. First, only the recension and redaction of Jain agams was completed by 4th Century AD. Earliest portion of Jain Agamas belongs to 6th to 4th Century BCE. Then there were Purvas or the lost prior knowledge that was in existence before Lord Mahavira. The existence of Purvas is also attested by Hermann Jacobi (amongst various scholars). Secondly, Mahavira was not the founder of Jainism. Parsva the 23rd Tirthankara was a historical figure. Even the Hindu Puranas like Vishnu Purana attest that Rishabha was Founder of Jainism and the name of India ie. Bharat was derived from his son Bharat. Mahavira as founder is the major blunder most people commit. These are probably inadvertent. I have always maintained that Vedic and Sramana stream of tradition have always co-existed side-by-side, influencing each other since times immemorial. Thanks for endorsing it. Maybe you can help us in copy-editing and improving this article leaving Aryan debate aside.
--Anish (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think our definition of what is 'Brahmanic' differs. Several scholars are of the view that the doctrine of Karma is 'Brahmanic' as well as 'Sramanic'. That was my sole point.

I agree with you on the antecedents of the Jain texts. This said, the redaction or compilation as it has come down to us is dated the 4th century CE although much of the material in it might be much earlier in origin as you mention. But this makes it difficult to conclusively date the different material within the text i.e. what was 4th century BCE versus what was 4th century CE? All religious texts, not just the Jaina, demonstrate similar multiple layers.

In short, let's agree as you propose on the compromise wording of 'several scholars'. I will proceed to insert.

Best regards--Dipendra2007 (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, if that is the consensus. Probably Alastair will also agree to it.--Anish (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stithi - clarification[edit]

"Stithi (the duration of the karmic bond) – The karmic bond remains latent and bound to the consciousness up to the time it is not activated." Shouldn't this be "up to the time it is activated."? Chris the speller (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chirs...you are absolutely right..it shouls have been...up to the time it is activated...or as long as it is not activated.--Anish (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion over (1616)[edit]

"The 2nd Century CE Jain text, Bhagavatī Ārādhanā (1616) sums up"... Does 1616 here represent a year in the 17th century? If so how is it a 2nd-century text? Or is 1616 a verse or chapter number? Chris the speller (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes...its confusing...its a verse number..let me see how I can clear the confusion.--Anish (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to work[edit]

Hello friends of the Karma in Jainism article. I'm back to complete work on copy-editing, reviewing and expanding the article, hopefully helping work it up to featured status. It's nice to see the talk page active. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Great!!! Welcome back. This page was lonely without you. :) --Anish (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It's very good to be back. I will get some real work done tomorrow. Your diligent research deserves support Anish. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As you would have noticed Chris the speller made some valuable improvements while you were away. Now I think the article will pick up steam.--Anish (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Extracting quotes on key issues[edit]

"The naive polytheism of the Aryan immigrants was expanded by a complicated sacrificial practice ... which restricted ... the might of the gods ... to the transcendetal tools of the magically powerful priests. ... The more did it increase, the more prominent the idea of the caste-order became. This process was promoted by the emergence of an opinion which gave ... an ethical compensation: by the Karma-doctrine, by causality of retribution of action and by rebirth determined on account of it."
de:Helmuth von Glasenapp and Shridhar B. Shrotri, Jainism: an Indian religion of salvation, (Motilal Banarsidass, 1999), p. 17.

In ordinary words: complicated sacrifices made priests more important than gods, creating the caste system, but at least people could hope to build up good karma and improve their rebirth. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that explanation was when the Karmic theory was incorporated later. The caste system and Karmic theory arose in the orthodox traditions almost simultaneously.--Anish (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an excellent quote to support your lead. :)

"Perhaps the entire concept that a person's situation and experiences are in fact the results of deeds committed in various lives may be not of Āryan origin at all, but rather may have developed as part of the indigenous Gangetic tradition from which the various Śramaṇa movements arose."
— Padmanabh S. Jaini, Collected papers on Jaina studies, (Motilal Banarsidass, 2000), p. 122.
Yes this is a good quote. Thank you for extracting it.--Anish (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

Depiction of six persons having six lesyas corresponding to their state of mind and activities

Anish, can you help me understand leśya a bit better, please. Can someone have more than one type of leśya? Must we be all black or all red or all white, or can we have combinations of all the different types? Alastair Haines (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Texts talk of six main lesya colours, but in actuality, the degree of colors may vary. According to Uttaradhyayana Sutra,[5] (verse 34.20) each lesya can posses qualities of high, medium and low degrees. Furthermore, each of these degree can be again high, low and medium and so on until there are 243 (3 raised to 5) degrees of each lesya. According to Ganadharavada, the auspicious and inauspicious lesyas and metal states cannot exist simultaneously and hence cannot be mixed. Acarya Vijayabhavanbhanu Suri & K. Ramappa (1989). Gaṇadharavāda. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 8120806786.  pp. 129-130. So it does seem that auspicious lesyas can be combined within itself i.e. a soul may have combinations of red, yellow and with white. Same will apply to inauspicious lesyas. I hope this answers your question. It is fun to work with you, do ask such questions…it raises the intellectual level of discussion and I also get to learn many things.--Anish (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added an image of Tree parable of lesya that I took from a Jain temple from my mobile phone. The quality is not very good. Will it be acceptable for feature review?--Anish (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Great answer and great picture. I recognize the parable thanks to this article. :)
I count seven people in the picture. I see the chopper and gatherer, but not the uprooter.
I am not an expert on images. You are right, the quality could be improved.
In some places, a picture of a public domain work (such as I believe the temple art may be) would be OK.
But perhaps I am wrong. The picture could be from the last 100 years or so. India or the temple may not approve.
Some at Wiki may think differently or know better, but I'd be unhappy for us to use this in the article unless India and temple were happy.
Ahimsa my friend. ;)
Actually, I suspect the temple may be very happy to serve us, so long as we are suitably honouring of the artist (and the temple). Alastair Haines (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes the picture may not be depicting the parable very accurately. But this is the best I could do. I think this picture is very old 1900's mabe because this temple is 150 year Old temple, one of the oldest in Mumbai. The temple will not object and this pic is not copyrighted. As for Quality...I did not have a proper camera....could take the pic with my cell phone. I am thinking of Visiting Mumbais oldest Jain temples with my Digital camera....Maybe we can het some good images.--Anish (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

karma in English[edit]

One reason this article is important is because karma is used in English in ways rather different to the Indian religions from which it borrowed the word.

To my ears, karma is used as a mass noun in English:

  • Look how much stuff you have! not *Look how much stuffs you have.
  • I've been getting a lot of bad karma lately. not I've been getting a lot of bad karmas lately.

So, although English can theoretically form a plural for karma with s it prefers not to:

  • There are different types of karma ... sounds better than There are different karmas.

In English, karma, is typically used, casually, to mean "good or bad vibes": for example, "this place has good karma". In fact, English almost assumes there are two kinds of karma, good and bad. Obviously, this is not its proper original sense. All karma is bad! Freedom from karma is good. ;)

I did a brief search for a good reliable source on this without luck. I might pull out the old Oxford at some point. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you....what you say makes sense. I am neutral whether it is karmas or karma. We Indians tend to think in our mother tongues first...(Gujarati :) in my case)...and then translate it to English. So this things happen. Infact I had given a though to this and did some research as what my two favourite authors are doing and came to a conclusion that - Karma is singular when it is referred to as a theory or concept or law. It is plural when it is discussed as material atoms or as different types of karmas. Check out Dundas in [6] and Jaini in [7] JPP and [8] Collected papers.
But dont be limited by what I am saying. Put what you think is proper English. As these will be read pre-dominantly by English speaking world and hence needs to be perfect.--Anish (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You have understood the Jain concept of Karma properly.....all Karma is bad....even this so called good karma needs to be shed off to attain liberation..that is the goal of every soul.--Anish (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karma in Jainism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Articleye (talk · contribs) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article can be passed if the problems listed below are addressed.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

  1. Use of "some" and "it is believed" should be supported with a cite or the entire sentence dropped: There is no clear consensus amongst scholars as to its origins, although it is believed by some that the concept of karma has a philosophical background that is non-Vedic and non-brahmanical origin.
DONE. Actually next two sentences were the supporting sentences for the current sentence and were well referenced. However as the reviewer has rightly pointed out, the sentences in question has also been referenced. Trust this satisfies the wikipedia policy.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  1. Cite 45 cannot be verified, no entry for cite 45 (^ Freidhelm, Hardy (1990) p.57)
    DONE[9] Please check this link. It shows some other book quoting Hardy on the same matter. I will also put it in bibiliography.
  2. Cite 94 cannot be verified (^ Mardia, K. V. (1990) p. 10)
    DONE [10] Please see the link to this book.
  3. Cite 95 cannot be verified (^ Stein, Gordon (1996) p. 626)
    DONE
  4. Cite 47 cannot be verified (^ Flood, Gavin (1996) p.86)
    DONE
  5. Cites 35, 66 and 67 (^ a b Varni, Jinendra (1993) p.197) cannot be verified DONE
  6. The first three sentences of the section titled "Scientific interpretation" need to be substantiated with citations.
1st Sentence: Done
2nd Sentence: I feel it does not require citation as it merely states that Karmic particles cannot be equated with elementary particles. Had it been mentioned that Karmic particles are similar to elementary particles, then it would have required some citation as it would have been a tall claim.
3rd Sentence: The sentences following 3rd sentence show how some authors have tried to explain the concept of karmic particles in the context of modern science and physics which is well referenced.

Trust it satisfies you.

  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Kuhn has been removed but claims sourced to him remain uncited now. Fails WP:RS

I hope all the problems are addressed. Thanks.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "Scientific interpretation" section, changes are still required:
However, these and other elementary particles that have been either discovered or postulated cannot be equated with karmic particles. Some authors have sought to explain the concept of karmic particles in the context of modern science and physics.
  1. A critic may say that elementary particles and karmic particles do not even belong in the same sentence, hence we need to drop that sentence or substantiate it with a cite.
A critic may say that and a lot of other things but if authors are discussing it and it is referenced then a critic POV cannot prevail. Hermann Kuhn clearly discusses Karmic particles and Quarks and Leptons which is very well referenced. I personally feel that this sentence brings a proper balance to the article. But I have absolutely no issue with dropping the sentence as I will trust your judgement as a reviewer. I will drop this sentence. Done--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. Some authors have sought to explain... also fails WP:MOS. We need to drop "some" and state clearly whether it is a minority, majority or divided at 50%. I would add that Mardia cannot be considered a reliable, non-neutral source because he is a statistician and his primary field of study does not relate to this topic. Furthermore, he may have a conflict of interest because he is the chairman of the Yorkshire Jain Foundation, and vice-chairman and a trustee of the Jain Academy. It then appears to the reader that it is only one author - Hermann Kuhn who is being passed off for "some authors". Seen in this light, the whole section seems to have an agenda (to the critic), one of giving karmic particles and re-incarnation an air of scientific legitimacy. Articleye (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact, I have mentioned only Mardia and Kuhn. There are a lot of other authors. Pick up any book on Karma, most books will discuss scientific interpretation of Karma. Believe me, it is one of the favourite topic. I already have two more sources and if I try to find I will get more sources. But then it will only serve to make this section longer and I do not want to increase this section. Hence instead of some we can write….. Certain authors like Mardia and Kuhn have sought to explain……. That should be specific.Done--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The article meets all criterion for GA except that the section on Scientific interpretation still has problems.
  • We are adding almost as an afterthought, at the very end of the section, However, most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory.[94]. If that is the case why not begin the section with a statement like - Most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory.[94] Then go on to continue with the rest of the section.
  • Mardia is a biased or an opinionated source per Wikipedia:Rs#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. If we are to use him at all then he should be quoted as "Mardia, a practicing Jain,..." or "Mardia, chairman of the Jain Foundation,...", etc.
  • Mardia's theory of karmons (K. V. Mardia, in his book The Scientific Foundations of Jainism, has interpreted karma in terms of modern physics, suggesting that the particles are made of karmons, dynamic high energy particles which permeate the universe.[93]) is a WP:FRINGE theory.
  • Regarding Kuhn, I am not able to find more information on the author in English but he doesn't appear to be a specialist in the field of karma.
  • The current distribution of content of this section is:
  1. Consensus in the field: 1 sentence (12.5%)
  2. Fringe theory: 6 sentences (75%)
  3. Fact (Jain philosopher-monks postulated the existence of karma as subtle and microscopic particles...): 1 sentence (12.5%)
  4. Total: 8 sentences
Considering all the points above, I am wondering if this section has a problem of WP:WEIGHT as well. If Most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory then we should have a distribution like (assuming we are to keep similar numbers):
  1. Consensus in the field: (75%) or 6 sentences
  2. Fringe theory (karmons, Mardia, Kuhn): 1 sentence
  3. Fact: 1 sentence
  4. Total: 8 sentences
You are welcome to expand the section (even encouraged per criterion 3a) but current coverage is good enough as long as the distribution is fixed. Articleye (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your bullet points 1 to 3. The action points 1 and 2 will be done. As for your bullet point 4 on Kuhn, not sure how it is relevant here. But for your information, he is an expert in tattavrthasutra of which Karma is one part. He has published about 4 to 5 books and one of them is on Buddhism. I had met him once when he had visited India for lecturing on Karma. His details are available here [11]
Till now I have trusted your judgement as a reviewer. As for your last point permit me to dissent from your view point. I do not agree with your distribution and weight. Now suddenly you are coming out with some arbitrary weight and distribution ratios which were never part of your initial review. I have read WP:FRINGE. If at all you want to assign your weightage, it should be in comparison with the entire article and not only this section. By just comparing it with only this section, you are missing the issue. If you take only those sentences, one can argue that Fringe theory is 100%. Unfortunately this is a misrepresentation. Please read WP:FRINGE again. As far as weight is concerned, it is in relation to the entire article. In fact try to see the composition of this section in relation to entire article then you will realise that it is well balanced. The following two sentences provide a balanced view and its level of acceptability within the section and article viz:
  • However, most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory.
  • However, these and other elementary particles that have been either discovered or postulated cannot be equated with karmic particles. (Since you wanted to remove this, I have done it)
--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Additionally let me add, that a quick search revealed that Kanti Mardia has been also quoted by other authors on Karmon, refer to links: Adain Rankin [12] and Natubhai Shah [13] Aidan Rankin can certainly not be considered as biased or opinioniated source.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Infact look at this author Jose Pereira who calls Karmic particle as indivisible elementary particles. For information Jose Pereira is not a Jain. [14]--Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for others in the community to comment on this at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Karma_and_particle_physics. Let us wait for responses, then continue with the review. Articleye (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought I have addressed all your concerns and made changes as suggested by you.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Some comments have come on the notice board. But still not clear how to go about it. I am thinking maybe I should delete this section or make a cursory mention of 2 or 3 sentences. Please suggest your views.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment The name Scientific interpretations is misleading since karma clearly does not lie inside the boundary of science. The content in it can be written somewhere else in a different section, perhaps under material theory; since it is noteworthy that the karma in Jainism is also a matter (pudgala) rather than cause/effect only. Also this karmic particles are minute, perhaps indivisible particles according to Jainism, not according to science. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually this is a very good suggestion by Rahul. It makes more sense and should address the concerns of GA reviewer.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Truncated from 8 to 5 sentences, deleted the section and merged it with Material Theory.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Good suggestion by Rahul and a good improvement to the article. However based on the initial responses at RSN, we may have to replace Kuhn with a reliable source. Mardia can only be paraphrased in the context of his position as chairman of various Jain foundations or being a Jain himself. The source replacing Kuhn needs to follow WP:RS. Articleye (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I think then it is better to delete those 5 sentences that contain the Kuhn references as Kuhn is not considered expert in particle physics and can be challenged. It is not worth the effort to put in additional source and maybe change the sentences. This will be a small sacrifice for GA rating :).--Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
What we are learning from WP:RSN is that Kuhn is not a reliable source. He is from a publishing house that solely publishes his works. We need to remove Kuhn as a source from the entire article (whether he is used for Jainism or it's scientific interpretation). I've already started doing that by replacing him with Richard Gombrich who is an is an Indologist and scholar of Sanskrit, Pāli, and Buddhist Studies. He was the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at the University of Oxford from 1976 to 2004. These are the kind of sources we need, not an author from a "boutique" publisher as someone called him at RSN. I will keep on replacing Kuhn with appropriate sources but it may take a while. You and Rahul are welcome to join in to speed up the process. 04:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articleye (talkcontribs)
I have absolutely no problem if the references of Hermann Kuhn are replaced with some more acceptable source. With my 6 day week 12 hour job I am find it a bit difficult to find time to search for more sources. Anyway, WP:RS says that, Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Hermann Kuhn work has also been published by Hindi Granth Karyalay, who is a reliable third party publisher. Refer [15] Maybe then we can keep Hermann as a source? Please advise.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem with Kuhn is about peer reviewed, reliable sources, not about being self-published though someone did point out that his publisher seems to be a boutique publisher. I'll wait until February 18 for Kuhn to be replaced, if none of us can do it, we'll have to defer making this a GA for now. Articleye (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed kuhn. Inline citations for those isn't strictly required as per WP:GACN. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Just removing Kuhn is not enough. The claims made on the basis of Kuhn need to be replaced by mainstream reliable sources. Since the claims are still there, uncited, the article cannot pass GA criteria. This article is very close to GA as long as claims sourced to Kuhn are either removed, modified or sourced to another author. Please resubmit after the changes are made. Articleye (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. Will do that as and when we find time.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed tags on material theory section?[edit]

Jainism speaks of karmic "dirt", as karma is thought to be manifest as very subtle and microscopically imperceptible particles pervading the entire universe.[3]

They are so small that one space-point—the smallest possible extent of space—contains an infinite number of karmic particles (or quantity of karmic dirt).[citation needed]

The citation is provided for the first line, the second is merely an elaboration/explanation of the first.

The relationship between the material and psychic karma is that of cause and effect.[citation needed] The material karma gives rise to the feelings and emotions in worldly souls, which—in turn—give rise to psychic karma, causing emotional modifications within the soul.[citation needed] These emotions, yet again, result in influx and bondage of fresh material karma.[4]

Isn't the citation provided enough to accommodate two lines?

Jains hold that the karmic matter is actually an agent that enables the consciousness to act within the material context of this universe.[citation needed] They are the material carrier of a soul's desire to physically experience this world.[citation needed] When attracted to the consciousness, they are stored in an interactive karmic field called kārmaṇa śarīra, which emanates from the soul.[5]

In this case too, the citation provided should be sufficient for the claims.

Thus, karma is a subtle matter surrounding the consciousness of a soul.[citation needed] When these two components—consciousness and ripened karma—interact, the soul experiences life as known in the present material universe.[citation needed]

This is merely the summation of the paragraph. Citations shouldn't be needed for these.

I find that there are enough citations for the claims, need opinion of other editors on this. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am removing those tags since they seem unnecessary. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karma in Jainism/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Can "The karmic inflow on account of yogadriven by passions and emotions cause a long term inflow of karma prolonging the cycle of reincarnation and transmigration of a soul." be simplified? How it relates to the image?Redtigerxyz Talk 11:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
7. Overall assessment.
  • I have changed the caption of the image. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Is yoga in "Attraction and binding" same as that in "Causes of attraction and bondage" ? Seems like that. Link on first instance. No explanation is needed again.

Apart from this small points, every thing looks ok. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Few more problems:

  • http://www.goodreads.com/ doesn't seem reliable.
  • Kirtivijay, Kalghatgi etc. missing ISBN
  • Isn't 47 and 77 same ref? Add specific page number.
  • Translation of Samaṇ Suttaṁ: original lang. of text, translated into (English?), does it have a commentary ? Redtigerxyz Talk 06:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I am unable to find suitable solutions to these problems. Rahul Jain (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Addressed the remaining above concerns myself, so this review can now be closed. Wizardman 22:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Pushing antiquity[edit]

I told you guys not to push the antiquity nonsense during our recent brush on talk India. To give you guys a fair chance I even compiled a list of reliable scholarly sources: User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism, in contrast to the garbage you were peddling there. You can't selectively quote two scholars and attempt to establish the fantasy that Hinduism got its notions of Karma, Samsara, Moksha, rebirth from Jainism. The majority of scholars don't agree with this view. I won't do anything now, but if you are fantasizing about pushing this in an FAC run, I will be there to check the details. Please don't consider this a threat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, stop acting as if you own Wikipedia and that you can decide what sources are reliable and what are not? Your list was for History of India. I had compiled a list on User:Indian_Chronicles/Jain_Sources which you totally ignored and refused to acknowledge. This was pointed out by many editors on the talk page on India. Yet to avoid an edit war, I purposely avoided the page and let you have your nonsensical way. Emboldened, now just to inflict your bias and prejudice, you have started questioning the wisdom of veteran editors who have not only edited the article but also GA reviewed the article and diligently followed the robust wikipedia rules and process for the review. I think you are taking your prejudices too far now. Please feel free to check the details on FA or any other forum. Since you have nothing better to do and a lot of spare time on hand, wikistalk all pages on Jainism--Indian Chronicles (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
As for your reading list, here's what I found about your scholars, starting from the top:
  • Vilas Sangave, a research scholar, ex-professor of sociology and writer of Jain religion and culture, died on Tuesday at the age of 91. After securing doctorate for his research on “Jain religion, society and culture” in 1950, he worked as a professor in a college in Karnataka and later in Rajaram College in Kolhapur. After retirement, he served as the chief of Rajarshi Shahu Research Centre in Shivaji University at Kolhapur. He did research on Rjarshi Shahu Chattrapati, former ruler of Kolhapur, and his contribution to social and progressive thoughts and decisions.
  • For decades, Mary Pat Fisher has been travelling around the world studying and writing about the insides of religions. Since 1991 she has also been living in the outskirts of New Delhi at the Gobind Sadan Institute for Advanced Studies in Comparative Religions, where people of all faiths and all social levels live, work, and worship together in “God’s House without Walls.”
  • Before his death in March 2003, Joel Beversluis was editor of "NAINews & Interfaith Digest," the newsletter of the North American Interfaith Network. He was also a member of the Board and newsletter editor for the Interfaith Dialogue Association, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • Jagmanderlal Jaini M. A. , (1916) Jaina Law, Bhadrabahu Samhita, (Text with translation ) Arrah, Central jaina publishing House.
    • Other than receiving his MA before 1916, I can't find any information on Mr. Jaini, other than Glassnapp's book of 1921
  • Padmanabh S. Jaini is cited for the quote: "Jainas themselves have no memory of a time when they fell within the Vedic fold. Any theory that attempts to link the two traditions, moreover fails to appreciate rather unique and very non-vedic character of Jaina cosmology, soul theory, karmic doctrine and atheism."
  • Dr. Y. Masih, Ph.D. (Edinburgh), D. Litt. (Patna) was born on March 1, 1916. He retired in 1978 from his post of a Prof. of Magadh Univ. He remained a UGC Teacher of Philosophy from 1978 to 1983.
  • Harry A. Oldmeadow teaches at La Trobe University. His staff profile says, "He has taught History, Literature, Philosophy, Religious Studies and Cinema Studies at various institutions. His doctorate traced the theoretical trajectory of film critic Robin Wood. In recent years Harry’s principal research interests have been in the field of Religious Studies although he still occasionally researches and teaches in Cinema Studies."
I could go on, but what the point? Except for one or two scholars, it is a long list of obscure or fringe writers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So basically now, you have resorted to the time and tested method used in Wikipedia to discredit the reliable sources and scholars quoted by someone who does not toe your line. However, what you are stating is nothing but your opinion, which reflects your bias. What you have stated changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. These references hold good. These are solid references that follow the rigorous Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Furthermore, the publishers are also reliable. In fact, I can turn the tables and analyse the references quoted by you and here is what I found about them, starting at the top:

  • Burton Stein was an ex-soldier who served in II WW. Stein was an unusual case in that he never completed a bachelors degree, being directly admitted to Master of Arts program. Burt then wrote his Ph.D. dissertation in 1957 on the economic functions of South India’s medieval Tirupati temple. Stein's contributions as a research scholar was mainly focused on premodern and colonial South India.
  • Hermann Kulke is a German Historian and Indologist, who was Professor of the South and Southeast Asian History at the Department of History, Kiel University (1988-2003). He was a founding member of the Orissa Research Project (ORP) of the Southasia Institute (1970–1975), and was coordinator of the second ORP. His Specialization is in pre-colonial South and Southeast Asian History; early state formation and historiography; regional cultures of India with emphasis on Orissa; Indianization of Southeast Asia and Indian Ocean Studies.
  • Dietmar Rothermund is a German historian best known for his research in the economy of India. He received a PhD in 1959 in Philadelphia with a thesis on the social history of America. Shortly thereafter he traveled to India on a scholarship from the German Research Foundation
  • While Romila Thapar is well known author in India but more known more for controversies created by her or by others rather than her work. Her communist leanings are well known and the Kluge Chair was conferred to her after much controversy one the reason being, Dr. Thapar was not knowledgeable in Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit, Persian and Arabic and therefore much of her work in ancient Indian history and medieval history suffered from that limitation.
  • Stanley Wolpert is an engineer and served on board of US marine ship, and an American academic, Indologist, and specialises in the political and intellectual history of modern India and Pakistan and has written fiction and non-fiction books on the topics. Wolpert began his academic career in 1959, when he took a job as an instructor in the Department of History at UCLA. He was promoted in 1960-63 to assistant professor; 1963-66 associate professor; 1967 full professor. In 1968 he was appointed department chair. He is now an emeritus professor. In 1975 Wolpert was awarded UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award.

So basically, what you are peddling here is references from a ragtag bunch which consists of an ex-soldier who did not complete his bachleors degree, a marine who specialises in fiction and non-fiction, a communist writer having little knowledge of classical languages, and someone whose primary fame is reaserch on economy of India or another one whose laurels rests on dissertation of the economic functions of South India’s medieval Tirupati temple. Even I could go on and on and shred to pieces the credit of all your references that you are mongering, by using your own tactics. Thanks for showing the way. So whose sources are more obscure and controversial? The academic credentials of the above list hardly inspires confidence to discuss the origins of Indian philosophical concepts. Some of them have done nothing on study on Jainism/ Buddhism or Sramana philosophy, or even on ancient History of India. And those who have done lack relevant academic qualifications or are controversial. And your sources end up contradicting each other.

One of your source Babb Lawrence says: Jainism is sometimes said to have been founded by Mahavira in the sixth century B.C.E. In reality, however, Jain traditions are much older than this, dating back in all probability to the teachings of Pārśvanāth, who lived in the ninth century B.C.E. Then you gleefully quote Basham that Mahavira is the founder of Jainism, contradicting yourself. This is quite repetitive. And some of them are so error ridden like: Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), who claims that Mahavira was a younger contemporary of Buddha. Younger??? Not only this para, but, the entire book should not quoted here, if this is the type to errors it contains. I can understand a difference in opinion, but not patently obvious errors. The same error is made by Doniger, Wendy who places Buddha before Mahavira.

Furthermore, some of your own sources claim that Karma, Moksha and renunciation concepts originated from Sramana’s and then adopted by Brhamanas. You kept these sources for a different purpose, but did not realise that it actually did the opposite.

--Indian Chronicles (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a very simple Wikipedia test for the reliability of a source or the academic renown of a scholar. It is the number of times and with what acclaim a scholar or scholarly sources are cited by other scholars in scholarly books (for example those published by academic presses), how often their books are reviewed by internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals. Google scholar is one way to do it: Here are Burton Stein (1,460), Stanley Wolpert (1,200), Hermann Kulke (1,110), Romila Thapar (3,270), Wendy Doniger (4,350), Michael Witzel (924), Dietmar Rothermund (1,740) and Patrick Olivelle (951). Contrast those with your best-known Padmanabh S. Jaini (691), and others: Jagmanderlal Jaini (36), Harry A. Oldmeadow (175 and Vilas Sangave (60) or Joel Beversluis (53) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
As for Thapar and your speculation about the Kluge Chair (2004), all I know is that the same Library of Congress awarded the Kluge Prize to Peter Brown and Romila Thapar, four years later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Very Interesting! This test of yours. Have you devised it, or it is officially a Wikipedia approved policy or test? And what is the cut-off or minimum number of citations required as per this policy? Unfortunately for you, this very test that you are quoting in your favour also works in my favour. If an author is quoted by other scholarly sources, academic press and other scholarly journals, then it is enough proof of the authors reliability as a source. Numbers do not matter much. If an author is cited 50 times, then it is a decent number and should not leave any doubt on the reliability of the author as a source. Furthermore, your score for Padmanabh S. Jaini shows 691 line items. This is not the true number. Out of that, his very first book (Jaina Path to Purification) shows that it has been cited 247 times, which is one of the highest, even in your list. Secondly for Jagmanderlal Jaini, the score is not 36, but much more when you also put J L Jaini. Anyway, what you are now basically doing is trying to bulldoze my references and reliable sources by brute numbers. Sorry, this does not work on Wikipedia. You as a veteran editor and ought to know that. This is bound to happen as there are 100 times more books on Hinduism/ vedism than there are on Jainism/ Sramanas. Same is the case on number of authors and the reviews done by them. This lopsidedness is also reflected in Wikipedia. The number of editors editing the Jainism related content is very few. In fact, it is this lesser numbers that is creating a systemic bias against Jainism related articles and perpetuated by people like you by continuously harping on minority view and why the biased edits of people like you go unchallenged. Indian Chronicles (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hijack of Karma in Jainism to Vedic POV[edit]

Fowler, you are clearly trying to hijack this article on Jainism into vedic origins similar to Right wing propoaganda. Rather than balancing, you have totally transformed the section into a vedic philosophy section. First learn to balance and then edit. A simple way to do it would be:
  • Cast away your biases and prejudices that you showed on pages of India and now here.
  • Control your orthodox beliefs about vedas being source of entire knowledge of ancient India
  • Admit that there are diverse view points and one view point cannot dominate on wikiepedia
  • Go into discussion. While discussing acknowledge others view point also.
  • Learn the meaning of balance. These are pages of Jain Karmic theory. Not to push your Vedic view point. Do not think with your vedic blitzkrieg you can try to spoil this article.
Your intention is clear, rather than improving the article you are trying to spoil it somehow.Indian Chronicles (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Michael Witzel, Wendy Doniger, A. L. Basham and Patrick Olivelle are not right wing (your edit summary). Furthermore, they they are much better known and respected in Indology than the spurious scholars you have cited here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I am all for balancing the article. The least you could do is to discuss on the talk page and then arrive at a consensus.Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have kept your references and view points. I am all for balancing and inproving the article. If there is an alternate view point it should be definitely taken into consideration. In fact to balance this article, I had deliberately created criticisms section in this article.Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It is not an alternative viewpoint, it is the majority viewpoint. Why is only nonsense from Padmanabh Jaini, who retired 20 years ago, and is an orthodox Jain, being quoted and not the opinions of the pre-eminent Sanskrit scholars of the day, such as Michael Witzel, Wendy Doniger and Patrick Olivelle. Olivelle is an expert on asceticism, renunciation and the Upanishads. He's a Sri Lankan Christian, so he has no ax to grind. I want to make it very clear. Weasel statements, such as are dotting the origins section will simply have to go. You can't introduce a fringe theory, prefaced by "Some believe blah blah blah, however, Michael Witzel believes ..." Jainism does not predate the 6th century BCE, so no point pushing that POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I congratulate you on your fantastic discovery that Jaini is an Orthodox Jain. Probably, even he is not aware of the fact. Since when did one's religion of birth matter in scholarship? Even the best sanskrit scholars like Paul Dundas and Nalini Balbir defer to Jaini's scholarship. So now you have stooped to discrediting international scholars. And since when did wikipedia rule that scholars who have retired since 20 years cannot be quoted. If that is so, why are you quoting A. L. Basham who died more than 25 years ago. Whatever, Jaini has written is not nonsense and there is no rule in wikipedia that says that each and every author cited needs to be quoted. Still if you feel, removing his quote will improve the section, please suggest alternative so that we can capture it. The only reason I removed your long winding quotes as it was looking more of a Karma in Hinduism rather than Karma in Jainism. However, I have kept the essence of the quotes and references as my interest was in improving the article rather than pushing a particular POV. Tomorrow, we cannot have Christian and Muslim fanatics wanting to put their long winded quotes on their Karma views in this particular article.Indian Chronicles (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Write Jaini's quotes just as briefly and with the same qualifications (or lack thereof) as you are writing the opinions of Witzel, Doniger, Olivelle and Basham. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
PS It's not just on this page, you guys are peddling the same stuff on the Karma page. Regardless of whosoever put it in first, you have certainly made edits there. And what is "Christian and Muslim fanatics" supposed to mean? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The section (Origins and Influence) needs to be re-written Rather than fighting over who came first, I think it would be better to provide an outline of development of Karma in vedic stream of thought and development of karma in Jainism; perhaps in two different paragraphs. Also, the last paragraph seems to be in wrong section. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the first paragraph. It looked as if some kind of tug-of-war between Vedics and Shramans claiming "we were first". Instead, I have added two paragraphs. One contains the origins of karma in Jainism and the other contains the early development in Jainism specifically. This seems to be more in line with the title of the article Karma in Jainism. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@The Rahul Jain: Since you seem to be more constructive in your approach, here are a few points. The references of Glasenapp and Schubring are reprints of earlier translations of even earlier originals. They are closer to being primary sources than secondary sources. While, they may be used in the absence of any other sources, or for routine facts, they are not reliable when it comes to issues of interpretation, as those methodologies change with time. Here is the full information on those references:
  • Schubring, Walther (1995) [1960], The Doctrine of the Jainas: Described After the Old Sources, (translated from the German edition 1935 by Wolfgang Beurlen) (Reprint), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0933-5 
  • Glasenapp, Helmuth von; Gifford, G. Barry (trans.); Kapadia, Hiralal Rasikdas (trans.) (1942), The doctrine of karman in Jain philosophy (translated from the original German edition 1915), Bombay: Trustees, Bai Vijibai Jivanlal Panalal Charity Fund 
    • Glasenapp, Helmuth von (1915), Die Lehre vom Karman in der Philosophie der Jainas nach den Karmagranthas, Thesis (doctoral)--Bonn, 1915, Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz 
  • Glasenapp, Helmuth von; Shrotri, Shridhar B. (translator) (1999) [1925], Jainism : an Indian religion of salvation (translated from original German edition 1925), Lala Sundar Lal Jain research series, v. 14, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers 
    • Glasenapp, Helmuth von (1925), Der Jainismus, eine indische Erlösungsreligion, Kultur und Weltanschauung, Bd. 1, Berlin: A. Häger 
I will post more material here later. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The conclusion seems logical and it seems to be accepted by most of the scholars that the doctrines of the Jains (including Karma) have its roots which goes atleast back to Parsva. In the third page of “The Riddle of the Jainas and Ājīvikas in Early Buddhist Literature.” (Journal of Indian Philosophy 28 (2000) 511-529) Johannes Bronkhorst writes "We know that at the time of the historical Buddha and of Mahavira there were two kinds of Jainas: the followers of Parsva, who wore clothes, and the followers of Mahavira, who were naked. Is it possible that the early Buddhists included the naked Jainas in their general category of ajivikas, so that the Jainas mentioned in the Buddhist canon are primarily followers of Parsva?". See how he takes the existence of Parsva's order for granted. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing about the wikipedia rules remotely suggests that books written in German or their translations should be considered as primary source. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Fowler has his own set of rules to judge others references to which he does not agree. He will search for some obscure, unheard of criteria by twisting some facts to dismiss the refereces of someone else.Indian Chronicles (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ Sanghvi, Sukhlal (1974) pp. 302
    • ^ New Dictionary of Religions (1995)
    • ^ Gombrich, Richard Francis (2006), p 50
    • ^ Jhaveri, B. J. (2001): pp. 1328–29
    • ^ Tatia, Nathmal (1994): p. 55.