Talk:Indian religions

Basic Question

I have never heard of a Dharmic Religion though established literature exists that cites Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism as Dharmic traditions.Hindu Supremacists like the RSS have been trying to create many new definitions that create the equivalence of terms used with other religions and have been trying to provide legitimacy to these neologisms.Is there some authority in Wikipedia that can check this?

I know a number of India related articles are infested with mudslinging from the RSS supporters, so please do not attack me directly.Just attack the idea?

Thanks

MydearWatson (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have never understood the term Dharmic religions. At the very least, it suffers from punarokti dosha (tautology). At its most sinister, it is an attempt to brand religions of non-Indian origins as Adharma! To me, dharma is translated into English as religion. So all religions, irrespective of where they were born, are dharma.

Dharma has multiple interpretations, agreed. But one of its meanings is religion. So why obfuscate this meaning? Manish Modi 17:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

I don't think Sathya Sai Baba should be present in this article, at least without some solid qualification. It is true that his cult uses varied religious imagery, but that is a far cry from actually understanding the many and significant ways in which the major Indian Religions can not very well be reconciled.

Besides, the way the entry is worded is very ambiguous. It forgets to mention the strong suspicions that surround the person of Sathya Sai Baba, (as seen on his own article) and suggests that he is somehow recognized and accepted by all the major religions mentioned in the article. That is arguable at best. Islam, at the very least, is known for having little interest in mixing with other religions. If they made an exception for Sathya Sai Baba then this is major news and would create quite a comotion. I believe that they did not, however, and Sai Baba and his followers are just proclaiming what they want to believe in regardless of fact or permission.

I would personally prefer Sai Baba to be removed entirely from the article, but a simple rewording would probably suffice.

Best,

Luis.

I re-worded it but I think it is better to mention also some other Indian new religious movement to keep it balanced. By the way, the original Sai Baba did have both Muslim and Hindu followers and the Muslims allowed mixing in the case of Shirdi Sai Baba. Amazingly the statement of Sathya Sai Baba and his followers is not entirely untrue. Sathya Sai Baba does have some Muslim followers but they are few and mostly Shia Muslims or followers from small Muslim sects. Andries 19:21, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tribal religions

Shouldn't there be some mention of India's tribal religions here? I would add the details myself, but I was here LOOKING for those details ;D

Good idea but I hardly know anything about India tribal religion. Andries 19:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just thought I'd comment: unfortunately or fortunately, whatever, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam have all vied for the membership of tribals. Islamic conquerors of long ago converted them, Christian missionaries of today are very active all over the country trying to convert them, and Hindus run around telling them that their beliefs are really just a subset of Hinduism. There is a tribal commission in India today in charge of trying to maintain their autonomy from foreign (i.e. non-tribal) religions. Maybe later I'll try to work on it --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:58, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I added the section Tribal religions in India and many more religions which were missing. some help will be appreciated to explain more about those religions. I am sure there are many more religions in India which we are missing.

---

Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba

Its always interesting to note that Sri Sathya Sai Baba becomes a point of discussion wherever the name appears!!!

Probably, Luis, may not be aware of the grassroot service work undertaken by the followers/devotees/fans of Bhagwan Sri Sathya Sai Baba which is not normally reported in the mainstream media as the volunteers would not like to be 'limelighted'. Luis, you should certainly make a visit to Puttaparthy and you will soon understand from where the "suspicion" surrounding SSSB arises from. Also, your query on Muslims' belief in SSSB too will be answered partially. Also, have patience and keep watching/observing closely SSSB and the developments at Puttaparthy in the next six years. Your query will be completely answered.

---

Please check the following link which is a recent story that is published in one of the leading newspapers of India on April 25, 2005.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=126199

There was always people around the world who condemns and criticises those who shared their Love and Affection with others. In a world where Jesus Christ was crucified what else can one expect? The people who throw dirt on others do so because the ego in them rebels against the slow and steady growth of Love in them.

---

Check this too...its an article that came on another leading daily in India on May 22, 2005.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/007200505221568.htm

---

Two other media reports that came in the end of May 2005.

http://www.canindianews.com/news/News/NewsArticle.asp?sdkjshdhsdkjs=sdhsjdhsdlsdjlksjdl;sd&NewsID=-643194774&sdhskjdhskjd=sdhsjkdhsjkdh

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEA20050530025143&Page=A&Title=Southern+News+-+Andhra+Pradesh&Topic=0

---

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1391312,00410010.htm

---

A report that came in the second week of June 2005

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEK20050613014508

Number of Sikhs

the number of sikhs given here (35 million) does not match the numbers in the sikhism article at Sikhism#Sikhs around the world (23 million). Both figures cannot be correct. Tomer ^TALK 22:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The number of Sikhs in India won't exceed more then 25 million for sure. - India1989

attack and Invitation.

Many Hindus and Jains who do not belive in Idol worships invited Muslims to attack and distroy the Hindu, Buddha and Jain Temples. Muhammad Gazanavi was invited to distroy Somnath Temple. Many encloypedias say that Jains were more interested to distroy Hindu and Jain Temples. Will any reader of this discussion give some fact on this subject?

vkvora 15:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will be glad to discuss this with you, but first one key question: Are you mentally retarded?

24.5.120.23 (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL! WP:CIVIL! (smiley face) Rumiton (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrangements

Isn't it good to arrange religions according to the alphabetical order. This is not an article deals with Chronology or time line of one particular group's history and culture. It was dealing with many diverse systems independent to each other. So as usual it is good to arrange alphabetically. - Paul 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ravidasi not included

While looking up more on the topic in wikipedia I came across, Ravidasi. Should this be included on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kedar Borhade (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Proposal for structural reorganisation

Here is a proposal for structural reorganisation of the article. The article may be organised under the following sections:

• History
• Major religions
• Pilgrimages
• Religious holidays
• Religious thinkers
• Problems

At present, the article just describes the major religions in India. However, the scope of the article is far greater. A summarisation of the present article will fit in the section "Major religions" of the proposed structure. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea. Describing the religions should not be the actual purpose of this article. Instead how & in what forms people follow religions in India, their problems, their social issues etc should be the focus.

Also the following topics should be included:

• Religion & the media.
• Religion & vote bank politics.
• Secular traditions & religious (in)tolerance.

Also demographics section should be expanded to include statistics of various sects, if possible. --Shahab 18:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahab 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Information needed to be added

• Notable places of worship (should include plgrimage sites).
• Religious leaders.
• Economic Social disparity (if exists) between religious communities.
• Creation of Pakistan, Communal riots, Secular ethos of India.

This article needs to move away from being Religions in India to become Religion in India in the sense that it needs to focus more on religion from the Life in India angle. Cheers.--Shahab 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Shahab. The title is Religion in India, not Religions in India! The section on pilgrimages would include notable places of worships; communal riots, socio-economic disparities may come under something in line of "problems". Creation of Pakistan would be covered in History. Please help make this article at least a GA (hopefully a FA!). It's nice to see many people visiting the article and editing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more points that the article should address:

• How does the Indian constitution and civil/criminal law treat religion ?
• How does Indian educational system treat religion ?
• What are Indian populations attitude towards religion ? For this see for example, the following Pew Global Attitudes Project reports
  • Report 1 (Search for India on the page)
  • Report 2 (see page 49 and 73 of the PDF file; page 39 and 63 of report ... search does not work on document)

Good to see this article get some (non-trollish) attention ! Abecedare 06:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest some sections where these things can be added. While the treatment of religion by law can be put in a straight-forward way, am a bit hesitant about the education. What do you exactly want to state? That secular attitude is sometimes violated in education, with the government in power sometimes trying to introduce their point of views? News reports of such incidents should be available. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of even more basic information that may be obvious to Indians but not to wikipedia's larger audience. For example:

• Law: I think we should start by mentioning that India's constitution declares it a secular country with no state-religion; grants right to practice any religion; has a uniform criminal code though the civil code (i.e. laws governing marriage, divorce etc) vary. Only once we have laid this background of the rule, can we sensibly talk about the controversies and exceptions (Shah Bano, Uniform Civil Code, religion in politics etc)
• Education: Again we should first try to establish the background first, as to who sets the syllabus (non-religious organizations like NCERT etc ) and provide statistics, if available, about how many educational institutions are run by different sectarian organizations, and how many students get formal "religious" education (my guess is that this percentage would be minuscule). Only then, should we talk about how the system does not always work as it is ostensibly supposed to.

I agree with DaGizza's comment below that we need to think about the sections needed in this article. I'll be happy to provide more input but have to rush off now ... will be back later ! Abecedare 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I went ahead and added a section "Constitution and law" in the very beginning. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job, Dwaipayan! I'll try to look up more references for education and other sections of the article and add info. in the next day or two. Cheers. Abecedare 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Percentages

The percentages in this article don't agree with each other. See these examples (found in this version):

• From the lead: Christianity by 2.4%
• From the table: Christians, 24,080,016, 2.34%
• From the pie graph: Christianity — 2.3%
• From the text: Christianity is the third largest religion of India making up 2–2.9% of the population

Another example:

• From the lead: Islam is practiced by 13.4% of all Indians
• From the table: Muslims, 144,005,446, 14%
• From the pie graph: Islam — 13.1%
• From the text: 160 million Muslims in India (the second largest population in the world, after Indonesia), which is 16.4% of the population

Shouldn't these percentages be uniform throughout the article? Happy editing, [sd] 11:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and IMO it should follow 2001 census data. The pie chart should be made according to that data. Latest estimations may be mentioned, but census data should be adhered to.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The demographics table has been updated per the census results (source — one needs to download the zipped spreadsheet to see the data). The data elsewhere in the article has also been made uniform. (please check if I have omitted something leading to discrepancies). The pie chart (which did not corroborate with the data perfectly) has been removed. Someone please help to create a pie chart based on the demographics table. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Major religions"

What exactly is the purpose of this section. It is a mixture of history, geographic distribution and general info. I believe the structure of the article needs to be discussed before any changes are made to the content. We don't want the sections to overlap in what they say. Each section needs to flow with the one preceding it and the one following it. Personally, I believe we should remove this section and perhaps create a geographic distribution section. Gizza^{Chat ©} 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Major religions" is supposedly a summary of Major religions in India. You are correct in pointing out the section has rather become a mixture of history, geographic distribution and general info. The primary goal was to give general information. It seems that general information (what are Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism etc) and geographic distribution should be covered here. Historical informations should not be in this section (that's dealt with/will be dealt with in "History"). Please comment.

However, I do not believe in one concern raised by you. The content of the article should also be enhanced besides deciding a stable structure. The article being this week's INCOTW has begun to attract some visits, and good edits. Both structure and content are important. For example, under "Pilgrimages", a thorough description of Buddhist pilgrimages were added. Hopefully pilgrimages of other religions will also be added soon. Then (or simultaneously) we can summarise the section, and create daughter articles as necessary. let the article enjoy whatever attention it is having, and the content increase; stabilisation of structure (which, I repeat, is equally important) can be achieved as the content is enhanced. Comments are welcome. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can rearrange the information after it is added. I said it because on the other religion related article I have worked on (mainly Hinduism), many editors look at each section independently and lose track of the article as a whole. This leads to the article to become 100kb+ and huge amounts of information are repeated two or three times unnecessarily throughout the page. I suppose since this article is not even 30kb yet, it would be alright to expand content and structure it accordingly later on. Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Major Thinkers" section

The title is a little strange to me - it sounds almost like 'movers and shakers'. Maybe 'Religious reformers'? Does there even need to be a section about specific religious reformers? If so, then it seems like it should be in the History section. Also the word spiritualist (look it up) has a very different meaning than what must be intended here. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Religious reformers or religious figures definitely sounds better. I also agree with your second statement that it tends to have similar information to the history section, because the major thinkers impacted on the religious history of India. "Religion and politics" is also a strange name. Maybe that should change to "religous conflict." We could then move the last paragraph of the history section into there as well. Gizza^{Chat ©} 04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As said by DaGizza Religious Figures is probably the best name. Not all of the people mentioned are reformers, for example the Sufi saints did not create new systems, the same is true for the Christian, Buddhist figures. Contemporary religious leaders should also be included in this section. Religious conflict won't probably be quite accurate because that section was aimed at describing the relationship between politics and religion as existing in India (vote bank, hindutva philosophy etc) and not only conflicts. Conflicts should be in differnt section titled Problems or something like that. The idea of the title was taken from Religion in the United Kingdom. Cheers.--Shahab 07:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think this section should contain a sentence or two about contemporary religious figures? Something along the lines, "Influential religious voices in contemporary India include the Shankaracharyas among Hindus, the Imam of Jama Masjid among Muslims and the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso among Tibetan Buddhists ?" I realize that these persons (except possibly for the Dalai Lama) are not prominent enough to be mentioned in the respective religion's articles, but they may be relevant from the Life in India perspective (for example, the media typically interviews these persons to get the representative religious POV). Of course, we'll need some citations to back any claim. Abecedare 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

New section and subsection(s)

Hi all. Started a section named "Influence of religion on social life" (please suggest any better name if you think the name is not suitable). The first subsection of this section is "Daily activities"—highlighting the daily activities characteristic of different religions in India. Found out a good source for Hindu daily activities, and copied some stuffs from there. So, this subsection would need copyediting in order to avoid copyright violation (however, Library of Congress is a .gov site of US government, so copyright status is probably pretty flexible). Added some stuff of Islamic rituals which I was aware of. Please help adding stuffs on other religions.

Besides "Daily activities", this section includes "Pilgrimages" and "Religious festivals" (previously independent sections). One plan is to add information on life-cycle realted activities (birth, marriage, death rituals) of different religions. Hope this edits will give more "Life in India" angle to the article. Please comment and edit. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right to divorce for Shia women

Mumbai: In a surprise move, the All India Muslim Shia Law Board on Sunday announced to give Shia women the right to divorce and made marriage a legal contract that would be enforceable in a court of law. Releasing a new Shia Nikahnama here, Maulana Mohammad Athar, president of the AIMSLB said, "The new undertakings are being made mandatory on humanitarian grounds."

[1]

Can't figure out where to put this or whether this belongs here at all. --Shahab 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm...probably it does not belong here, at least not in the present structure. It's too specific. May be somewhere in Islam in India?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Muharram and holi image

IMO, Muharram (or any other festival) does not merit so much space in the article as provided by this edit. This article should be summarised as far as possible. Only names of the festivals, and maximum one sentence on pan-Indian festivals (Diwali, Eid, Muharram, Christmas) would suffice. Please comment. The holi image is not taken in India. That does not preclude its inclusion, but it will be better if we can find out an image taken in India during a significant festival. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Only mentioned Muharram because it is unique in character as it is not celebratory in nature. Its procession has played its part in igniting unrest too sometimes. Also to an extent it is not a global feature. Summarisation is OK, but I feel that it is the Daily Activities section which should be shortened, if not removed. The info it gives is appplicable to same religion people throughout the world. For example even Muslims in US would observe the 5 daily prayers etc. What is unique about Muslims in India? A good idea would be to put any unique info on daily life activity as an intro in the Influence of religion on social life section. What do you think? Cheers.--Shahab 19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comments on "Daily activities", yes, anything unique should be there. I added those stuffs just because those were available with reference! If consensus is removal, no problems. However, I thought it would give that Life in India angle. After the addition, it read somewhat stale! Personally I know little about the rituals, and could not find out references either, so could not add much. Any idea about unique Indian rituals?

Regarding Muharram, my opinion is deletion of such long addition. I don't have any idea, but is Tazia relatively unique to India?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that it was only relatively unique (and practised maybe in Iran too), but this site says that it is restricted only to Indian Shiites. (Also the site raises an interesting point of it having been inspired by similar processions of Ganesh.) The Taziya should be kept, maybe in some other section, as it a ritual unique to India. Can't think of any other unique Indian rituals at present, but maybe can find out some Sufi ones. By the way can you take a look at the demographics. The data in the 2 tables don't match exactly. I don't know the source of the second table. Lifted it directly from Demographics of India. Cheers--Shahab 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Found a site about rituals :Hindu rituals,Muslim rituals. Also see Religion in India. Cheers.--Shahab 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Partially solved the problem of the second table of statistics. Still, some entries need references. Will see the links provided by you tomorrow. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh! The links uses the same data (and even the same language) as provided by the Library of Congress site (the reference that has been used so far in creating the "Daily activities" section). I have not gone through the links thoroughly though. But it seems there would be nothing new :( We'll have to try more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Pilgrimages

To be pedantic, a pilgrimage is different from a Holy city. Many of the holy places mentioned are piligrimages as such. Some are but in many of them the "journey" isn't significant, just the place itself. So I think the name should be changed to holy cites or holy sites. We could therefore talk about both pilgrimages sites and general holy places. Does anybody have any objections? Gizza^{Chat ©} 22:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that the terms "pilgrimage sites" or "holy sites" would be more general. Not all holy sites are in cities, I suppose. And perhaps not all holy sites attract pilgrims. In some traditions the act of making the journey, and the way the journey is conducted is of greatest importance. In these traditions the pilgrims do various types of penance on the way, preparing themselves spiritually for arrival. I seem to recall some theological debate about this pertaining to the question of what happens to pilgrims who die on the way, never reaching the goal. I cannot find the citation, but I think that the verdict was that their faithful effort was as good as reaching the goal. Don't put this into the article, of course, as I have no citation and may be mis-remembering the idea. Buddhipriya 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose what happens to a pilgrim dieing on the way differs on the religion. I know according to some traditions, death in Varanasi makes your soual attain Moksha just as Muslim dieing in Mecca makes them go to heaven. But even if we find citations, I think the information may be too specific for it to be added. Gizza^{Chat ©} 01:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

References

The following references in the article seem very iffy to me:

• http://konkanicatholics.blogspot.com/2006/07/feast-of-st-thomas-apostle-to-india.html
• http://www.saag.org/papers10/paper950.html
• http://www.freshnews.in/bjp-cd-is-vote-bank-politics-of-worst-kind-cpi-m-3289
• http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl002.html

I think they all fail the WP:RS requirements, and should be replaced by better sources. Any objections ? Abecedare 01:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually blogs and geocities sites are not considered as reliable source. However, I am not sure about the South Asia Analysis Group. I have seen papers from that site being used in other articles.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the other 3 sources. South Asia Analysis Group seems genuine, and while the source technically may be considered self-published, it does not present any redfalg issues - so I don't have any objections to leaving it in.

That said, I think some parts of the Religion and Politics section (especially the third paragraph) provides insufficient context for a general reader and probably sufferes from recentism; for example, the sentences "During an election campaign in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP allegedly released an inflammatory CD targeting Muslims. This was condemned by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as playing the worst kind of vote bank politics." Needs to be looked into eventually. Abecedare 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

There has been a strong tradition of atheism in India. The dravidian movement is based on rationalism. We need to incorporate this in the article. sumal 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion map

Id be willing to make a map if someone can give me some reference material -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for being here. I was planning to contact you :) Anyway, what do you plan to build? I mean how religions can be depicted? (I hardly have any idea on maps, so please excuse me if I sound foolish) --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I have got something. Please see this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion in India and Carvark

Please, add something about Religion and Carvark. vkvora 18:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but it will need skillful writing so that undue space is not given. Will try. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tried. Please see if it sounds ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I expanded it a bit and worked on the citation format. Ideally, books mentioned in footnotes should be listed in the References section, as they may come up multiple times. Then the authors can be cited just using author name and page number. I also fixed the date for the codification of philosphies, which was after 200 AD. :) Buddhipriya 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Used Template:Harvard reference for the book references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Schools of thought

Shouldn't this article have data on various sects or schools of thought within the principle religions and their number of adherents. Another thing missing is a list of religious institutions. Also, can some experiencd wikipedian please make a todo list for coordinating efforts. That will help. Cheers.--Shahab 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Major school of thoughts within the religions and their number of adherents (if data is available) should first be added to the article Major religions in India. Then some of the significant sects (or school of thoughts) may be added in the "Major religions" sections in this article.

What do you exactly mean by religious institutions? Significant temples and mosques? Or missions like Ramakrishna Mission etc? IMO, if you mean the later, it should can be added here in this article.

Will try to make a to do box. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By institutions I mean thought schools, like Sanatan Dharma etc in Hinduism (I really don't know the principal schools in Hinduism) and Deobandi, Barelvi etc in Islam. But I guess reliable data concerning them would be hard to obtain. The least we can do is just name them in the demographics section. Here is my proposal for the structure:

1. History

1.1 Religious figures

2. Major religions

3. Demographics

4. Religion and the Indian state

4.1 Legal position

4.2 Interference by the state (Here we should have the Shah Bano

case, saffronisation allegations, Laws to check conversion etc.)

5. Influence on the people

5.1 Daily activites

5.2 Special occasions

5.3 Rituals and pilgrimages

6. Problems

6.1 Communal strife

6.2 Vote bank politics

Please comment. Cheers.--Shahab 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty neat. Comments— (1) "Special occasions" - what would this encompass besides festivals? (2) Problems may or may not need subsections. However, that can be considered later. (3) Interference by the state - Ummm...Ok! Unless someone suggest a better alternative name, we can go with it. (4) Personally I would like to either have "Religious figures" as a separate section or not having it at all. Because, "History" is very important, and rather not have an apparently unrelated subsection. If needed, "religious figures" in its present form (just mentions the names of the figures) can be deleted. Some sentences describing the significance and influence of major religious figures may be added to some other sections such as History itself, or, Influence on the people. IMO, "religious figures" is not a very important section. What do others think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "schools of thought" take care not to confuse Indian philosophy with Religion in India, as philosophical schools are only one part of much larger picture that also includes ritual practices, devotional trends, etc. I would avoid putting much detail about the philosophical schools here because it will be easier to maintain it if it is in the detail articles for Indian philosophy or Hindu philosophy, which have overlaps already. Buddhipriya 19:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Special Occassion can include festivals, marriage and other religious ceremonies. Maybe a line about the tragic outcomes which blind dogma sometimes leads to. I agree with your view religious figure names should be included into history section (with a link to the main article). Contemporary religious leader names can be put in the intro to Influence on the people. Let's see what others think. Cheers.--Shahab 19:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't many "rituals" also daily (or weekly, yearly :-)) activities? I prefer the rituals be discussed in that sub-section. And an obvious point I would like to make is to not give undue weight to the last ten years in say, the communal strife section. Daily needs to be changed to a broader word, so weekly and months prayers/fasts can be added. Yearly events can go in special occasions. The only word I can think of at the moment is periodic, but there must be a better word. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

History

Currently it is weak on Jainism and Sikhism, both of which originated and have most of their followers in India. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

GAN review comments

• First sentence - "Religion in India comprises beliefs and traditions that rank among the world's most ancient and varied." - can be rewritten to bring the message better. If nothing works, leave it as it currently is.
• what does "is the most important minority religion" mean? Sounds like POV to me.
• Suggestion: Use timelines to introduce various religions that exists in India. That would seem to have a better flow
• "have long had a worldwide presence" - once again, POV material. Either be precise or give reference to this phrase
• please put the "secular" declaration by constitutoin in context. If i am not too mistaken, the same was introduced through amendment in 1976. however the same is not evident with the statement here.
• What happens in a few months/years from now when Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh and Abdul Kalam retire from the picture? Do we stop having religious diversity. It is better to use a historic reference i.e., Muslims (Egs for Indian president/PM); Christian (Presidents/Prime Ministers); Sikh (Presidents & PMs) and other religion. Please avoid the use of Sonia as neither she nor her post as Chairperson, UPA has no constitutional powers. If anyone needs to be added, it is BR Ambedkar who coverted to Buddhism.
• "Evidence of prehistoric religion in India is sparse." - Violates Show, don't tell policy. Remove it as the para allows the person to come to a conclusion rather than forcing him into one.
• "After 200 CE, several schools of thought were formally codified in Indian philosophy, including Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Purva-Mimamsa and Vedanta.[9] " - doesn't this sentence skip time (200 CE material mentioned during 500BCE data) or the article's timelines needs to be modified to be kept around in that timeframe.
• Copyedits required to the History section. (Eg: The para on Islam starts with a sentence on the decline of Buddhism. The same could have been the last sentence in the previous para)
• "Sufism (a mystic tradition of Islam)." - the wikilink for sufism starts with "mystic tradition of islam". then why do we need the info in brackets. please remove them
• Need to expand on this - "Although historical evidence suggests the presence of Christianity in India since the first century, it became popular following European colonisation and missionary efforts.". A single sentence is no just way of explaining 2% of Indian population
• When discussing about the history of religions of India, why is this para turning up "Communalism has played a key role in shaping the religious history of modern India ..." If anywhere, it should be a subsection in "Sectarianism". It can be titled - "Communal partition"
• Move the "See Also" in the Demographics section to the end of the section.
• "Islam is a monotheistic religion centred around the belief in one ..." - make it into a seperate para
• As of 2007, India was home to 147 " - change "was" to "is"
• "..147 million Muslims, the world's third-largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan" - provide numbers for Indonesia and Pakistan
• "Buddhists form majority populations in the Indian states of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, and the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir" make it into a seperate para
• " Jainism is a nontheistic, dharmic religion and philosophy originating in Iron Age India." - make it the first sentence of the next para
• "The preamble to the Constitution of India proclaimed India a "sovereign socialist secular democratic republic". - remove the term "secular" and pur the sentence in context (original constituion). The next sentence on secular/1976/const. amendment completes the overall picture
• The law section needs to be expanded to include the various laws specific to religious practices and various struggles for reforms in these laws. The Hindu marraige act, Shah Bano Case, Muslim Personal Law.
• The image of buddhist dancer in the section on RITUALS is not appropriate
• The ceremonies section is pretty weak as it lacks depth of information. There is no coverage of weddings - differences in weddings across various parts of India; burial ceremonies - muslims bury their loved ones; Hindus cremate etc; the practice of SATI in earlier days and the current constitutional ban on the practice
• Pilgrimage sites looks more like a list. It will be better to make it into a table with the following columns - Name of temple; main deity(s); Religion; Description of the Lord. Eg: Tirumala Venkateswara Temple; Lord Venkateswara (Believed to be a form of Lord Vishnu); Hinduism; Vishnu is worshipped as Venkateswara in Tirumala, Andhra Pradesh. The temple is situated on a hill and the regular darshan lasts 5 seconds. The temple is believed to be the most visited pilgrimage in India and second to Vatican City across the globe.
• Festivals can also be timelined as per the occurance in the annual calendar (range can be given where possible. For eg: Diwali is Early Oct - Mid Nov)
• Why is the article mum on the subject of "Religious conversions". The same needs to be covered here as well
• The politics section needs clean-up as issues whose roots lie elsewhere is described here. For eg: Shah Bano case needs to be discussed in Law section; the 2002 Gujarat riots in the communal violence section; Ram Temple and Babri Masjid in communal violence. They all had political impact but the main identity of these issues is not communal but they were reflected in politics
• "During an election campaign in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP released an inflammatory CD targeting Muslims.[54] This was condemned by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as playing the worst kind of vote bank politics.[55] " - reeks of WP:Recentism. This sentence can be done away with.
• Consolidating all "Need references"
  • Either here or somewhere in main article, i would need reference for both these phrases - "India is one of the most religiously diverse nations in the world; religion plays a central role in the lives of most Indians"
  • Though inter-religious marriages are generally taboo, Indians are generally tolerant of other religions and retain a secular outlook. Inter-community clashes have never found widespread support in the social mainstream, and it is generally perceived that its causes are political rather than ideological in nature.

In summary, the article has a great start and is a potential FA topic. However the coverage of the various topics in the article is very shallow and needs more data/content as well as copyedit. --Kalyan 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Though inter-religious marriages are generally taboo, I disagree. Most Indians don't mind now. I know many people (even in my neighborhood) who marry members outside their own faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.156.156 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism bars beef consumption. It does not bar consumption of beef, Hindus are advised not to eat it but it isn't some compulsory norm. 220.227.156.156 11:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

merge

I moved the demographic and political portions to Religion in India per the merge suggestion. "Indian religions" should discuss the "Dharmic" religions of Indian origin, and as such is a major merge target for the disparate and motley collection of articles, including

• Dharmic religions
• Hinduism and Jainism
• Buddhism and Hinduism
• Jainism and Buddhism
• Sikhism and Jainism
• Sikhism and Hinduism

dab (𒁳) 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan. Thanks. Andries 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8#Dharmic_religion. Please centralize the discussion there. Andries 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered also merging Buddha from the Hindu perspective? Addhoc 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I created user:Andries/Dharma_in_religions because several editors at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8#Dharmic_religion stated that there should be an article about this. It is mainly a copy from dharma. Feel free to improve it. Andries 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to further clarify the scope of this article by adding another mention of "Republic of India" to the article's beginning. If someone still feels that this is not enough to prevent readers from becoming confused about what the article is about, please comment. Thanks. Saravask 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vedantic / Vedic

The description Vedic period usually describes India upto around 6th century BCE, which is around the time when Jainism and then Buddhism started. Addhoc 16:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc, that's right. And here is the reference for that :- MODULE 11: INDO-SHRAMANICAL (600 B.C.E. - 300 C.E.), "The term "shramana" is from the root shram, meaning "to exert oneself" or "to practice austerities," and refers to non-Indo-Brahmanical mendicant groups that began to appear in North India some time around the sixth century B.C.E. ", from here : http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_11/mod_11_x.htm.

And AnishShah19, for your kind info I quote your single source of Y. Masih :-

"Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150 Page 18. "There is no evidence to show that Jainsim and Buddhism ever subscribed to vedic sacrifices, Vedic deities or caste. They are parallel or native religions of India and have contributed to much to the growth of even classical Hinduism of the present times".

The first line is a common fact. There are no rituals or adherence to Vedas in B&J. The second sentence is not entirely true and as my reference shows, is clearly untrue. One doesn't need "sources" to show that some of Jain tirthankars were originally Vedic characters. Just read any translation of Vedas available off the net (google for that). Your own orthodox sources like Jainworld.com say that repeatedly.

But the most important point is that your comment in the article, ", both are a continuation of Shramana traditions which has co-existed with the Vedic tradition" is NOT what is mentioned or what is implied in your reference, besides being Totally Bunkum. Vedic religion is a much older phenomenon and even according to wikipedia's article on Shramana. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 11:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IAF For your Kind Information this has been conclusively proved on the talk pages of Dharmic religion and Historical Vedic Religion that Jainism is not post vedic but a pre-vedic religion. But since you cannot understand this simple facts let me put it up once again:

Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150

• “Till very recently it was believed that Vedic Hinduism is really the oldest form of Indian religion. But, at the present time, it would not be correct to hold this view. Even at the time of Rgveda, there were at least the Dasas/Dasyus who racially differed much from the Aryans, and certainly much more in their religious theories and practices. The Dasas Dasyus were linga-worshippers and had a god different from Indra. They did not have animal-sacrifice and had observances quite different from those of the Vedic Aryans. Most probably proto-Shiva of Mohenjo-daro was one of their deities.

It is not possible to know much at present about the Dasas Dasyus.But certainly,we find Ajivikism, Jainism and Buddhism as three religions which did not share the Vedic Aryan religion called Brahmanism which accepted the Vedas as the only religious scripture for it, and, keeping to the caste maintained the excellence and supremacy of the Brahmins over all other castes and people. The non-Vedic religions of Ajivikism*, Jainism and Buddhism did not accept the Vedas as their holy books and did not have castes.” Page 17

• “There is no evidence to show that Jainsim and Buddhism ever subscribed to vedic sacrifices, vedic deities or caste. They are parallel or native religions of India and have contributed to much to the growth of even classical Hinduism of the present times.” Page 18

• “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

• “Jainism is a very old non-Vedic religion and some of its features go back to the times of Indus Valley Civilization. Like the Upanishads and Buddhism, Jainism was a kshatriya movement. It had its locus in a religion which was not yet touched by Brahmin cult. These regions East of Sadanira (modern Gandaka) were inhabited by non-Aryan tribes. [..]

Jainism is not an offshoot of Vedic Brahminism. It belonged to the people who were essentially agriculturist, who valued bulls and cows. They therefore had simple living and could practice ahimsa and austerities. In contrast, the Vedic Aryans were essentially pastoral people and they were used to animal-sacrifice. Naturally the Aryan and non-Aryan people of India were always in conflict, and, so in their religious beliefs too they held opposite views. In the long run, the Vedic Aryans accepted all that was of importance in Jainism and Buddhism. The present Hinduism is a commingled stream of Aryan and non-Aryan cults. Keeping in mind the independent and parallel development of Jainism, we can proceed further.” Page 235

• “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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anishshah19 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way - wikipedia itself cannot be the source of another wikipedia article.Anish Shah 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AnishShah, if Mr. Joel Diederik Beversluis (your source) claims that Jaina tradition dates to 3000 BC and that it predates pre-Vedic times, he'd better go back to school (with you in tow of course). Not only is this source bogus and dubious, it appears to be motivated.

Haven't you learnt by now that if 2 sources claim conflicting things, (like my Indiana University source vs your Masih and Joel sources) then the edit ought to reflect both lines of thought ? I am not going that way however, because what your 'sources' claim are not even claimed by the main article on Jainism. DO Not attempt further vandalism by utterly nonsensical claims. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 12:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IAF I am happy to note your sudden realisation that - "if 2 sources claim conflicting things, then the edit ought to reflect both lines of thought". If you would have read my edits carefully I have merely referenced that jainism is the oldest religion. I have not put it up in the main article since I understand that there is no consensus amongst scholars. Anyway Since edit wars are time consuming and disruptive and I want to concentrate on the pathetic state of other Jainism articles, I suggest a truce and following consensus :-

• You dont claim that Jainism came out of Vedic religion (I have dozens of sources to prove it)
• I will not claim that Jainism is the oldest religion or a pre-vedic religion. (I once again have dozens of sources to prove that it is pre-vedic religion)
• We can arrive at a consensus that Vedic and Shramanic stream have co-existed side by side and have influenced each other almost equally.
• I will not touch Historical Vedic religion article as long as it is in the present form.

Dont think this call for truce is out of weakness as you very well know that I can bash false arguments and tall claims totally.Anish Shah 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism is the oldest religion. The only other religions remotely close to the age of Hinduism are Zoroastrianism and perhaps Judaism, not Jainism. This is more or less an established fact.

Wiki is not a battleground, there are no "truces".

Whatever "Vedic", "shramanic" and other catch phrases yourself and IAF and other wish to use, Jainism, Buddhism, etc. grew out of Hinduism[2] and some in fact still consider it little more than a sect of Hinduism[3][4]. Aliens didnt start it.

Bakaman 18:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Baka. AnishShah, there is no barter system for trading in edits prevalent here, and so just stop your kiddish rants. Write only if you have anything other than Jain-samaj sources. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Masih's sources that Manish Modi seeks to bring back DO NOT take into account facts. Some Jain Tirthankars clearly find mention in the Vedas, which means that Jainism has definite Vedic influence. This fact need not be 'sourced'. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Baka, Your statement “Aliens didnt start it” was in bad taste and I thought you were better than IAF atleast. When you are discussing someone’s religion if not respect atleast show some civility.

IAF, with your penchant for edit wars and abusive language, I should have realized that you don’t believe in consensus and are out to impose the hackneyed misconceptions propagated by the right wing on wiki. You have been warned many times for edit warring and abusive language, but some people will never improve. So be it. I tried my level best to arrive at a consensus. As for the kiddish rants it is you are going and complaining about me like a K.G. kid to Baka and Vinay as you are unable to argue with me alone.

As for the reference (Module 11) that you are gleefully quoting on which your entire argument is based, as usual you don’t seem to have done your homework well. Refer MODULE 6: THE JINA AND THE BUDDHA ( http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm )which says : “As mentioned earlier in our brief summary of the religions of India, the Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times, that is, to the second millenium Before the Common Era (2000-1500 BCE), although the precise origins of the tradition are not yet fully known.”

MODULE 11: INDO-SHRAMANICAL (600 B.C.E. - 300 C.E.), itself admits that: “With the Indo-Shramanical layer, which may well reflect the resurfacing of pre-brahmanical traditions”

This renders your entire argument and line of thinking false. As usual you manage to shoot yourself in the foot. The more argument you do, the more my case is strengthened. I ought to thank you for it. Thanks for proving that Jainism is older than Hinduism. By the way whenever you feel like arriving at a consensus and behave in wikilike manner I am open to it. Till then, I will keep on trashing your foolish arguments.

The Fact that Vedas mention the Tirthankars means - 1) Tirthankars pre-date vedas and 2)Vedas were influenced by Tirthankars. This is the conclusion that any reasonable person with even average intelligence will make.--Anish Shah 09:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AnishShah, your arguments hang upon tenaciously and precariously positioned SPECULATIONS. They don't have a leg to stand on (as usual). The Indiana Univ clearly denotes by time the Indus-Valley (3000 BC to 1500BC), Indo-Brahminical (l500 B.C.E. - 600 B.C.E) and Indo-Shramanical (600-300 BCE) ages here : [5]. If you've even gone through preliminary comprehension reading in school, you would have gone through the following from the same pages of Indiana State University :-

1) "One seal shows a strange, horned figure sitting in what could be described as a Yogic or meditation posture and surrounded by four animals. Some older archaeologists have suggested that this might be some sort of "proto-Shiva" figure, since in later Hindu traditions the great Hindu god, Shiva, is considered to be the lord of Yoga. Moreover, the four animals might suggest Shiva as "lord of animals" (pashupati), a well-known designation of Shiva in later times. Some more recent archaeologists and art historians have disputed this interpretation."

2) "In any case, in addition to the seals, archaeologists have also uncovered what appear to be phallus-shaped stones and crude terra-cotta female figurines, suggesting some sort of fertility cult and belief in a mother goddess. All of this is highly speculative and debatable, mainly because the Indus Valley script and language has not yet been deciphered."

^^These 2 comments invalidate Masih's Pg 17. paras that you quoted earlier. Shooting in the foot ? Talk about shooting yourself in the head.

And finally,

"To the extent that this "village Hindu" spirituality is not unlike the folk spirituality that goes back to time immemorial, it is not implausible to suggest that a majority of Hindus in present-day India still follow a pre-historic spirituality that pre-dates even the Indus Valley layer of civilization."

That one sentence that you are so happily and brazenly showing as a vindication of all the nonsense that you've said so far, itself says "maybe" and "might be". In other words, it is NOT established fact otherwise imagine what I could do with these 2 references that I quoted above. I wouldv'e gone on a rampage ! Hence, what you are doing here is to present these 'maybes' as absolute fact. This in turn proves that you do not know editing.

You have always been synonymous with vandalism and the injection of Jain orthodoxy, first into the pages of Dharmic Religion and now here. It is high time that you and your paid-for sources like 'Joel' are stopped. Masih's crap like, "The Indo-aryans have borrowed the theory of re-birth after coming in contact with the aboriginal inhabitants of India."

The reason why I restrain myself from editing this and the Historical Vedic Religion page is because of two constraints. One, I do not have sources to prove that the aniquity of some of the Upanishads, is older than the Sharamana tradition. b And secondly, due to religious sensitivities and political reasons, one cannot say that except Mahavira, all the other Jain Tirthankars are mythical and have no history to back them up. Those that actually have an inkling of existence, are first mentioned in the Vedas along with the ideas they propounded like [Hiranyagarbha], [Dharma] and [Karma]. Shetasvatara and Kausitaki Upanishads of 800 BC first porposed Reincarnation. Not only that, some Tirthankars as I had shown in the now defunct DR religions talk page find mention as devils in Mahabharat : the reason of a clear fallout between Hindu and Jain followers. That they find a fleeting mention amongst many others, clearly indicates the antiquity of even the Itihasas than shramana tradition. This is something which has been generally accepted in India since ages but muddled by western scholarship like Maxi Mule-er.

Anyway, as per the clearly defined temporal classification given in the Indiana edu scholarly articles, and the fact that Jain Tirthankaras derive either their character and/or role from Vedas, and some central ideas from Veidc or very early Vedantic literature, I am reverting the article back to my version. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear friends, Jay Jinendra

We must all be polite, courteous and civil with each other. And we must not make it our life's mission to rubbish the beliefs and traditions of others. IAF, are you listening?

It is against the spirit of Bharatiyata to run down and denounce other religions. Not just against the spirit of Wiki culture. So kindly do not try to run down Jainism. And please desist from reversing what is being contributed on Jainism. It is not only offensive, it is non-productive.

I do not see what kick you get out of running down religious traditions other than your own, but seeing that you do not even use your true name and hide behind your alibi, one is compelled to doubt your bonafides.

Please read some original texts of Jainism composed in Prakrit and Sanskrit to know that the Tirthankaras did not derive any ideas, role or character from the Vedas. They had absolutely nothing to do with the Vedas. And if some Tirthankaras are mentioned, with great reverence, in the Vedas, all it shows is that they predate the Vedas. And that they were very highly regarded by the Vedic people.

Reading up on Jain scriptures would help you realise that Jainism and Hinduism do not have much in common other than the fact that they both took birth in India.

A good reading of nyaya texts, which record the epistemological debates held between Hindus (Vedantis), Jains (Nirgranthas) and Buddhists (Bauddhas) will make it amply clear the great disparity that exists between the three religions and their central teleology.

Manish Modi 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Indo-Shramanical tradition has been clearly demarcated as being in the timeline of 600-300 BC only. Masih's assertion that and I quote, "The Shramana and Vedic traditions co-esisted", is just not true. This compounded with the fact that Jainism owes a significant contrib from Vedas in terms of origin of important Tirthankars and some ideas is a given that Jain tradition dates After the Vedic period ended and the Vedantic period began in India.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak's statement does not imply that Jainism predated or even co-existed with the Vedic period much less arose after the Vedantic period began. He simply states that the Vedic period had emphasis on animal sacrifices, which was significantly affected by the Jain practice of Ahimsa later on.

Manish Modi, we are discussing history and Not right-wing myths. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear IAF, Jay Jinendra

You have summarily debunked a recognised academic source such as Y Masih. You have not even bothered to give any academic reference. On what basis do you state that Y Masih is not true?

Since Tirthankaras find mention in the Vedas, it is evident that they existed before the Vedas! So how can you say that Jainism evolved in the 6th century BCE? Illogical.

Tirthankaras and their philosophy of Shramanatva has nothing to do with the Vedas. Jain and Buddhist philosophy is completely different from Vedic philosophy. So what you claim as "fact" is in fact a myth. It is a POV.

Hope this helps.

yours Manish Manish Modi 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey IAF! Jay Jinendra

Please pipe down your tone. You are being rude and arrogant.

What you are saying is clearly tinted with your POV. That is why you use language like "Orthodox Jain nonsense". This kind of language is not acceptable in a serious work like Wikipedia which is an academic work. Not a platform to brandish your prejudiced jingostic ideas.

Btw, Anish and I are real persons. And unlike you, we do not hide behind misleading petnames like IAF. Apparently, earlier, you tried to call yourself Indian Air Force but were stopped from doing so. So now you call yourself IAF.

Please do not try to obfuscate the issue by trying to project that Anish and I are one person! We are not.

I saw your replies to what Anish had stated. What strikes me is your arrogance, rudeness and air of smugness! Rather than trying a level headed sensible approach, you are sabre rattling! This tone and language is not appropriate to Wikipedia. So please pipe down.

In your excitement to reply to Anish, you mistakenly sent your reply under the wrong heading. But never mind. I understand that you are getting worked up.

The crux of your argument, the timeline issue is not provable. It cannot be academically verified. Maybe you need to read academic papers on this topic written by Vedic specialists like Prof Michael Witzel to upgrade your knowledge on this issue.

I will sign off by saying that your argument that the Tirthankaras were borrowed from the Vedas and that Jainism has borrowed things verbatim from the Upanishads is not only offensive but totally incorrect and entirely the product of your fevered imaginanings. Kindly do not misuse a noble project like Wikipedia, which a modern Jnanarnava (Ocean of knowledge), by placing such offensive and inaccurate data on it.

Best wishes, Manish Modi 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(M)Anish Modi, what you've just said are empty retorts and empty arguments. Merely saying, "What you say ain't true" is not enough. You have to bring resources, references and scholarly material. In your avatar as AnishShah you did, but it was summarily and soundly buttressed by more reliable and verifiable sources of mine.

Learn to edit in wikipedia. Threats, abuses and masquerading as different persons is NOT going to hold you and your acrimonious kind in good stead over here.-----Bharatiya_Vayu_Sena(BVS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.3.105 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear IAF, aka Bharatiya Vayu Sena (BVS) Jay Jinendra

You do seem to have a fixation with the Indian Air Force, don't you? First you call yourself Indian Air Force, then IAF, now Bharatiya Vayu Sena, which means exactly the same thing in Hindi as the Indian Air Force!

Firstly, I must once again remind you that you are the one masquerading under different petnames. Indian Air Force and Bharatiya Vayu Sena. You hide behind pseudonyms, but question my identity! Strange.

Threats and abuses are your style, not mine. Please glance through your contributions to the Talk Pages and your edit summaries. You seem to rejoice in using abusive and threatening language. You acrimonious behaviour in the past has led to your being banned more than once.

Now, you have gone so far as to question the neutrality of the Wiki moderators!

Insofaras I am concerned, I do not use threats and abuses. It is not my style.

Brother IAF, please clear my confusion: did your arguments "buttress" the points I raised, or did they "rebut" them?

Anyway, on a serious note: In the academic world, one works with facts and not ideological assumptions. The first things we are taught in the academic world are "doubt, doubt, doubt". One does not take any opinion or theory as sacrosanct. As an academic, one studies the evidence before one and then arrives at a theory based on the facts. And one makes every effort to collect evidence in an unbiased manner.

Unlike a demogogue, who starts off with an ideological credo and tries his level best to prove it, often ignoring facts that may be staring him in the face.

Hence, I would request all those who share their precious time working on Project Wiki to please ensure that all of us expend our energies in the service of truth and stay away from ideological posturing.

And since we are all brothers in arms in this project, let us all resolve to treat each other with kindness and courtesy.

I am a Jain, and today is the last day of my paryushana. I would like to warmly extend my brotherly love to all readers, participants, moderators, owners and founders of Wikipedia and request forgiveness from all in case I have hurt anyone with my thoughts, words or deeds. UTTAM KSHAMA.

Coming back to what you wrote, IAF, you have not really added any value to our discussion since the time I pointed out the basic flaw in the points that you had made.

I shall repeat them for your benefit: 1. You claimed a timeline for the Vedic religion, Jainism and Buddhism. That timeline is simply not verifiable. It is merely an opinion. There is no verifiable evidence to support it.

2. You made a rather extraordinary claim that all of Jain epistemology and ontology has been "lifted wholesale" from the Upanishads. Please could you from where you arrived at this extraordinary claim? Could you please show us shlokas from the Upanishads and any Jain scripture that are exactly the same?

3. I really look forward to being enlightened by you on point 2.

4. Please keep in mind that we should always look at the original scriptures and learn from them. Secondary sources are useful for a contextual understanding but it is the original scriptures that we must look to in order to understand any religious tradition.

5. A little patience and courtesy never hurt anybody. So when we discuss sensitive issues like religion and nationality, one's language should be academic, neutral and one must be constantly vigilant to ensure that one does not trample upon the religious and/or patriotic sentiments of others.

With love and respect to all those who have patiently read my piece.

Best wishes, Manish Modi 15:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is an empty rhetoric, which is a personal letter addressed to somebody. So you should have posted it in that person's talk-page, and not here because it is out of place.

As for point 1, that's from MODULE 11-12 from the Indiana Univ site already posted on this page. And no its not personal opinion, but a historical fact established by research, and stated by that university. As for point 2 you are the first to use the phrase, "lifted wholesale". That was in regards to hiranyagarbha (from Vedas), and reincarnation and Dharma that's recorded in the Upanisads that date to 900-800 BC.

These points have been repeatedly stated 4-5 times with proper references. You deliberately choose to gloss over them and pose the same old questions again, thus feigning ignorance; meanwhile your alter-ego is scrounging the net for more Jain-world references. Bharatiya_Vayu_Sena (BVS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.18.97 (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to last version to which accurate references are provided and historical correctness maintained. The points for the same have been discussed exhaustively here before so no need to repeat them all over again. Indian_Air_Force(IAF) —Preceding comment was added at 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Proof of Antiquity of the Sharamana tradition (Jainism)

IAF, Upto now the maximum that you could prove is the ability to use abusive language and ability to extract some data by googling. The maximum references that you could provide is of the websites and not actual scholarly references. The two points that you have mentioned above are also highly speculative. However I admit that there could be an element of truth in it. We have to see the truth from both the sides. It is clear that Indiana.edu speculates on the antiquity of both shramana and vedic traditions.

They have merely bifurcated the ages between vedic and shramana to indicate the dominating influence of the tradition. If the age of the shramana is 600BCE to 300 BCE, does it mean that vedic civilization was wiped out in between this period ? Evidently this would be a wrong interpretation, as it did exist but was eclipsed during this period because of pre-dominating influence of Lord Mahavira and Lord Buddha. In the same vein, Shramans did exist during the Indus valley (3000 B.C.E. - 1500 B.C.E.) and The Indo-Brahmanical civilization (c. 1500 B.C.E. - 600 B.C.E.) albeit with a lesser influence. This is evident when Indiana.edu says that “Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times” and “Indo-Shramanical layer, reflects the resurfacing of pre-brahmanical traditions”

That is why I have mentioned that :- “ vedic tradition and shramana tradition have co-existed side by side influencing each other.”

Yet, contrary to your claim, you have already gone on rampage and wrecking a havoc on the truth as you are more concerned about ideology rather than truth. And with your usual abusive language you have come too far imposing your brand of half-truths that even when the truth is staring at you on the face, your ego and ideology prevents you from seeing it.

I have not only quoted from the websites bit also from the scholars to prove my point. I have refrained from using the Jain text sources while you are quoting from Vedas and Upanishads and yet you accuse me of quoting “Jain Samaj” sources.

Let me provide additional “non-Jain samaj” sources from scholars :-

A. Dr. Vilas Sangave (2001) In : Facets of Jainology: Selected Research Papers on Jain Society, Religion, and Culture . Popular Prakashan: Mumbai ISBN 8171548393

1) Dr. Vilas Sangave in his address delivered on the basis of his paper “Jainism : the Oldest religion” at ‘Parliament of World religions- Centennial Celebrations, Chicago, 1993 says “ Further, Jainism is an Independent religion of India and this fact is now acknowledged at all levels. It is established beyond doubt that Jainism is a distinct religion of India and not on offshoot of either Hinduism or Buddhism. The Jain religion, philosophy, ethics, gods, temples, sacred places, scriptures, teachers, ascetics, vows, holy days festivals, and outlook on life and culture, with and emphasis on Ahimsa are not only distinct from their Hindu counterparts but also not accepted and followed by Hindus. “ Page 99-100

2) “Further the jain communities is one of the very ancient communities of India. The existence of the Jain religion can not only be traced to the vedic period but even to the Induis valley period of the Indian History. The names of Jain Tirthankars are mentioned in the Vedas and there is evidence to show that the Indus valley people must be worshipping Rishabhdeva the first Tirthankar of the Jains along with the other deities. Thus Hoary antiquity is a special feature of the Jain community and it is pertinent to note that this feature is not present in other religious minorities in India.

3) Apart from antiquity, the jain community enjoys the characteristic of unbroken continuity Few communities can claim such a long and continued existence” Page 3-4

4) “But now it is generally accepted that Jainism is a distinct religion and that it is as old as, if not older than, the Vedic religion of the Hindus.” Page 14

B.Mary Pat Fisher (1997) In : Living Religions: An Encyclopedia of the World's Faiths I.B.Tauris : London ISBN 1860641482

“The extreme antiquity of Jainism as a non-vedic, indigenous Indian religion is well documented. Ancient Hindu and Buddhist scriptures refer to Jainism as an existing tradition which began long before Mahavira.” Page 115

C.Diederik Beversluis (2000) In: Sourcebook of the World's Religions: An Interfaith Guide to Religion and Spirituality, New World Library : Novato, CA ISBN 1577311213

" Originating on the Indian sub-continent, Jainism is one of the oldest religion of its homeland and indeed the world having pre-historic origins before 3000 BCE, and before the propagation of Indo-Aryan culture….Page 81 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anishshah19 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Manish Bhai for your prompt edits and comments.--Anish Shah 06:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

AnishShah, till now I have not been rude, but the despicable and lowly extent that you've gone to promote your nonsense, prompts me to say this :- uncowardly are those who don't masquerade as others. Don't get it ? The Sinebot signed your comment, which you wanted to pass off as Manish Modi's "prompt edits and comments". You were caught with your pants down dude.

Now here is a rejoinder to my earlier salvo of jnana.

Your first outright lie at the outset was that your sources are not from Jainworld.com. False. Dr. Vilas Sangave is a recipient of Jain-samaj's 'honour' as a contributor of Jain philosophy and 'history'. He speaks mostly on their pages. [6] is an example and [7] is the complete list. This includes a larger group of Jains from Jain-samaj who organize paid seminars across the globe. These people are members of the Orthodoxy and in No way constitute frontline scholarship.

1) We are not discussing how distinct Jainism is from any other faith system. We are discussing timelines and origin of these faiths.

2) Your second point is, "The existence of the Jain religion can not only be traced to the vedic period but even to the Induis valley period of the Indian History. The names of Jain Tirthankars are mentioned in the Vedas and there is evidence to show that the Indus valley people must be worshipping Rishabhdeva the first Tirthankar of the Jains along with the other deities."

Mr. Sangave needs to be shown the previous reference. In the same vein as he claims that Rishabh Dev can be dated back to the Indus Valley times, Hindus can claim a plethora of things from Indus-Valley like Pasupathinath (Shiva), Rishabh Dev himself, who is venerated as a Bull in RigVed, Yogic postures, Mother Goddess (like Kali or Durga), Swastika symbols being found on Harappan seals etc. etc.

But you see nobody claims that Hinduism stretches back to IVC. And neither do any of the historians do so because the Indus-Valley script remains as yet undeciphered. Anyway, even if Rishabh Dev is found to have been venerated by the IVC people, it will be recorded as a Vedic god because of his enormous mention in the Vedas; the Shramana tradition would be seen as having borrowed or plagiariased Vedic dieties to present them as their own.

3) But now it is generally accepted that Jainism is a distinct religion and that it is as old as, if not older than, the Vedic religion of the Hindus. Nobody except Mr. Sangave and his ilk believe so. In which Indian history textbook of school do you find such scraps of crap ? All history tells that Jain tradition begins in the 5th century BC and that Jains believe that they had 24 tirthankars just prior to that.

4) The extreme antiquity of Jainism as a non-vedic, indigenous Indian religion is well documented. Ancient Hindu and Buddhist scriptures refer to Jainism as an existing tradition which began long before Mahavira. No Hindu text even mentions Hinduism. This is false.

Your last source is a cleverly disguised chap whom I forced you to remove earlier : Our very own Joel Diederik.

So, reverting back to the right, verified, reliable and accurate version of the article earlier-----contrary to the JW articles put forth by AnishShah (a.k.a.) Manish Modi. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

IAF so now have started nitpicking over the non-issues. Just because I forgot to sign one of my comments you have tried to capitalise over it because you don’t have any other issues to speak of. Afterwards you are trying to discredit scholars like Vilas Sangave. Dr. Vilas A. Sangave is a Director Shahu Research Institute. According to Vice-chancellor of Shivaji University, Dr Manikrao Salunkhe , Dr Sangave, a renowned editor of Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati papers, has done a distinctive research series in Social History and is pioneer of sociological studies of Janism as well as the architect of development sociology discipline in Shivaji University. He has been awarded the D.litt. for his contributions to research on Rajarshi Shahu Chhatrapati papers. http://news.oneindia.in/2006/12/07/shivaji-university-to-confer-d-litt-upon-vilas-sangave-1165435387.html.

Now I will prove how you are taking everyone for a ride by your viscious, vitrolic, turgid edits and discussions. Just because no administrator is looking you are vandalising these pages with impunity.--Anish Shah 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No.	IAF's preposterous claims	The facts and rebuttal
1	They are Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism in the order of founding	"In the order of founding" is a needless and spiteful inclusion just to prove superiority of Hinduism over others. I had put it in the alphabetic order which was more NPOV, but reverted by IAF just to massage his huge ego. Reference : 1) http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm which says that Jainism dates back to atleast 2000-1500 BCE, although the precise origins of the tradition are not yet fully known. 2) Heinrich Zimmer (1969) Joseph Campbell ed. In: Philosophies of India, Princeton University Press NY, ISBN 0691017581 - Editors note : Dr. Zimmer regarded Jainism as the oldest of the non-Aryan group, in contrast to most Occidental authorities, who consider Mahavira, a contemporary of the Buddha, to have been its founder instead of, as the jainas themselves (and Dr. Zimmer) claim, only the last of a long line of Jaina teachers. Dr. Zimmer believed that there is truth in the Jaina idea that their religion goes back to a remote antiquity, the antiquity in question being that of the pre-Aryan, so-called Dravidian period, which has recently been dramatically illuminated by the discovery of a series of great Late Stone Age cities in the Indus Valley, dating from the third and perhaps even fourth millennium b.c. (cf. Ernest Mackay, The Indus Civilization, London, 1935; also Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, pp. 93ff.). 3) A history of the Jainas, Ashim Kumar Roy, New Delhi : Gitanjali Pub. House, 1984, ISBN : 11604851 - "In the sixth century BC Buddhism had just been founded. The Vedic religion was almost getting extinct and Hinduism as we know it today was at a nebulous stage. Jainism at that time was not only a mature and living religion but also one claiming a hoary antiquity. All its tenets had fully developed by that time and these tenets have remained almost unchanged all these 2500 years. Jainism is thus the oldest living religion of India." Page 1
2	They all derive directly from Vedic philosophies	It is an well established fact that Jainism and Buddhism reject veda as valid source of knowledge, were never part of vedic tradition and are derived from Shramanic tradition. This fact IAF himself admits in the reference provided in his next point.
3	Buddhism and Jainism, both of which originated around the fifth and sixth centuries are derivatives of Vedic teaching, qualify as Shramana traditions	Once again the phrase "derivatives of vedic teaching, qualify as shraman traditions" is an oxymoron and an invention of IAF. Since so-called reference provided by IAF itself claims it to be "non-indo-brahmanical", then where is the question of it being a derivative of vedic teachings?
4	(600 B.C.E. - 300 C.E.), Indiana universityThe term "shramana" is from the root shram, meaning "to exert oneself" or "to practice austerities," and refers to non-Indo-Brahmanical mendicant groups that began to appear in North India some time around the sixth century B.C.E.	The sentence on "non-Indo-Brahmanical mendicant groups that began to appear in North India some time around the sixth century B.C.E" is a qualified statement which IAF conveniently ignores. The same website also states the following : 1) Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times, that is, to the second millenium Before the Common Era (2000-1500 BCE). http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm 2) MODULE 11: INDO-SHRAMANICAL (600 B.C.E. - 300 C.E.), : “With the Indo-Shramanical layer, which may well reflect the resurfacing of pre-brahmanical traditions. This proves that Shramanic and Jain traditions are quite old.
5	Sometimes summarised as "Dharmic" religions or dharmic traditions, Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism share key concepts derived from the Sanskrit terminology of Vedic ritualism.	It is well known that shramanic concepts are not derived from vedic ritualism. Vedic ritualism was concerned with sacrifices. Vedic were not even aware of Ahimsa, Karma, Moksa, renunciation etc. I have proved this on the talk pages of Historical Vedic religion. Additional References. REFERENCES: 1) http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_10/mod_10.htm Module 10 :- With one or two minor exceptions, there is little emphasis whatever on notions of Karma and rebirth, so prominent in later Hindu interpretations of the meaning of orthopraxy and ritual behavior (and present possibly also in earlier pre-Aryan village religiosity), suggesting that Karma and rebirth were originally not part of the Indo-Brahmanical traditions. 2) Vedics were not aware of Ahimsa - Talk:Historical_Vedic_religion#Vedics_were_not_aware_of_Ahimsa 3) Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150 - a) 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 b) “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 c) 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 4) I. 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
6	Buddhism and Jainism parallely arose from shramana movements of 5th and 6th century B.C. They have Vedantic influence into their beliefs as is evident from the mention of some Jaina Tirthankars and philosophies like hiranyagarbha in the Vedas	The fact that Jaina Tirthankars are mentioned in Vedas proves that Tirthankars pre-date vedas.

--Anish Shah 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

All that I am trying to say is that Vedic and Shramanic traditions have existed side-by-side since ages influencing each other.--Anish Shah 09:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Now do you want to repeat the same mistakes like before and get corrected, exposed, rejected, refuted and proved wrong again, or do you want to stop your nonsense once and for all ? IAF, blanking my headings on the talk page was a mean trick and not is acceptable in Wikipedia. Changing someone’s edits is one thing and changing some ones comments on discussion page shows how low you are willing to stoop ust to massage your huge ego. You accuse me and Manish of using Jain samaj sources while you are quoting from obscure websites which propogate Hindu orthodox views like http://www.aryabhatt.com/vedas/yajurveda1.htm. On the other hand I have quoted from Western and Indian Scholars from their published scholarly works accepted in academic sources. I am never claiming that Jainism dates back to IVC as it is all highly speculative. See Manish and my edits in Article. All I am stating that Shramanic and Vedic streams have arose parallel to each other. The IVC stuff I am merely stating on the discussion page to show that that there are various speculations amongst scholars. As to your baseless allegation that I am using Manish Modi’s ID this is a serious charge desist from such charges and concemtrate on issuses if you have any point to prove, which you don’t have. Your cunning ploy of editing without signing in after being banned will not fool the administrators. Also sigining as Bhartiya Vayu sena i.e. translated as Indian Air Force (IAF) is not going to fool anyone.--Anish Shah 08:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No.	AnishShah a.k.a Manish Modi's repeated claims	The facts and rebuttal
1	"In the order of founding" is a needless and spiteful inclusion just to prove superiority of Hinduism over others. I had put it in the alphabetic order which was more NPOV, but reverted by IAF just to massage his huge ego. Reference : 1) http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm which says that Jainism dates back to atleast 2000-1500 BCE, although the precise origins of the tradition are not yet fully known. 2) Heinrich Zimmer (1969) Joseph Campbell ed. In: Philosophies of India, Princeton University Press NY, ISBN 0691017581 - Editors note : Dr. Zimmer regarded Jainism as the oldest of the non-Aryan group, in contrast to most Occidental authorities, who consider Mahavira, a contemporary of the Buddha, to have been its founder instead of, as the jainas themselves (and Dr. Zimmer) claim, only the last of a long line of Jaina teachers. Dr. Zimmer believed that there is truth in the Jaina idea that their religion goes back to a remote antiquity, the antiquity in question being that of the pre-Aryan, so-called Dravidian period, which has recently been dramatically illuminated by the discovery of a series of great Late Stone Age cities in the Indus Valley, dating from the third and perhaps even fourth millennium b.c. (cf. Ernest Mackay, The Indus Civilization, London, 1935; also Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, pp. 93ff.). 3) A history of the Jainas, Ashim Kumar Roy, New Delhi : Gitanjali Pub. House, 1984, ISBN : 11604851 - "In the sixth century BC Buddhism had just been founded. The Vedic religion was almost getting extinct and Hinduism as we know it today was at a nebulous stage. Jainism at that time was not only a mature and living religion but also one claiming a hoary antiquity. All its tenets had fully developed by that time and these tenets have remained almost unchanged all these 2500 years. Jainism is thus the oldest living religion of India." Page 1	Hstory should be viwed from outside emotional disturbances. If you find it spiteful, take a time-machine, turn back time, and do the needful. Till then, the facts stay. I have already stated umpteen times that the Indiana University site clearly classifies the Shramana tradition in the 600 BC to 300 BC stage [8] over here. So how does AnishShah claim that the very same site says that Jainism dates back to 2,500 BC ? It does not and (M)Anish Shah/Modi clearly distorts what the same site says in Modue V, that the Jain tradition is ONE of the oldest traditions in India and MAY go back as far as Indus Valley times, that is, to the second millenium although the precise origins of the tradition are NOT YET FULLY KNOWN." If it says that Jainism MAY have origins in the IVC, then that is Never an implication that it truly did. Now here is what Indiana.edu's site, 'MODULE 9: THE INDUS VALLEY' has to say about Hinduism, "Excavations of the two large urban sites, Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, have yielded some intriguing clues about the culture and religion of the Indus Valley civilization. .........Some older archaeologists have suggested that this might be some sort of "proto-Shiva" figure, since in later Hindu traditions the great Hindu god, Shiva, is considered to be the lord of Yoga. Moreover, the four animals might suggest Shiva as "lord of animals" (pashupati), a well-known designation of Shiva in later times. Some more recent archaeologists and art historians have disputed this interpretation. And this, "One is left largely with scholarly guesses, but it is intriguing to entertain the possibility that traditions of ritual bathing, some sort of tradition of meditation or Yoga, possible proto-types of Shiva and a mother goddess, and a cult of sacred animals, all of which are prominent features in later Hindu traditions, may indeed be traceable ultimately all the way back to the third millenium B.C.E And finally this, To the extent that this "village Hindu" spirituality is not unlike the folk spirituality that goes back to time immemorial, it is not implausible to suggest that a majority of Hindus in present-day India still follow a pre-historic spirituality that pre-dates even the Indus Valley layer of civilization.' From here : [9] These points are 100 times more weighty than that one line you are brandishing about (M)Anish. But yet, despite all that, I nor anyone else claims that Hinduism dates back to the Indus Valley civilization. Why ? This is why (from Indiana.edu itself) :- In any case, in addition to the seals, archaeologists have also uncovered what appear to be phallus-shaped stones and crude terra-cotta female figurines, suggesting some sort of fertility cult and belief in a mother goddess. All of this is highly speculative and debatable, mainly because the Indus Valley script and language has not yet been deciphered. Get it ? I don't think so, because I've already said this twice already and you still keep hanging on to that one small sentence that Jainism MAY be sated to IVC.
2	It is an well established fact that Jainism and Buddhism reject veda as valid source of knowledge, were never part of vedic tradition and are derived from Shramanic tradition. This fact IAF himself admits in the reference provided in his next point.	Whoever claimed that Jainism accepts Vedas or its rituals ? But its a solidly grounded fact that Jain Tirthankars are characters of Vedas, and that some Jaina concepts like hiranyagarbha and Dharma are found in RigVed. This proves that Jainism borrows characters (converted into Tirthankars) and ideas from Vedic concepts. The older Upanishads from 900 - 800 BC already mention the concepts of rebirth and reincarnation, which Jaina and Buddhist theology reproduces verbatim.
3	Once again the phrase "derivatives of vedic teaching, qualify as shraman traditions" is an oxymoron and an invention of IAF. Since so-called reference provided by IAF itself claims it to be "non-indo-brahmanical", then where is the question of it being a derivative of vedic teachings?	Boss, even Jain-world proudly claims that Rishabh Dev, Arishtanemi, Suparsvanatha are mentioned in the Vedas, so aren't they derivatives from Vedas ?
4	The sentence on "non-Indo-Brahmanical mendicant groups that began to appear in North India some time around the sixth century B.C.E" is a qualified statement which IAF conveniently ignores. The same website also states the following : 1) Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times, that is, to the second millenium Before the Common Era (2000-1500 BCE). http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm 2) MODULE 11: INDO-SHRAMANICAL (600 B.C.E. - 300 C.E.), : “With the Indo-Shramanical layer, which may well reflect the resurfacing of pre-brahmanical traditions. This proves that Shramanic and Jain traditions are quite old.	This point and this very sentence from Indiana.edu which (M)Anish likes to put forth is already thrashed in my first rebuttal.
5	It is well known that shramanic concepts are not derived from vedic ritualism. Vedic ritualism was concerned with sacrifices. Vedic were not even aware of Ahimsa, Karma, Moksa, renunciation etc. I have proved this on the talk pages of Historical Vedic religion. Additional References. REFERENCES: 1) http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_10/mod_10.htm Module 10 :- With one or two minor exceptions, there is little emphasis whatever on notions of Karma and rebirth, so prominent in later Hindu interpretations of the meaning of orthopraxy and ritual behavior (and present possibly also in earlier pre-Aryan village religiosity), suggesting that Karma and rebirth were originally not part of the Indo-Brahmanical traditions. 2) Vedics were not aware of Ahimsa - Talk:Historical_Vedic_religion#Vedics_were_not_aware_of_Ahimsa 3)	Barring Ahimsa, the other stuff is white lies. The YajurVeda is also known as the Karma Veda because it specifically deals with the notion Karma in detail. Take a look at any translation of YV off the net. I suggest this one :- [10]. Reincarnation and liberation from the birth cycles appears first in the oldest of the Upanishads (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad), whih is one of the Primary Upanishads that ushered the end of the Vedic and start of the Vedantic period in 900-800 B.C.E. This is clearly before the Shramana tradition had even begun to take root. Here's what a scholarly article, by "The origin of samsara must be credited to Hinduism and its classic writings. It cannot have appeared earlier than the 9th century BC because the Vedic hymns, the most ancient writings of Hinduism, do not mention it, thus proving that reincarnation wasn’t stated yet at the time of their composition (13th to 10th century BC)." The Upanishads were the first writings to move the place of one’s "second death" from the heavenly realm to this earthly world and to consider its proper solution to be the knowledge of the atman-Brahman identity. Ignorance of one’s true self (atman or purusha) launches karma into action, the law of cause and effect in Eastern spirituality. Its first clear formulation can be found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4,4,5): "According as one acts, according as one behaves, so does he become. The doer of good becomes good. The doer of evil becomes evil. One becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action." Reference : http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation.html#worldreligions And did you forget hiranyagarbha, so soon ?? ;-)
6	The fact that Jaina Tirthankars are mentioned in Vedas proves that Tirthankars pre-date vedas.}	Oh really ? What if I say that the fact that Tirthankars are mentioned in Vedas as Vedic dieties/demonic creatures means that they were originally venerated/demonised in Vedic culture and later taken up by the Shramana tradition ?

AnishShah, learn basic wikipedia editing 101. The IP address from whichever PC anybody edit from, is displayed in the history page; nobody needs to 'sign' it explicitly. And what about whether I am or am not disguised as someone else ? Maybe, maybe not. That's not the issue. You, cohorting with Vassyana (another Jain) have banned only some-body's account, not ideas. Don't think that anyone will buckle to all these tactics of yours.

Now, I'm glad you said, "I am never claiming that Jainism dates back to IVC as it is all highly speculative." Good you finally admit that after your repeated MODULE V swashbucking. But when you say, "All I am stating that Shramanic and Vedic streams have arose parallel to each other." is where you have been proven wrong time and again, Masih notwithstanding. The origins of Shramana do not, by any account stretch back beyond 600 BC. As it has been shown to you from MODULE 11-12 of the same indiana.edu site, this layer is only from 600-300 BC and no further. And remember you have just admitted that Jainism does not date to IVC.......don't forget that. That's because this was the very same point you were using earlier to say that Jainism originated before 600 BC, but now you slithered your way out of it by saying, "Oh that was just high speculation and I never claimed so".

Only by an acrobatic feat of a fertile imagination like yours, motivated by a fervent desire to permeate, a Jain orthodox version of events which by all historical evidence is completely false,. can say such a thing.

Now if you don't like aryabhatt.com (which by the way provides a TRANSLATION of some verses of Yajur Veda), try this :- http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/wyv/index.htm (The text of the White Yajurveda, translated by Ralph T Griffith). Main page is here : http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm

Bharatiya_Vayu_Sena ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.41.119 (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

IAF, I suggest that instead of going into edit wars, let us arrive at a consensus as wikipedia is all about consensus. What ever changes I have made are properly referenced and accurate. Just because you have debated the issue on the talk pages, this does not give you a right to make wanton edits. Hence I suggest a consensus.--Anish 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a place to trade edits or to arrive at middle-grounds. It asks for facts and nothing else. Compromises like you suggest has no place here.

If the British Raj began in 1858, then it means just that and not any previous date. British editors cannot ask for leniency in this matter. Similarly, if the Shramana tradition began around 500 B.C. then it means just that. Period. How can this be compromised ?

The only problem I have is that you bring some sources, which I fully know that they are A1 bogus, but wikipedia's unbiased scales do not recognize that. Here, sources are sources no matter which Tom, Dick or Masih they belong to. Indian_Air_Force —Preceding comment was added at 16:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IAF, Try to understand the difference between documented history (British Raj) and pre-history which is pieced together by scholars from archeological and literary evidences and leads. One needs to take a holistic view on this. And also try to learn what is wikipedia about. You admitted it is about facts yet you are imposing your POV. You have tried to discredit my sources by trying to discredit proven scholars like Sangave but could not succeed.--Anish 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, all this is simply a repetition of what has been said umpteen times before. You purposely choose to ignore it.

'Proven scholars' who say that "Jain religion dates back to IVC" and that its teachers are "distinct from Hindu scriptures" are already proven wrong in these talk pages. As I've said, if any religion can lay claim to dating back to IVC, it is Vedic religion because of a dozen similarities (not merely a meditating Rishabh, but Shiva, Pasupathi and all that's mentioned in the comparison table). The fact is that since we haven't decphered to IVC script, no faith system can say it dates back to IVC. So how does Sangave claim otherwise for Jainism ? And even Jains accept that some Jain teachers are found in Vedas and/or Upanishads, which again refutes Sangave's claim. Indian_Air_Force. —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I havn't really got time to get too much into this. According to Hindu othodoxy (at least as I understand it) Jainism began with Lord Rishabhadeva, and is mentioned as such in the Bhagavata Purana (Canto 5, Chapter 6). I'm assuming that orthodox Jain belief is opposed to this? So putting both of these aside, what is it that scholars actually say on the subject, or is it all a matter of personal speculation? Surely it would seem a very bold claim to say that Jainism pre-dates Vedic culture, if that is what is being said? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge-in needed

The article Public holidays in India consists almost entirely of the various religious festivals, almost none of which are actually public holidays. Could some savvy person merge that in here, filtering what is (and is not) a public holiday along the way? Thx. -- Fullstop 17:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic traditions

I opine that the focus should be on Dharma and not on the locale India. Merge the 'sentiment' of Dharmic Tradition in this article and include Zen. Buddhism for the majority of people only denotes the "Lesser Vehicle" (no value judgment implied by the usage of the unfavored term "Lesser"), sometimes the "Greater Vehicle", rarely the "Diamond Vehicle" and often NOT Zen. All of which are Dharmic traditions. Dharmic traditions also allows for a syncretic dialogue, building upon singular/specific articles (e.g. Sikhism and bi-synchronous articles (eg. Hinduism and Buddhism. The article "Indian Religions" would better serve a census of articles that have historically been evident in India (including non-dharmic traditions), which is a VERY different article).
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

this is beside the point. we have established that "Dharmic religions" is not the term in common use, hence we moved the article to the term in actual use, per MoS. It is still open to debate whether Dharmic religions should be a disambiguation page, or just a redirect. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no: this is about Dharmic Traditions not Dharmic Religions. Please do not conflate them. That is key! All the consensus and voting and all that STUFF was about Dharmic Religion NOT Dharmic Tradition. You are railroading! Are you a Christian who is threatened by the greater statistical weight of Dharmic Traditions? I wonder...

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. I am a Wikipedian who is threatened by the greater statistical weight of trolls and clueless saps. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a free thinker who allows of argument in any form for the development of Self and is annoyed by the discourtesy of others. For my opinion, I think 'Indian religions' is too broad but acceptable for title and direction use and that 'Dharmic religions' is acceptable for adjectival use; as for the use of 'religions', B9, in contrast to 'traditions' there are important differences, yet, 'religion' too is a large word that can have the same occupation as 'Indian' has in this context. Iloxias 02:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloxias (talk • contribs)

Dharmic Tradition information to be worked into this article

(copy paste of this version removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs)

An error or two

The current introduction contains at least one error and an unfounded assertion: Firstly, Jainism does not originate in the 5th and 6th centuries BC. It is a very old tradition that predates the oldest Upanishads. It can be historically dated to at the very least the 9th century BC (see Parshva). Secondly Buddhism and Jainism cannot be said to be derived from Vedic religion. Though they share the same concern with liberation as the Upanishads, they radically eschew the ritualistic and ceremonial teachings which make up the greater part of the Vedas. They are both called nastika precisely because they adopt an iconoclastic attitude to Vedic tradition and possess uniquely non-derivative doctrines. Love to you all.Langdell (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

nastika... denotes a cessation...a secession...

proffers a resplendent chatra

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Langdell. Under no circumstances can Jainism and buddhism can be considered as derivatives of vedic religion. Nastika was more often an derogatory term for those traditions who did not accept sanctity of vedas. --Anish (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Langdell, this is what Britannia....I mean Britannica encyclopaedia which you quote says on Parshva : Parshvanatha was the first Tirthankara for whom there is historical evidence, but this evidence is intricately interwoven with legend. He is said to have preceded by about 250 years Mahavira, the most recent Tirthankara, who, according to tradition, died in 527 BCE. One text claims….'

Also this Mahavira and the semilegendary Parshvanatha, the founders of Jainism, directed their instructions to monks and postulants exclusively.

Upanishads come under the Veda-anta period, which dawned the commentary on the concluded Vedas. The earliest Upanishads date to 9th 0r 8th cen BC. Whatever be Parshva's case, and in the larger context of Jainism and Shramana, they do not even predate Vedanta. So claiming that Shramana co-existed with the Vedic religion since the latter's inception (i.e. from 2000 BC) is totally false. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

ANyone removing this from the first paragraph is indulging in vandalism. It is a well known University resource. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put up more creditable sources by known and reputable scholars rather than putting up website without any known author as a source. Deleting it will be construed as vandalism.--Anish (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And who are you to decide which source actually has more credence ? Besides, Indiana University which you ignore conveniently, is one of USA's top 20 univs with an endowment of $1.2 bn. That's an epitome of knowledge, compared to an unknown private speaker called Sangave. Besides, you haven't replied anywhere to the last tabular discussion that was put up...Indian_Air_Force

Your source says :- Now it is generally accepted that Jainism is a distinct religion and that it is as old as, if not older than, the Vedic religion of the Hindus. Does he mean so-called "classical Hinduism", which is thought to have begun after the Puranas ?

Then we have this : Over time, apparent misunderstandings have arisen over the origins of Jainism and relationship with its sister religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. [..] There has been an ongoing debate between Jainism and Vedic Hinduism as to which revelation preceded the other. {only What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with vedic Hinduism known as sramana dharma. Essentially, the sramana tradition included it its fold, the Jain and Buddhist traditions, which disagreed with the eternality of the Vedas, the needs for ritual sacrifices and the supremacy of the Brahmins.

Where does Mr. Pande say anywhere in the above sentence, that Jainism precedes or even arose parallel to Vedic tradition ?? Do you even know basic comprehension, or are you just eager to pass of anything thinking nobody would read it ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

IAF, till now you have exhibited a remarkable ability to misinterpret facts to suit your pre-conceived notions. You have the gall to say that I have not replied to you when, you failed to reply to me here on my talk page, after feigning a so called “honest discussion” and consensus. Whatever the scholars have quoted, it is crystal clear and is not open to misinterpretation, unless done purposely. But still, I will humour you. Dr. Sangave is clear that he does not mean your so-called "classical Hinduism” but the vedic religion. According to Pande – “What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with vedic Hinduism known as sramana dharma” This is amply clear that Vedic and Sramana traditions were parallel to each other. --Anish (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, I recognize one and only one talk page, that pertains wholly and sufficiently to the discussion of this article. That talk page is THIS. You cannot go about creating fictitious user-names just so that you can avoid discussing on the place where your arguments have been peacefully laid to rest. You are not only abusing wikipedia's servers and bandwidth, you are not taking active part in the discussion. If you have the slightest sense of mistake, delete that user-page.

Nowhere in the paragraphs that you so gleefully quote, have the authors clarified whether they mean that Jainism has always existed since the dawn of Vedism or nor. Once the Vedic faith began, it has continued till this day. The article which I quote, gives specific dates, and that is what is final.

Also, come what may, Sangave is an established non-scholar. This I needn't explain any further (you can just scroll up and up...). This term 'vedic Hinduism' has an ambiguity in Dr. Pande's para, which should coincide with 500 BC. as given in the Indiana University's article. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you only come talking to me on my page for “so called Honest discussion” on Indian religions and now you do an astounding volte-face that you never wanted to do talking on my talk page ! Just because you cannot reply to me that does not mean that I should delete it. In fact I will paste that discussion on this talk pages also. Lets see you reply to that !!!--Anish (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pshaw! Posting on your talk page was a personal editor-level talk. Discussion is here and nowhere else. Your ignorance of wiki editing is appalling and even amusing. You can do all the copy-pasting you want and I'll simply have to do mine, of the already posted replies on this talk page.

Whether I or anyone replies on your page or not, you should've known by now that a wikipedia user-page is meant for only one individual for the purpose of editing articles. One editor legally cannot maintain 2 accounts. So You have violated the basic rules of wikipedia.

Govind Pande's book is available in the full from Google books, which has archived it. The Sramana tradition has been explained in chapter 10 titled, "Socio-Historical order : Post Vedic". In it he highlights how the sramana tradition spread in the post vedic age (or Vedanta age), and how it reached its zenith at the times of Buddha and Mahavira. But he is still hesitant to place a date on sramana, which he calls 'immemorial'. This cannot be assumed to be dating back to IVC. GC Pande's inconclusiveness on the date + Indiana University's firm dating of 500 BC makes the article to mention that date. Indian_Air_Force —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.7.16 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop the false accusation that I have two user pages or you will be in trouble. First you understand the Wiki rules and then preach to someone. Read Pandes book properly. The influence of the sramanas was post-vedic, not the origins. He clearly says - “The social origins of these mendicants called Sramana or muni are not clear. They could have been connected with Harappan civilization, which itself is enigmatic. Page 135” Don’t mis-quote the authors. --Anish (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

References on Antiquity of Jainism

AnishShah an honest no-holes-barred question to you. I expect you to reply honestly. Have you spared a few minutes and read my replies to you in the IR talk page ? Even once ? Ever ? I ask this because every time you simply repeat what you said before and do not try to refute me point by point, whereas I like a mule reply to you point by point (whether in tabular form or simple text). I have even memorised your references Masih, Sangawe etc.

My opinion is that you just speedily glance through my reply and post what you said earlier all over again. Without thinking. Only difference is that you now post it in new words and sentences. Sometimes it is tabular form. Sometimes you get a buddy like Manish Modi along to speak the same lines over and over again.

Do reply to this here. Indian_Air_Force —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi IAF, Let me be Honest with you. I am really surprised by your statement that I am not reading your arguments and not replying to you point wise or refuting your arguments. Maybe it is your genuine perception. My first endeavor has always been arriving at a consensus rather than refute someone. I have seen your other edits, some of which have come out quite good, but I did not approve tone of your discussion in certain talk pages (IR included). That we could not arrive at a consensus on pages of IR is a different story, as a lot of negative energy and passion were flowing.

Coming back to your point, I always tried to give reply, to not only your arguments, but have tried to give additional points to convince you. Maybe that could have got you confused. In fact to avoid confusion, I also tried to give my understanding as against your edits in table format point wise. In some cases I also found your arguments not clear as to what point you were making (as per my impression) like you kept on repeating Hiranyagarbha, which was never a Jain concept. I request you to go thru the discussion page once more, (I believe) that I have replied to all your points and concerns. If not, please point out specific points that you feel I have not replied and I will restrict my discussion to the same. Look, I am not interested in “Winning” and nothing is gained out of getting someone banned, it creates a lot of bad feeling and lose-lose situation. Nothing would please me more if I can convince you to some of my points even if half way. Whether we ultimately agree or not, at least let us be courteous and civil with each other as individuals.

I have realized one thing – we Indians have a mentality that whatever is older and original is best and older the better. We need to understand that it is not always the case. That is why, we tend to push back the dates of our religious leader to prove that whatever is best in humanity was derived from our religion and culture. That is why many people try to push the dates of Shankaracharya to 4th / 5th century BC and certain Jains sources put Mahavira to 10th Century BCE. That is why I have tried to avoid Jain sources for history and tried to rely on Western and non-Jain Indian Scholars with some exceptions.

--Anish 06:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You said, "If not, please point out specific points that you feel I have not replied and I will restrict my discussion to the same." You keep repeating about Shramana's antiquity stretching back in parallel to Vedic times, even when Gautama Buddha and Mahavira have been proven to have lived and preached around 500 B.C. and it is them under whom Shramana was at its peak. All other Jain tirthankars are mythological characters and have no historical record to their names.

Sangawe says that Jain teachers are distinct from Vedic literature, which is absolutely false. You can google to find out the exact verse number in the Vedas to find mention of some tirthankars. He says that Jain religion began in Indus Valley civilization, whose refutation I've given godzillion times. What is even more mind numbing is that Sangave clings on to the straws of Rishabh when Rishabh in the first place finds extensive mention in the Rig Veda---acknowledged to be one of the world's oldest extant texts !! So which religion has first claim to the IVC ? Jainism or Vedic religion ? But according to Sangave it should be Jainism, whereas striking similarities to Rishabh deva in Rigved, Shiva, Devi, Pashupathinath, Yogic postures can be all dammed.

Still you keep playing the same track like a stuck record. I have posted all this in the table, in the sections before that right about everywhere. Masih also says pretty much the same stuff as Sangave and so do others. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

I will respond to you point wise in 1 or 2 days as I am a bit busy--Anish (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply on Sramanas and IVC

I have given a detailed response to your points. I have kept it detailed as obviously; you would not be satisfied with one line responses, so please bear with me. Below the table, I have also provided the references for my reply in the table. My references are more detailed as I have also quoted the authors text rather than just citing the title. I am totally ignoring the references from Jain sources, Jain texts and books written by Jain munis and Jain laymen. Rather, I am quoting from Western and Indian Scholars. I am ignoring Sangave and Masih as I have already discussed them.

Your Points	My Reply
You keep repeating about Shramana's antiquity stretching back in parallel to Vedic times, even when Gautama Buddha and Mahavira have been proven to have lived and preached around 500 B.C. and it is them under whom Shramana was at its peak. All other Jain tirthankars are mythological characters and have no historical record to their names.	a) Your Point is well taken. There is no doubt that Buddha and Mahavira lived around 500 BCE and it is under them the sramana tradition was at a "peak". But that does not rule out existence of Sramanas before Mahavira. I will provide a proof of this. b) Your statement that all Tirthankaras were Mythological figures is only partially correct. Parvanath the 23rd Tirthankar is accepted as a Historical Figure. c) It is true that other Tirthankaras are having mythological biographies similar to Rama and Krishna. But that does not preclude their existence. It fact vedas itself provides proof of existence of non-vedics. See list of references below
Sangawe says that Jain teachers are distinct from Vedic literature, which is absolutely false. You can google to find out the exact verse number in the Vedas to find mention of some tirthankars.	It is true that certain Tirthankaras are mentioned in Vedas. However only some times they are mentioned with reverence or as Arhats. Most of the times they have been demonised (asuras) as they were opposed to Vedic sacrifices and rituals as meaningless and harmful. As such Vedics and Sramanas were at loggerheads with each other. Even the philosophies were different. Vedics were optimistic and celebrated the richness of life and Grihasta (Marriage, procreation and Worldly life) was a sacred duty. Sramanas were pessimistic and saw the worldly samsara as full of suffering and advocated renunciation early. This philosophy of Sramanas is partly discussed in Vedas. Infact they have been variously described in Rigvedas as - Vatarasana, Digvasa, Nirgrantha and Nirambara, Vratyas and described as - naked, indifferent to bathing, unclean, due to sweat, dirt. They used to remain silent and looked wild owing to their meditative practices. By controlling breathing they used to attain godhood. Many of the Vratyas (persons who had taken vows or vratas) are said to be unversed in the Vedic tradition and rituals and belong to Licchavi, Natha and Malla clans. Vedas clearly bring out such differences between vedics and non-vedics.
He says that Jain religion began in Indus Valley civilization, whose refutation I've given godzillion times. What is even more mind numbing is that Sangave clings on to the straws of Rishabh when Rishabh in the first place finds extensive mention in the Rig Veda---acknowledged to be one of the world's oldest extant texts !! So which religion has first claim to the IVC ? Jainism or Vedic religion ? But according to Sangave it should be Jainism, whereas striking similarities to Rishabh deva in Rigved, Shiva, Devi, Pashupathinath, Yogic postures can be all dammed.	Forget Sangave, there are many scholars who hold that Jainism did have some link with IVC. This is not my invention. True, Indus script is not yet dechipered and scholars hold a divergent views on IVC. Some of it is quite speculative but they all hold that IVC and Vedic civilisation were different. That is why I did not put this up in my edit and mentioned only in talk page. In fact some authors like P.S.K. Pandian hold that Shaivism is different from Vedic religion and consider Shiva and Rishabha as same persons. (I was not mentioning it as this theory is not accepted universally and is not really relevant in this context. I am only mentioning it to show a divergence of views) The fact that Rishabha is mentioned in Rgveda, does that not mean logically that he existed before writing of Vedas ? See list of references below.

List of references on Sramanas and IVC

A) References for “Shramana's antiquity stretching back in parallel to Vedic times”

1. Mary Pat Fisher (1997) In : Living Religions: An Encyclopedia of the World's Faiths I.B.Tauris : London ISBN 1860641482

“The extreme antiquity of Jainism as a non-vedic, indigenous Indian religion is well documented. Ancient Hindu and Buddhist scriptures refer to Jainism as an existing tradition which began long before Mahavira.” Page 115

• My comment : Long before Mahavira meaning 2-3 centuries before Mahavira, as in connection with the semi-lengendary figure of Parshva. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My response : Long before obviously mean “long before”. Had it meant 2 -3 centuries the author would have mentioned it. You are mis-interpreting it to suit your notion. --Anish (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• My comment : And you know the author personally well, or are you aware of the norms of documentation of historical chronology ? References cited earlier provide actual DATES and a "long before" phrase without dates unarguably comes within the dates provided. For even if it does not, a subjective assumption of dating to IVC can't be done as you have.

Your statement proved wrong here : Christopher Chappel, whom you yourself quote later has indeed provided a definitive date on Parsvanath much to your likely dismay and disapproval : "(Mhavira)'s predecessor Parsvanatha has been dated to the years surrounding 850 B.C.E. 22 other Jinas are said to have preceded Mahavira and Parsvanath but no historical evidence exists to prove or disprove their existence. "

As a prelude to the discussions that come further, let me post the comments of Yan Dhyansky, University of California on "The Indus-Valley Origin of Yoga Practice" :

• Equally peculiar to the Indus Valley and stamped with an individual character of their own are its arts and its religion. Taken as a whole, their religion is so characteristically Indian as hardly to be distinguishable from still living Hinduism or at least from that aspect of it which is bound with animism and the cults of Siva and the Mother Goddess - still two most popular worships.

From here : http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648%281987%2948%3A1%2F2%3C89%3ATIVOOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'My Response' : Dont teach me norms. “Long Before” should be read in conjunction with the previous statement of author i.e. “Extreme Antiquity of Jainism” and the intent of the author is quite clear as to what she means by “Long Before”. What part you are not able to understand or is it intentional? Such sort of selective nit picking will not lead to anywhere. Secondly, I never said that 22 Jinas are not pre-historic, in fact they are pre-historic. But so what !!! This was never in doubt. That does not disprove antiquity of Sramanas and Jainism? Even Shiva, Indra, Krsna, Vashista and other vedic and Upanashidic characters are not historical personalities. So does it mean that Vedic age did not exist ???? You cannot have one rule for Vedics and one rule for Sramanas. --Anish (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arey bhai, did you read Christopher Chappel's reference that I gave just above your latest reply ? For Christ's sake, Christopher Chappel is YOUR OWN Source, whom you yourself quoted later on. So are you contradicting your own source ?

Krishna, Shankar and Rama are NOT Vedic. They are mythical figures found in the epics and Puranic literature that began to be written in the late Vedantic age. Indra, Agni and Varuna are Rig Vedic dieties.

Further, I repeat again that do not confuse Shamanism with your sramana. Shamanism is defined as : Shamanism refers to a range of traditional beliefs and practices concerned with communication with the spirit world. There are many variations of shamanism throughout the world, though there are some beliefs that are shared by all forms of shamanism.......In Indian culture as well there are those who are called tantrics and are said to have the power to control spirits and force them to do their bidding.People often visit them for many reasons but most often it is to ensure the spirit's aid in their work or to curse someone who they feel is an enemy of theirs or opposes them.

When McEvilley refers to Shamanism, he refers precisely to the generic term of cult practices that invoke spirits and ghosts. Read his book. He does not mean sramana. Sramana and Shaman are just similar sounding words by sheer co-incidence. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - See how cleverly you side stepped the issue raised by me. I asked – “ Even Shiva, Indra, Krsna, Vashista and other vedic and Upanashidic characters are not historical personalities. So does it mean that Vedic age did not exist ????” and you simply answered – “Krishna, Shankar and Rama are NOT Vedic….” OK let me rephrase the question exactly so that you now understand it and don’t try to side step it – “Even Indra, varuna and other vedic characters are not historical personalities. So does it mean that Vedic age did not exist ????” I asked this question because since you are disputing antiquity of sramana as prior 22 Jinas are not historical. Then in the same vein, as vedic personalities are non-historical, vedic age did not exist. See this is the problem….you misunderstand the question and give a irrelevant reply and go off a tangent. My dear friend, where have I claimed that Shamans and Sramanism are one and the same ???? So what was the need to give me a long drawn lecture on Shamanism and fill up the pages when this is not required. Let McEvilley talk of Shamanism…it has nothing to do with Jainism. I am quoting McEvilley on Jainism and not Shamanism…….boss what is the problem with you; read what I have quoted from McEvilley book …don’t put words in my mouth. --Anish (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Heinrich Zimmer (1969) Joseph Campbell ed. In: Philosophies of India, Princeton University Press NY, ISBN 0691017581

These heterodox systems represent the thinking of the non-Aryan peoples of India, who were overcome and despised by the Brahmans, but nevertheless could boast of extremely subtle traditions of their own. Dr. Zimmer regarded Jainism as the oldest of the non-Aryan group, in contrast to most Occidental authorities, who consider Mahavira, a con¬temporary of the Buddha, to have been its founder instead of, as the jainas themselves (and Dr. Zimmer) claim, only the last of a long line of Jaina teachers. Dr. Zimmer believed that there is truth in the Jaina idea that their religion goes back to a remote antiquity, the antiquity in ques¬tion being that of the pre-Aryan, so-called Dravidian period, which has recently been dramatically illuminated by the discovery of a series of great Late Stone Age cities in the Indus Valley, dating from the third and perhaps even fourth millennium b.c. (cf. Ernest Mackay, The Indus Civilization, London, 1935; also Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, pp. 93ff.).

• My comment : Emphasis is on Jains claim as a long line of Tirthankars. Zimmer's claim also rests on that old straw -- Standing posture unearthed in IVC believed to be that of Rishabh Dev. There are N other yogic postures, Gods and dieties also mentioned in the Rg Ved, but nobody else claims anything. This has been said so many times. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My response : Dr. Zimmer is very clear on this – Jainism goes back to a remote antiquity, the antiquity in question being that of the pre-Aryan. There are no two opinions on this. --Anish (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• My comment : Your premise till date solely and unequivocally rests on just 2 primary hints that are 2 postures of Kayotsarga and standing that were presumably shown to be done by Rishabh as depicted on Indus Valley seals. I doubt that despite my near harangued shouting that IVC seals can be also shown to be a precursor of Vedic or Hindu civilization -- and more at that -- you do not pay attention and repeat the same again.

I'll post this for you to read it here itself ::

The cities, for example, appear to have had a large artificial hill or citadel with what appear to be sizable official buildings (possibly governmental, religious, or both). There was also in Mohenjo-daro what appears to be a large, rectangular bathing area in the main part of the citadel area with steps leading down into it, suggesting some sort of ritual bathing practice (not unlike the ritual bathing "tanks" connected to Hindu temples in later Indian culture).

One seal shows a strange, horned figure sitting in what could be described as a Yogic or meditation posture and surrounded by four animals. Some older archaeologists have suggested that this might be some sort of "proto-Shiva" figure, since in later Hindu traditions the great Hindu god, Shiva, is considered to be the lord of Yoga. Moreover, the four animals might suggest Shiva as "lord of animals" (pashupati), a well-known designation of Shiva in later times. Some more recent archaeologists and art historians have disputed this interpretation.

    'In any case, in addition to the seals, archaeologists have also uncovered what appear to be phallus-shaped stones {my comment : phallus is the Shiva Lingam today} and crude terra-cotta female figurines, suggesting some sort of fertility cult and belief in a mother goddess.   All of this is highly speculative and debatable, mainly because the Indus Valley script and language has not yet been deciphered.  One is left largely with scholarly guesses, but it is intriguing to entertain the possibility that traditions of ritual bathing, some sort of tradition of meditation or Yoga, possible proto-types of Shiva and a mother goddess, and a cult of sacred animals, all of which are prominent features in later Hindu traditions, may indeed be traceable ultimately all the way back to the third millenium B.C.E., and possibly earlier to the Baluchistan and Sind village cultures that go back to time immemorial. 

This was from India.edu Module V. URL is somewhere above. Dig it out if you're patient enough.

A triangular amulet seal uncovered at the Mohenjo-daro archeological excavation site depicts a male, seated on a low platform in a cross legged position, with arms outstretched. His head is crowned with the horns of a water-buffalo. He is surrounded by animals (a fish, an alligator, and a snake) and diverse symbols. The likeness on the seal and understandings of the surrounding culture have led to its widely accepted identification as "Pashupati", Lord of the Beasts, a prototype and predecessor of the modern day Hindu god Shiva. The pose is a very familiar one to yogins, representing Shiva much as he is seen today, the meditating ascetic contemplating divine truth in "yoga-posture".

This was from http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/1331031.xml&style

Looking through the first volume of the Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions, it is clear that male bovines were important symbols to the people of the Indus Valley Civilization. The Harappans seem to have been an integral yet marginal part of the ancient West Asian cultural area where the bull was a central motif. Even today in Hindu South Asia, the bull is an important symbol, for example Nandi as the vehicle for Siva. There seems to be a continuity in the symbolic importance of the bull/bovine in antiquity from West Asia eastward and especially in SouthAsia where it continues in the modern era.

Please note there are clearly carved collar, garland and necklace on the unicorn. Sacrificial animals in village India are often garlanded and decorated in similar ways today. Frederick and Elizabeth Simoons (1968) write that several types of cattle had ritual significance to the Harappan people. They point out that the Rgveda, one of the earliest "texts" of the Indo-Aryan speaking communities refers to the capture of wild cattle for ritual sacrificial purposes (Simoons, 1968). The Vedic texts are the earliest decipherable literature from the former area of the Harappan culture, and it is impossible to gauge how much influence Harappan ideas had upon the people who composed and complied the Vedic texts. However, it is clear that both cultures had cults in which the bull was a significant symbol. As was true of the bulls of the Vedic period, those of the Harappan period seem to have been involved in fertility rituals in which their slaughter was integral.

From here : [11]

Yogic postures, as I've shown have been first described in the Vedas starting from the RiG Veda. It took me 15 minutes to google these 2 more references as you were just not willing to even acknowledge the presence the Indiana.edu ref which I have patched up numerous times earlier.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'My Response' My premise (which is reproduction of dozens of respected scholars and not from Googling the websites) does not simply rest on two hints of poses. There are many other points that have been provided below that you are conveniently ignoring. Even your sources are speculative. And stop googling. Even I can copy paste the infromation after googling the website and you will have trouble replying to each and every one. For eg. today I googled the following and got the following results :-

1. Antiquity of Jainism = 33100 Results
2. Jainism Pre-vedic = 1100 results

I can go on…….There is nothing to stop me from copy pasting from these websites like you. Infact , I can copy paste hundreds of pages from Jainworld.com on Antiquity of Jainism, which I am not doing and simply restricting myself to what scholars are saying. You are accusing me of ignoring the Indiana.edu references while you yourself are ignoring your precious website which says the following : MODULE 6: THE JINA AND THE BUDDHA ( http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm ) which says : “As mentioned earlier in our brief summary of the religions of India, 'the Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times', that is, to the second millenium Before the Common Era (2000-1500 BCE), although the precise origins of the tradition are not yet fully known.” MODULE 11 itself admits that: “With the Indo-Shramanical layer, which may well reflect the 'resurfacing of pre-brahmanical traditions.'” This and acceptance of Parsva by Scholars goes on to prove that Mahavira was not the founder of Jainism as you are hell bent on proving just to show the superiority of vedas over other religions. The website clearly states that Jain tradition goes back to IVC not simply some of its practices like you would like us to believe. --Anish (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Boss, I have gone through all of the books and detailed references you gave, whether it is Zimmer, Christopher Chappel, or the fantastic magnum opus of Thomas McEvilley. I have given the url for all their e-books as reference. The only difference is that while you probably browsed those books in a library, I spent time browsing those e-books on the internet. Since I've given their url's already, so don't go off on another one of your ill-informed tangential accusations.

We have already discussed that very quote that you pasted above from the Indiana website on this page here : [12]. Read my reply there again. In concert with what the site says about Shiva and goddesses it is a list of speculative maybe's and might be's. This cannot be passed on as fact otherwise I, Bakaman, Gouranga will start making changes across the board claiming Hinduism has established origins in the IVC.

Module 11 clearly says in the beginning that Jainism began with Mahavira in 500 BC. Full-stop. Now what does it mean when in the very same section it says, "with the Indo-Shramanical layer, which may well reflect the 'resurfacing of pre-brahmanical traditions" ? This is what I had added in my latest edit that the penances or austerical practices of the Saiva, Ajivika and Jaina cults like moving naked, standing erect and cross-leggedness can be traced to Vedic times or possibly the IVC (according to McEvilley, they are traceable to Mesopotamia and Sumer).

This does not mean that Saiva cult or Ajivika cult or Jaina cult began life in Sumer or even in the IVC. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Well you cannot put full stop wherever you like. Once again you have ignore this - MODULE 6: THE JINA AND THE BUDDHA (http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm ) which says : “As mentioned earlier in our brief summary of the religions of India, 'the Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times', that is, to the second millenium Before the Common Era (2000-1500 BCE), although the precise origins of the tradition are not yet fully known.” I am not denying the proto-shiva possibility. So why not accept this “possibility” also. --Anish (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Harry Oldmeadow (2007) Light from the East: Eastern Wisdom for the Modern West, World Wisdom, Inc ISBN 1933316225

Over time, apparent misunderstandings have arisen over the origins of Jainism and relationship with its sister religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. [..] There has been an ongoing debate between Jainism and Vedic Hinduism as to which revelation preceded the other. What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with vedic Hinduism known as sramana dharma. Essentially, the sramana tradition included it its fold, the Jain and Buddhist traditions, which disagreed with the eternality of the Vedas, the needs for ritual sacrifices and the supremacy of the Brahmins. Page 141

• My comment : Date of so-called "Vedic Hinduism" ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My response : Emphasis is on….. What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with vedic Hinduism known as sramana dharma --Anish (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Dr. A. N. Upadhye , A Cultural History of India, Clarendon Press, Oxford

As Dr. A. N. Upadhye remarked -- "The origins of Jainism go back to the pre-historic times. They are to be sought in the fertile valley of Ganga, where they flourished in the past, even before the advent of Aryans with their priestly religion, a society of recluses who laid much stress on individual exertion, on practice of a code of morality and devotion to austerities, as means of attaining religious Summum Bonum." , P. 100

• My comment : ???? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• My comment : Mr. Upadhye needs a lesson in history. IVC centered around the Indus river and not the Gangetic basin, sir. The latter was the hotbed of the latter Vedic age and the Vedantic.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'My Response' : Please read Dr. Upadhaye sentence once again. There is not a remote reference of IVC. If nothing, his scholarly observation goes on to prove that Sraman and Vedic existed side by side, or rather prior to advent of Aryans, on Gangetic basins. I fail to understand as to how you are misunderstanding such simple sentences of scholars and then making irrelevant comments for the heck of it ? --Anish (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My response  : Mr. Upadhye says that before the Aryans came, there already existed a society of 'recluses' in the Gangetic basin. Which civilization is this ? What is its name ? Is it an extension of Indus Valley ? What proof does he have for saying that a "society flourished in the Gangetic basin before Aryans" ? No historical body's records including ASI show any such settlement. The earliest known civilization in the Indian subcontinent before the conquest of the Aryans is the IVC and that was centered around the Indus valley basin. If Upadhye is referring to Stone Age men, then that's a different matter altogether. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Are you trying to say that the Aryans/vedics suddenly populated the gangetic basins out of nowhere!!! Who did Aryans invade ? Animals and plants!!! Have you not heard of AIT ? Are you aware of Dravidians and other tribes existing before Aryans (and they ma ybe having or not having links with IVC) ? --Anish (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Dr. Kalghatgi, T. G. 1988 In: Study of Jainism, Prakrit Bharti Academy, Jaipur

The essence of Indian culture is to be found in the synthesis of the sramana and the vedic currents of thought. Sramana current of thought is non-vedic. It is infact pre-vedic.

• My comment : Dr. Kalhatgi says, "it is infact pre-Vedic" without any explanation or evidence, archaeological or otherwise. Just saying it does not make it so. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'My Response' Ditto for you. Merely harangued shouting and googling websites will not prove anything on wikipedia --Anish (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My response : Your comment is valid for the unread. I have googled YOUR OWN books and sources in detail and put them up for you to read. Kalhatgi's comment is just that, a passing comment without proof. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Well thanks for your tip on google books --Anish (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

B) Links between IVC and Jainism

1. Christopher Key Chappel 1993, Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions SUNY Press ISBN 0791414973

Several Scholars including Ramprasad Chandra, John Marshall, and Mircea Eliade, claim that current yogic practices stem from Indus Valley sramanistic rituals as indicated on these seals. However, Doris Srinivasan warns against associating them with later Hindu Culture. Page 6 Both Meditative poses and apparent veneration for animals have been cited by Thomas McEvilley as evidence of proto yoga tradition in India akin to Jainism. In support of his claim, he refers to Indus seals where animals surround a person engaged in what he describes as mulabandhasana, a sitting yogic posture whereby ones heels are pressed against perineum with knees pressed firmly to the ground. Page 6 This particular image, depicting a contemplative figure surrounded by a multitude of animals might suggest that all the animals depicted are sacred to this particular practioner. Consequently, these animals would be protected from harm. This might be the first indication of the practice of ahimsa. Page 7

• My comment : Might be, consequently and might be an indication of ahimsa. Does it mean it was ? Read Excavations section from here http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_09/mod_09.htm. Nobody can claim anything. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My response : When you are talking of “pre-history” there can be no definitive answers. There are multitude of references and indications to prove the link of Jainism. --Anish (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• My comment : In your edit itself I have boldened the phrases "might be", "consequently", Might be an indication"....do you have difficulty in perception or cognition ? This is all speculative and NOT conclusive or deterministic.

So many times I have told you that the same can be said of the IVC and Vedic civilization BUT NOBODY MAKES CLAIMS SO LONG AS THE SEALS REMAIN UNDECIPHERED. What part of all this don't you get ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'My Response' See my previous times response on this. I had already mentioned that “When you are talking of “pre-history” there can be no definitive answers.” Maximum that we can prove is some ‘’links’’. Why are you repeating the same thing? --Anish (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment  : Arey, Parshva existed around in 800 BC according to Christopher Chapple, McEvilley and even the article on Parsva on wikipedia says so (see the reference list at the bottom). Your dialogue that prehistory-has-no-definitive-answers is countered with actual dates of Parsva's semi-legendary existence. Still you are ignoring actual hard-stamped dates like 800 B.C and see only vague descriptive terms like "prehistory". Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Ha ! Caught you. It is you who are ignoring hard – stamped dates like 8th Century BCE when you claim Jainism originated in 6th Century BCE. Just to push below the historical origins of Jainism you are quoting knapp and saying Pasrva is a vedic god !!! --Anish (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment  : You've shot yourself in the foot ! Mahavira is the only known historical Tirthankar. Parsva is a semi-legendary tirthankara, who may have lived not earlier than around 800 B.C. As I've referenced so many times here, all the other 22 Jain tirthankars are fictional and so Jainism cannot stretch to . So if you finally accept that Parsva is the penultimate tirthankara, there go all your arguments about Jainism being parallel to Vedic religion and best of all, the IVC and Sumer.....down the drain.

And boss, your street baniya-giri is useless here. Parsva a Vedic god ? I said that ? Just coz there is no third judgmental moderator here doesn't mean you can say anything. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - - Well can you name atleast one vedic personality who is historical ? Apply the same logic to vedism and your entire argument goes for a toss. Historicity of 22 Jinas has nothing to do with historicity of Sramanas. I need not respond to your casteist remarks. You have started to show your true colours. --Anish (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : Do you understand or even have an inkling of what's being discussed here ? The Rig Veda itself is a solid living historical book similar to Zoroastrianism's Zen Avesta or Judaism's Torah; who needs Vedic characters ? The Ramayana itself is historic but according to the ASI, lord Ram and his bridge are likely to be not.

The corpus of literature dating is more important and in the case of the Vedas, it is proven. 59.184.26.223 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

---

This particular scene is also described in the Acaranga sutra, the oldest text of Jaina canon. It is said to adorn the palanquin that Mahavira ascended in the fantastic and embellished tale that describes his renunciation. Seal 420, unearthed at Mohenjodaro portrays a person with 3 or possibly 4 faces. Jaina iconography frequently decpts its tirtahnkaras with four faces, symbolizing their missionary activities in all four directions. The figure portrayed in seal 420 as well as those depicted in seals 222 and 235 and in various other images, sits in the mulabandhasana mentioned above. The first literary mention of this pose is found in the Acaranga Sutra and later in Kalpa sutra in association with Mahaviras pose when he entered into the state of Kaivala, the pinnacle of Jaina spirituality. For McEvilley, the depiction of this pose in the Indus valley material and the later description in the Jaina texts perovide evidence of a strong link between the archaic and the institutional religion of India. Page 7 One stamped amulet from Mohenjodaro depicts a figure in what McEvilley calls as mulabandhasana flanked by two devotees and two upright serpents; McEvilley notes that the Tirthankara Parsvanatha at the moment he passed into kaivala was protected on both sides by upright serpents. Another seal depicts “seven persons in upright position with arms somewhat hanging somewhat stiffly and held slightly away from the sides of the body. Which correlates with the Jaina Kayatsarga pose, the posture in which the very first Tirthankara, Rshabha, is said to have entered kevala. [..]</blue> While this can be interpreted in may ways, Richard Lannoy however does see Jaina influences on this seal : “That of a nude man represented as a repeat-motif in a rigidly upright position, legs slightly apart, arms held parallel to the sides of his body, which recurs as a Jaina tirthankara, repeated row upon row. Page 8 Depictions of a bull appear repeatedly in the artifacts of the Indus Val¬ley, Lannoy, McEvilly, and Padmanabh Jaini all have suggested that the abundant use of the bull image in the Indus Valley civilization indicates a link with Rsabha, the first of the twenty four Tirthankaras, whose companion ani¬mal is the bull.

My comment Utter falsity on Vratyas. This is what An Introduction to Hinduism, Pg. 79, by Gavin. Flood has to say how Vratyas were described in the Atharva Vedas  :-

...the Atharva Veda Samhita attests to the existence of Vratyas....They comprised itinerant groups who spoke the same language as the Vedic Aryans (note this), but who were regarded with disdain. The Atharva Veda describes them as wearing a turban, dressed in black, with two Ram skins over their shoulders.

here

Do they bear any remote resemblance with Jain vratyas ? Read the next para as it is un-typable as to what rituals the Vratyas did. Clearly, they were not Jains as the description ill-suits that of Jain monks or aescetics.

Vishnu and Shiva also have hooded serpents over them as described in the epics, and Puranas respectively. So does this bode well for the claims one is making on Parsva ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My response : I am happy to note that atlast you have done something that bears some resemblance to research. But that you have done that selectively to suit your notions.

• First of all it is interesting to note that in quoting Gavin Flood, you are quoting him selectively, You have ignored his following quote which clearly says that Hinduism borrowed the concepts of Karma and Samsara from Sramana’s - “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

• My comment : You assiduously sidetracked Gavin Flood's comment on Vratyas and veered it towards what he said about sramana. Besides, unwittingly or intentionally you passed off as fact what is just again a speculation. Re-read what he says again : "It is very possible that the karmas and reincarnation entered the mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renouncer traditions. Besides, I earlier pointed out that Christopher Chappel himself doesn't date Parsvanath to beyond 850 BCE. So should I now accuse you of preferential quoting and preconcieved notions ?

'My Response' Where have I sidetracked Vratyas? You have not read my comment on Vratyas below that I am re producing - Vratyas of AV were perhaps a precursor of Sramanas page 501 by Valerie J. Roebuck(2004) in “The Upinashads” Penguin Classics ISBN 0140447490 In fact you have sidetracked many issues as shown by me below. --Anish (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : You missed out Gavin Flood's commentary on Vratyas which I had reproduced. Their practices as reproduced in full like wearing turbans, wearing ram skins and doing all X-rated things that Mahavira told his followers not to do. Thus they are clearly not the spiritual predecessors of sramana. Gavin describes the AV description of Vratyas in much greater verse-wise detail than Valerie Roebuck does, and he does not say that they were Jain precursors.

Besides, Valerie Roebuck herself again says that "perhaps" Vratyas were Jain precrsors. That perhaps is not admissible as fact, like you want to do. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Well Why are you missing out Valerie Roebuck comment on Sramanas. Learn what were Sramanas and then comment. “Sramanas like Indian sadhus, seem to have followed a variety of practices some of them wearing distinctive robes or animal skins, others going naked, some of them with shaven heads, other with matted hair. Both Buddhism and Jainism originated in Sramana circles as did a number of other movements that did not survive like Ajivikas.” page xxii. Now, apply your logic to Vedics and now present day Hindus. Compare the Practice of Animal Sacrifice, worship of Indra etc. and other practices of Vedics with present day Brhamins who abstain from meat and worship Shiva/ Vishnu. So now with your logic there is no connection between Hinduism and Vedic. --Anish (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : O bhai, Indra is worshipped as the lord of the heavens. In Mahabharat and Ramayana he finds extensive mention and action (ever heard who was the God who was pouring rain and blowing thunderstorms when Krishna was holding up mount Govardhan on his little finger ? You guessed it. Or do you need to be reminded of Indra-jeet, Ravana's son's name coz he had defeated Indra in war ?)

If you've read Indian religions fairly well, you should know by now that cow slaughter is extensively prohibited in the Vedas. Even bulls were not spared. It was Jainism and Buddhism which truly ushered in the concept of general vegetarianism, which was meant to be adopted only by the priestly brahmanical class (not Kshtriyas and shudras). Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - - And what about meat eating and sacrifices by Priests and contrast it with meat aversion of current priests? And how did the all powerful king of Gods get replaced by the new trinity ? Then there are no resemblances of vedics with current Hindus, only certain practices of vedics have been adopted in Hinduism. --Anish (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : I said COW slaughter. Scroll up and read what I wrote again. Here you are transgressing into the realm of Vedas and Hinduism. They are the apex books of Hinduism even today. Their verses as written 3 millenia ago are recited at thousands of religious agni yagnas even today and those very gods are invoked in the same manner for the same purposes they were at that time.

Read my talk on Vedic period, Sanskrit etc. Here we are discussing Jainism's age and in a larger metaphor, sramana's age. Kumbh mela sadhus have always roamed around in Vratya-like manner for as long as 500 A.D. The same goes for the extinct Ajivikas, all-time Saivas and the Jainas. Only their way of life has an ancestry or a possible social lineage. Sramana, Kumbh mela and Saivism individually as philosophies DO NOT date that far back. 59.184.26.223 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I have highlighted that part in your reference which you cunningly left out as [...]. It is a thinly veiled attempt to misguide not only the few patient readers of this, but also the general mission of fact finding here on wikipedia. I will fill in the blanks here :

"...Schimdt states that the concept of ahimsa as we meet it with the Jains is not based on ethical ideas, but on a magico-ritualistic dread of destroying life in any form. These authors also claim that Mahavira was not a vegetarian, a claim contradicted by Jain scholar H. Kapadia.

Alsdorf suggests that reincarnation, veneration of the cow and non-violence all have their roots in the Indus Valley culture. Schmidt dismissis the notion that vegetaranism was found in the IVC..."

"...however, McEvilley's assumption that Mahavira sat in the Mulbandhasana is contradicted by both the depiction on the seal and the depiction found in the texts. On the seal it is difficult to ascertain if the knees are firmly planted on the ground, which is essential for mulabandhasana as is traditionally practiced. In the text, the pose is described as a squatting position known as godoha-asana or cow-milking pose.

" Parsvanatha has been verified as living around 850 BCE".

All this from Christopher Chapple.

'My Response' when you are providing this why not also provide what chappel says about Schmidt and Alsdorf …Page 5 ….Recent scholarly investigations tend to refute Schmidts conclusions as material in next section indicate…..(an attempt to mislead the discusion ?) --Anish (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : That comment on page 5 over here, [13] Chaple ssimply says that because bones of animals were found in the garbage cans of a city doesn't mean that all its inhabitants ate meat. Schmidt assumes that since animal bones were found in the excavations of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, so atleast some (if not all) of its inhabitants were non-vegetarian.

Now what has veg/non-veg gotta do with the topic at hand ? Is this another lame attempt of yours ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Exactly my point !!! whats veg/non-veg gotta do with the topic at hand. Just look up above. It is you who starter with Schmidt and Alsdorf and veg/nonveg. Why to discuss these things. --Anish (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : Dude, you yourself raised the point about what Chapple said on page 5 about Schmidt, and I pointed it out for you. Now where are you, here or there ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - - Well it was on a relevant topic and you just to fill up pages went on a irrelevant topic. --Anish (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Now for Thomas McEvilley's hypothesis on the three or four headed gods :-

• The Indus Valley stamp seals portraying figures in the seated mulabandhasana position have several Mesopotamian parallels. The motif of three-facedness or four-facedness have been connected to the later Hindu many faced figures.

It should be said here that the central focus of Thomas McEvilley's work is to find striking similarities between Indian (Indus and Vedic) cultures with those of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations. By a thorough comparison of seals, edicts, paintings, sculptures he arrives at a conclusion that the IVC/Vedic cultures had been diffused from the Mesopotamian and even Egyptian cultures.

Also, when the author says 'Shaman', it is not the same as 'Sramana'. Shaman is any occult form that a singular person does to invoke the supernatural. Look at the article on Shamanism. Shamans range from American Indians, to tropical South Americans. He goes on to make comparisons between the Sumerian Adapas with Rg Vedic Munis.

He also makes a distinction between the Ajivika and Jain schools of thought. Both were competitors vying for membership and attention. As an example, Gosala and Mahavira both claimed to be the 24th Tirthankars.

• (Pg 250) At a later period, the heraldic flanking composition was naturalized and assimilated in India and became (as in Mesopotamia), the basic iconographic structure. The Buddha meditating, or almost and Indian diety, is shown on a central axis with heradically flanking figures. One example among many is the Buddhist icon called the Bath of Lakshmi, in which the Goddess stands on a Lotus, heraldically flanked by the trunks of elephants, which appears at the stupa of Bharut. This icon probably passed into the Buddhist mileau from the Jain. It occurs in the Kalpa Sutra's description of the dream of the second mother of the Jain leader Mahavira on the night when the embryo was placed in her womb; at that moment, she sat on top of Mt. Himavat reposing on a lotus in the Lotus lake anointed with water from the strong and large trunks of the elephants (Kalpa sutra, 36). "The origins of Jainism", as one Jain scholar put it, "reach back to the remotest depths of unrecorded Indian past". Infact, they may reach back past the Indus valley into the heart of Sumer.

Lakshmi flanked by elephants is a Hindu diety, and not a Jain one, first described in the Puranas. Bharut stupa dates to 150 B.C. and so is equally likely to have borrowed this from the Purans. Kalpa sutra was composed around 250 B.C. and so is not the sole origin of this particular motif in India (which by the way also borrows the concept of Hiranyagarbha and Brahmin-Kshtriya caste system to explain the births of its 24 Tirthankars [14]. Anyway McEvilley is concerned only about linking this particular motif to Mesopotamia and not about Indian faiths.

• Figures seated cross-legged and assuming ritual hand-positions also occur, though not precisely in the heels-joined position. The animals surrounding the 'Siva' seal in the Indus seals answer to the animals floating around the scene in many Sumerian cylinder seals.

• For whatever reasons, the Aryan community at this time seemed to have allowed a controlled inflow of elements from the non-Aryan tradition of ascetic shamanic yogic body practices and possibly protomeditation. Figures such as vratyas, non Aryan Vedic Aryan ascetics described in the 15th ook of the Atharva Veda, and described as Munis in the 10th book of the Rig Veda as long-haired, naked, smeared with dust and maddened were introduced into the Aryan community and its literature. These figures are connected with later Saiva cults, but there are clear connections between them and the Ajivika-Jain lineages too. Ajivikas as well as Saiva yogis went naked, smeared themselves with ashes and vowed silence. Kesin (long-haired) is not only the name of a Muni, but also of Jain tirthankars.

Note he says that Saiva as well as Ajivika-Jain cults MAY have been connected to Vrtyas and munis. So he is guessing or conjecturing and not establishing or proving anything. You are assuming the latter conclusion. By the way, if Kesin (as described in the Vedas) are a Vedic connotation, it means the Jains borrowed it to describe their leaders.

Here is the turning point of the discussion. If it is also Saiva saints (Vedics/Hindus) along with Ajivika and Jain munis, it is thus circumstantial evidence of continuity of not just Saivism or just latter Sramana (not shamanic) traditions. It means that the ascetic behaviour or way of life branched out into these two distinct groups. It does not go to say that Saivism or Jainism or Ajivika THOUGHTS can be traced back so far as to the time of the advent of Aryans in the sub-con or even so far as the Sumerian civilization. What was continuous was not the ideas of Saiva or sramana, but socio-religious cult practices. I can give you a concession only here.

'My Response' Your so called turning point is nothing but passing of a your opinion and POV as fact in the garb of long analysis of copy pasted website material. In fact you have ended up proving that there is a scholarly view that “some” links can be “possible” Very slyly you are saying saivism and “latter sramana” while the author says “later saiva cults” So should I not acuse of misquoting on sly !!! But I am not fooled as I am reading it properly. The author also says “there are clear connections between them and the Ajivika-Jain lineages too” Now what does ' “clear connections” ' mean ? And please stick to the topic without going off track. --Anish (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : [font color = "red"]Dude, I am quoting YOUR OWN source, para by para, which you were happily flaunting to me earlier. That source is Thomas McEvilley. Simply robotically saying "you are googling copy-pasted material" means you are clearly not paying any attention to what I write, or just ignoring like how one deletes bad accounts from account books. Unfortunately there is no third editor who can take a stand on all this, as this page runs into a million words by now.[/font] Saiva, Ajivika and Jaina are all LATTER day cults, only whose self-punishing practices or wanton bodily discomforture like standing erect, not saying a word, nakedness etc. etc. are traceable to IVC and possibly (according to McEvilley that is), to Mesopotamia and Sumer. McEvilley or nobody says that Saiva or Ajivikas were Mesopotamian or Sumerian or even date back to Harappa and Mohenjodaro. So how do you do say so for Jainas ?

And please, "clear connections with Ajivika-Jain lineages" was a retrospective after the "connections with later Saiva cults". Simply because he did not use the word "clear" for Saiva but did so for Ajivka-Jain, and simply because he used the word "latter" for Saiva, you are jumping to conclusions that Ajivka-Jain dates back to IVC and Saiva does not ? This is the height of nonsense and word by word nitpicking. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Not so fast my dear chap…..You yourself are proving that you are nit-picking and not ready to see alternative view. Sometimes to suit your convenience make saiva as older and then when it suits you put it as latter cult. And please note that Jainism is not a cult, please mind your language. --Anish (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : When did I make Saiva "older" ? Saiva cult is a LATTER day cult, I repeat again for your jaundiced view point. Saiva, Ajivika and Jain have practice-based continuities and NOT idea based ones. Do you think Jainism has roots in Sumer ? Thomas McEvilley merely says that there are similarities. He and Indiana and Christopher Chapple also say that IVC people had some seals that may suggest continuity with Jain tirthankars, Pasupathi, Lakshmi goddess, Hindu bathing-ghats, Yoga, Shiva, Ajivikas and what not.

Munis of the Rig-vedas are eerily similar to Ajivikas, Saiva cults and Jaina tirthankars ONLY BY WAY OF THEIR PHYSIOLOGICAL BEINGS LIKE NUDITY, SELF-PUNISHING BODILY PENANCES. Flood points out that Vratyas went about "living in song, sex and dance". Didn't Mahivira teach celibacy to his followers ?

EVER seen Sadhus at Kumbh mela ? Naked ? Smeared with ash ? Celibate ? Singing and dancing ? Doesn't it remind you of our very own Vratyas !!

Look, Mahavira and Buddha were rich princes. They were not born mendicants. They just adopted the practices of those mendicants and preached their intellectual ideas. Similarly, worshippers of Shiva adopted the very same practices for their own mode of worship.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - - Similarities and co-incidences make the scholars make some educated guesses to arrive at possible conclusions. So what is wrong in that? What you have said and then done a somersault is there on pages for everyone to see. And stop doing your "Original Research" and keep the topic restricted to what scholars say. --Anish (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jainism began with Mahavira around 500 BC. 500 - 400 BC was the age of Sramana (not shaman) which peaked with Buddha and Mahavira. Yes, their socio-cultural antecedants--- as exactly like those of Saivas --- like smearing themselves with ash, walking naked, penance can be traced long back to the Vedic age (and to Mesopotamia and Egypt, if we are to believe Thomas McEvilley) but not their very archetypical, parochial ideas.

Thomas McEvilley then goes on trying to make connects between Egyptian preists and Saiva yogis and between Greek gods and Buddhist monks. "Akkadian priests did their duties in the temple while dressed in drag, much like the Ramakrishna and other priests of Kali in India.The Ajivika monk went sky-naked, as did the Digambara or sky-clad Jains. The Svetambara Jains dressed only in white, as did the Orphic of Euripides in The Cretans. The Vratyas of the Atharva Veda went naked as did the munis of the Rg Veda; both represented a phase of the Indo-Sumerian tradition prior to the puritanical reforms by Mahavira and others" (Pg. 275)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vpqr1vNWQhUC&pg=PP1&dq=The+Shape+of+Ancient+Thought:+Comparative+Studies+in+Greek+and+Indian+Philosophies&sig=9Em_5Y1z7DIizO8DGb9zkwQ0VhA#PPA276,M1

Read page 275, "The Vratyas". The author links their activities like standing for a year, with Mahavira and Parsva. He also says that "they made their living as trvelling magician clans, who made their living in song, sex and dance" as described in the Vedas and other UN-typable stuff.

This once again confirms that there is only a continuity of social practices only (like standing erect for a year and being naked). Their acts are nowhere like the pious ones of Mahavira and Buddha. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Secondly, Taittiriya Aranyaka (Black Yajurveda) clearly describes – “ Vatarasana rsis were sramanas and celibates” TA 2.7 who are described also in Rgveda 10.136

'My Response' You have sidetracked and ignored this comment of vedas which clearly endorses the existence of Sramans along with vedics. This is the TURNING POINT. --Anish (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : There is NO such verse in the Atharva Veda. If you can, point out the exact verse number from here [15]. Firstly, the very word sramana never appears in any of the Vedas. This is what jainworld says about this :- Corresponding to these references, the references to Vatarasana Sramana Rsis and their leader Rsabhadeva occurred in the Bhagawat Purana. Bhagavat Purana is a much recent composition written after the Vedantic age.

Munis are described in the Rig Veda at HYMN CXXXVI (Kesins). The full English translation is here - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10136.htm

Nowhere does the word 'sramana' appear in he entire hymn of 7 verses. Munis and other such people, as McEvilley said, might be physiologically related to latter day Saiva and Ajivika-Jain cults. This doesn't mean Jainism began from rsis. Vratyas, as Gavin F described are nowhere close to modern Saiva-Ajivika-Jainas. So, this doesn't imply that sramana originated along with the Vedic civilization let alont the IVC. The sramana school of thought originated around 600 BC and reached its height during the times of Mahavira and Buddha. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Simply repeating “The sramana school of thought originated around 600 BC and reached its height during the times of Mahavira and Buddha” won’t change the facts. The references on rsis, vratyas, vatarasnas, kesins have been discussed to death before. And when you say that Sramanas reached height during the time of Mahavira and Buddhas, means that Sramanas existed before Mahavira i.e. before 600 BC. So why are you contradicting yourself? --Anish (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My Response : Abey, sramana began around 600 BC and reached its pinnacle

My response - - No!!! Proven that scholars aver that Sramans existed along with vedics and could be pre-vedic. And stop this Abey business, this is not a street brawl.--Anish (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : Firstly all your jaundiced perceptions have been corrected using YOUR OWN SOURCES already. So I needn't repeat that again. Your Own Sources never mention the word sramana in tandem with Vedic culture; they mention SHamanic traditions and link them to Sumer and Egypt besides of course, IVC. And last but not the least, Jainism does not have an exclusive privelege of being a though-about continuum of the Vedic munis, the IVC seals and Akkadians of Mesopotamia --> that tradition is shared by the Ajivikas, and Saivas and Kumbh sadhus also thus further proving that only the social culture somehow survived the millenium 3000-2000 B.C, whereas sramana as an idea was formulated only in the times of Mahavira and Gautama Buddha. 59.184.26.223 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• There were many groups of sramanas in addition to Jains and some of them did wear animal skins besides following asceticsm. For eg according to Valerie J. Roebuck(2004) in “The Upinashads” Penguin Classics ISBN 0140447490

My comment : Absolutely accurate and true. Those groups were Ajivikas and other competing cults like Gosala vs. Mahavira.

“Sramanas like Indian sadhus, seem to have followed a variety of practices some of them wearing distinctive robes or animal skins, others going naked, some of them with shaven heads, other with matted hair. Both Buddhism and Jainism originated in Sramana circles as did a number of other movements that did not survive like Ajivikas.” page xxii

My comment : Perfectly true. Buddhism and Jainism originated with sramana, whose mendicants had the attire described above like clean-shaven bodies, naked, and matted hair.

Vratyas of AV were perhaps a precursor of Sramanas page 501

• You yourselves have noted that Vratyas were regarded with disdain. Many of the Jain Tirthankaras were demonised in the Vedic later texts. So if the Vratyas/ sramanas were spoken in obscene tone it is not surprising. The later Jain texts are also uncharitable (some of them untypable) to Hindu Gods which is not surprising. --Anish (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment : Correction. Jain Tirthankars merely found mention in the Vedas; they were villified in the epics and Vedanta texts of Upanishads (posted in the now non-existent talk page of Dharmic religions; Arishtanemi et al).

Page 8 Additionally, the RgVeda describes the odd practices of an ancient religious order wherein men with unshorn locks are described variously as naked, going where the gods have gone before, “intimate with the wind”, and "a sweet most delightful friend" {Rg Veda. X:136). The Atharvaveda devotes its fifteenth chapter to the Vratyas, a sect that includes among its practices stand¬ing erect in one spot for a full year, a practice mentioned in the Uttara Sutra a jaina text. These references to not cutting the hair, postures such as Mulabandhasana and standing motionless, nudity, and so forth, might be indicative of a proto-yogic religion related to later forms of Jainism. All these materials suggest that some form of religion involving meditation and veneration of animals flourished in the Indus Valley cities. Although it is not possible to conclude that these persons were practitioners of ahimsa as it exists in its present form, so the iconographic and thematic continuity stretching from the Indus Valley into classical and modern Jainism seems evi¬dent. Pp. 8 – 9

• My comments : Firstly, note the key phrases "Might be indicative" and "not possible to conclude". Having thus absolved themselves of complete affirmity, the authors fail to mention that meditation and veneration of animals is a cornerstone of Vedantic and Hindu relious ideals.

• My comments : Guess what ? There's speculation that Parswanatha may have been a Vedic god indeed, and that the Parswanath Jain temple is actually a mislabelled Vedic temple.

An excerpt from the article : ~~

• So how did the Jain temples come to be? It was under King Danga when both the Parsvanatha (954 AD) and the Visvanatha (1002 AD) temples were built. Since he was following his predecessors who were all associated with the Vedic culture, it is unlikely that he would build a Jain temple. Furthermore, both temples were constructed in a similar design. They have towering roofs over the sanctums, which consist of a series of peaks around a central point that resembles the Kailash mountain abode of Lord Shiva, as does the Kandariya Mahadeva, the most prominent Shiva temple. Therefore, again it is most likely that the Parsvanatha temple was originally dedicated to Shiva.

So again, how did the Parsvanatha temple become a Jain temple? Although the guide books say it was originally built for Adinatha, the locals say that a later ruler converted to Jainism who then changed some of the temples from Vedic to Jain. This makes more sense. But the guidebooks don't seem to listen, and this is how rumors and false assumptions get started, and then accepted by the general public. How many other times this has happened to temples and buildings throughout India without it being corrected is anybody's guess. So we need to take a closer look at the evidence, which we will do by the following photographic evidence.

~~

The author later constructs pictorial architectural evidences to claim that the Parswanath temple is not Jaina at all, but was a Vedic temple. From here

My Response : You are quoting some Stephen Knapp who does not have a standing in the academic world. He has made a lot of wild claims bordering on lunacy like Taj Mahal, Red Fort, and various structres in Greece, Rome Egypt etc are vedic temples or have vedic influence. He has also claimed that Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Arabs etc were Hindus !!!! http://www.stephen-knapp.com/photographic_evidence_of_vedic_influence.htm On the other hand many Jain temples have been converted into Hindu Temples as proved by the Indian Press here So how many Jain temples are converted into hindu temples and since when ? --Anish (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Parsva idol was implanted in the temple as late as 1860. There are other sources which also claim that the temple has much more Vedic incantations than Jain. Besides, Stephen Knapp is quoting your favourite Thomas McEvilley itself when he too tries to make connects between Indian gods and Egyptian ones. On Taj Mahal, he was quoting a writ peition filed by P.N Oak in the Supreme court.

'My Response' So you have side stepped the issue of Jain Temples being converted into Hindu Temples. Well might as well. I don’t know why we are discussing this silly things and Stephen Knapp et all, as it is totally irrelevant to the debate which is going off to a tangent. --Anish (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What has this 2007 incident got to do with Parshva's temple ? Parshva is a latter day diety installed in 1860. The Hindu report clearly states, and I quote, "The transformation happened some 20 years ago when people belonging to nearby Kottur village found the sculpture in the rock shelter. They were clearly not aware that it was a Mahavira image, Mr. Gandhirajan clarified. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - And what is this so called “temple conversion” in 1860 got to do with our debate ? --Anish (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Ivan Van Sertima (1988) African Presence in Early Asia, Transaction Publishers: New Jersey, ISBN 0887387179

Two major spiritual influences governed the Indus Valley culture: the philosophy of Jainism and the science of yoga. Contemporary historians underestimate the age of both of these disciplines; Vardhanana Mahavir a contemporary of the Buddha who lived in the fifth century B.C., said to have founded Jainism while a grammarian named Patanjali is held to have written the first yoga sutras in the 2nd century B,C. Evidence unearthed at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa bears, testimony to a far greater antiquity. The genesis of these philosophies occurred during the days of the Indus Valley civilization.

• My comment : Yajur Veda mantra 34/44 recites that only the aspirant who has attained the last 8th fold path stage of yoga, he only realizes omnipresent God .Rig veda mandal 10th sukta 124 mantra 7 says that at this stage Almighty God fully fulfills the soul with utmost merriment. From http://www.vedmandir.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14. Patanjali is preceded by centuries.

My response : ????? --Anish (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• My comment : Yoga sutras appear first in the Yajur Veda and other Vedas and not by Patanjali ( 2nd cen BC) as I pointed out just above your comment. And what's with this : "Evidence unearthed at Mohenjo Daro and Harappa bears, testimony to a far greater antiquity." Does Ivan Sertima describe his evidence ?

'My Response' The evidence is discussed in great detail by various leading scholars. Now I am having concerns, whether you are actually reading what I have previously written!!! --Anish (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My Response : And I have correctly interpreted your tangled misinterpretations by those very scholars here. Yogic descriptions first appear in Vedas and not by Patanjali. But, he was the first to elaborate and codify Yoga asanas. IVC seals do show seemingly Yogic postures, but as the Indiana site said, so long as we cannot translate the Harappan inscriptions, no conclusions can be made.

I have given Gavin Flood and Sir John Marshall's references in detail in the very next comment below in response to Prof. Ram Prasad Chanda's reference you gave just below this. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Images in Harappan artwork corroborate the existence of Jainism in the Harappan civilization. One of the characteristics of the Jain a monks is that upon initiation they would become gymnosophist. Several of these nude religious images have been unearthed in terra cotta form; these constitute powerful evidence of the Jaina presence in Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. A,L. Basham describes these images to be of "nude men with coiled hair; their posture, rigidly upright, with the legs slightly apart, and the arms held parallel to the sides of the body but not touching it, closely resembles the stance called by the Jaina's Kayotsarga in which meditating teachers are often portrayed in later times." Page 97

3. Prof. Ram Prasad Chanda, (who supervised Indus Valley Civilisation excavations), article Mohen-jo-Daro: Sindh 5000 Years Ago in Modern Review (August, 1932)

Not only the seated deities on some of the Indus seals are in Yoga posture and bear witness to the prevalence of Yoga in the Indus Valley Civilisation in that remote age, the standing deities on the seals also show Kayotsarga (a standing or sitting posture of meditation) position. The Kayotsarga posture is peculiarly Jain. It is a posture not of sitting but of standing. In the Adi Purana Book XV III, the Kayotsarga posture is described in connection with the penance of Rsabha, also known as Vrsabha.

My comment Both the above references emphasize on Kayotsarga. What about the description of Yogic postures in the RV and YV ? What about Rishabha being extensively mentioned in the RV as a bull ??

My response : Kayotsarga is not the only link between Jainism and IVC. There are many other links that have been discussed above. --Anish (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment :...yes, discussed above and dissected above too.

'My Response' Aimless dissections that actually misguide are useless and time wasting. --Anish (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My comment : Yes. Total time wasting by your ethereal maybe's, might-be's and 'clear connections'. Other than Kayotsarga, and sitting cross-legged, which other posture do you have ? Can you even enumerate them one by one ? Sitting cross-legged while meditating is also a Shaivite/Yogic posture. See Flood (1996), pp. 28-29 for Proto-Shiva figure.

Also see this (from Flood (1996), pp. 28-29 "The Saiva Traditions", and also Flood (2003), pp. 204-205. "The Saiva Traditions") :-

• Sir John Marshall and others have claimed that this figure is a prototype of Shiva, and have described the figure as having three faces, seated in a "yoga posture" with the knees out and feet joined. Semi-circular shapes on the head are often interpreted as two horns. Gavin Flood characterizes these views as "speculative", saying that while it is not clear from the seal that the figure has three faces, is seated in a yoga posture, or even that the shape is intended to represent a human figure, it is nevertheless possible that there are echoes of Shaiva iconographic themes, such as half-moon shapes resembling the horns of a bull. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My response - Good lord !!! Why are you repeating the same things again and again and forcing me to repeat it. Can’t you read it. As stated earlier it is not the question of one yogic pose there are many other things that have been said on these pages. I am tired of reading your same hackneyed objections and answering you again. --Anish (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Indus civilisation, Rigveda, and Hindu culture / Author: Deshmukh, P. R. Publisher: Nagpur : Saroj Prakashan, Date: 1982.

The first Jain T¤rtha¯kara belonged to Indus Valley Civilisation. The Indus Valley deities were nude. The Jains sustained that culture and worshipped nude T¤rtha¯karas

My comment Same.

My response : So is mine !! --Anish (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Dr. Natalya Guseva (Russian scholar) in her book Jainism says :-

If one juxtaposes the yogic posture on Indus seals with the fact that the most ancient philosophical work of the Jains, ‘The Book of Wisdom of Arhatas’ ascribed to Rsabha himself was also called Yoga (Benjamin Rowland, The Art and Architecture of India, Plate 81a) and also that this posture is the classical echelon of the posture of Tirthankara for 25 centuries (and possibly much longer); then all this brings back to our minds the thought that there is possibly an ancient connection between Jainism and the Indus Valley Civilisation.

My comment Rishabh et al..... My response : Yep and many other things. --Anish (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment : Note : "there is possibly an ancient connection between Jainism and the Indus Valley Civilisation." So like the others Dr. Guseva is also not making any concrete claims. Just "possible connections" in the same way as Gavin Flood makes possible connections to Shaiva cults in his book, "The Saiva traditions", 1996. No conclusion. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Thomas McEvilley (2002) The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies Allworth Communications, Inc. 816 pages ISBN 1581152035

Among many forms of Indian atomism, the occurrence of such contradictions is unique to Jainism and it seems to identify it as older than other forms. It is not just that Jainism seems to be pre-buddhist, In fact “ Jainas hold their religion and philosophy to be even older than Vedic thought” and it may be parts of it can be traced clear back to the IVC. Page 203. The origins of Jain iconography reach back like the origins of Jainism itself to the remotest depth of unrecorded Indian past. In fact they may reach back past the Indus valley into the heart of Sumer. P. 250

My comment  : Reach past to the heart of Sumer ? Sumer ? Why don't you go further to Mayas in the Americas ?

My Response : Totally irrelevant comment. Mayas have nothing to do with this current debate. --Anish (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Larson, Gerald James (1995) “India’s Agony over religion” SUNY Press ISBN 079142412X

There is some evidence that Jain traditions may be even older than the Buddhist traditions, possibly going back to the time of the Indus valley civilization, and that Vardhamana rather tha being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition. Page 27

My comment  : 'May be', 'might be'. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

--Anish (talk) 19 November 2007 (UTC)

'My Response' Yes everything is maybe, might be, these are scholarly educated guesses and that applies to what you have written. Most of the things prior to 8th – 9th Century BCE is pre-history and nothing can be definitive. Maybe now you will try to provethat Shiva, Indra, Krsna, Rama, Vashista and other vedic personalities are historical personalities to prove your point. --Anish (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

'My comment :' You just point out where I actually said or even hinted that Shiva, Krishna, Rama are historical. Didn't you hear of ASI's reponse in the Ram Setu case ?

My response - Sigh!. See my reply on vedic gods above ? And please don’t mix politics here or this page will go on becoming longer and longer. --Anish (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, finally, your 'maybes' and 'might be's' are unacceptable and inadmissible as fact which you are very wryly trying to do..Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey IAF, why do you hide behind your silly monicker? Come out with your real name. I have been reading what you have written. You are incredibly petulant and rude! In your world view, there is no room for difference of opinion.

Any shred of evidence that suits you is brahma-vakya. And any that does not is dismissed as unimportant! You should be running for elections. You would do well as a rabble rouser.

Wikipedia is a forum for intellectual discussions, not for your brand of domineering fights that invariably sink into condescending and offensive remarks about religions other than your own.

You know and I know and the world knows that Jainism is an ancient religion of India, quite independent of the Vedic / Hindu / Brahmanic religion. But you are hell bent on proving that Jainism is an offshoot of Hinduism, grasping at any straw that comes your way. Please desist from this kind of destructive behaviour.

Let us work towards enhancing this article, let us ensure that this piece is listed under the good article category. That is the way to go forward.

Jay Hind Manish Modi 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Manish Modi, you are a despondent troll (and astonishingly skilled at that) whose sole job as an insignificant side-kick of AnishShah and Jain-samaj at large, is to create a ruckus by occasional bouts of your inner frustration. This frustration is because you don't know any history, any religion (even Jainism), due to which any meaningful editing is out of bounds for you.

And for all I know, in real life you could be Manisha-ben Modi, Jatinder Kaur or Georgina Muscova --- how does assuming a real-life person's name as your own user name become an affirmation of your identity ?

Wikipedian philosophy is to reach accuracy through brainstorming, and not to wimp at other's user-names to degenerate an otherwise healthy (though stupid) discussion. See if you are on the losing side, just say so : no need to vent your immensely pent up frustration through this. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear IAF, Jay Jinendra

Glad to see you are using a thesaurus!

I choose to ignore your petty comments. Instead, I would merely point out that the aim of Wikipedia is to make jnana freely available to the world in the most easily accessible format. Please keep the teleology of Wikipedia in mind.

Accuracy is not reached through brainstorming. This is not an ad campaign or a team meeting! Accuracy is reached through honest self-appraisal, an unbiased understanding of history and the various elements that go in making the sum of a whole.

While it may suit your ideology to state that Jainism is an offshoot of Hinduism, both you and I know that this is incorrect.

Your allocation of a particular date to the Shramana dharma is baseless and unfounded. And the practice of nudity can be traced to the Tirthankaras. The Vedic deities like Indra were all fully clothed. Also, Jain ascetics never grew their hair long nor did they smear ash all over their body. Instead, they plucked their hair.

You ought to also know that only the Digambara Jain monks went naked. The Shvetambara Jain monks were clothed in white.

Please read up on Jainism. Manish Modi 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, your first line is a generous complement from you. Now if you are done with your puerile tantrums here, and have nothing to post on anything worth your pseudonym, I suggest you can shoo, scat and scram from here.

Also, your garrulous display of ignorance on matters of history, religion (and Jainism) notwithstanding, I suggest you do your own introspection as to what you are doing here and why... Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An attempt at consensus solution to prevent edit wars on Indian religion

Indian religion page has been subjected to un-necessary edit wars that could have been prevented by arriving at a consensus that takes into account multiple view points in the spirit of wikipedia. This consensus is attempted taking into consideration that that even the scholars can have discord in opinions and that there cannot be an absolute view on events pertaining to pre-history.

Hence the table below provides an attempt to arrive at a consensus of divergent views.

1. Edit 1 (column 1)– reflects IAF views
2. Edit 2 (column 2)– reflects views of Anishshah19 and Manish Modi
3. Column 3 is an attempt to harmonize the both views to make it NPOV
4. Column 4 is an explanation

Revert/ Edit 1	Revert/ Edit 2	Suggested Consensus Edit	Remarks
The other major class of religions is the Abrahamic religions or Semitic religions. Other lesser known classes grouped by geographic categories are Middle Eastern religions, Far Eastern religions, African religions, American religions, Oceanic religions and classical religions of ancient Greece and Rome.	"Indian religions" is thus an umbrella term in the classification of the world's major religious groups, besides the Abrahamic religions and the Far Eastern religions.	The other major class of religions is the Abrahamic religions or Semitic religions. Other lesser known classes grouped by geographic categories are Middle Eastern religions, Far Eastern religions, African religions, American religions, Oceanic religions and classical religions of ancient Greece and Rome.	It is suggested that IAF's edit be kept as it is.
Hinduism has its direct foundation in the Historical Vedic religion of India, and thus has no known founder. It has various sects/denominations, primarily Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, Smartha besides much smaller groups like Shrauta, and more recent Hindu reform movements and Ayyavazhi. About 90% of Hindus reside in the Republic of India, accounting for 83% of its population.	NIL	Hinduism has its direct foundation in the Historical Vedic religion of India, and thus has no known founder. It has various sects/denominations, primarily Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, Smartha besides much smaller groups like Shrauta, and more recent Hindu reform movements and Ayyavazhi. About 90% of Hindus reside in the Republic of India, accounting for 83% of its population.	It is suggested that IAF's edit be kept as it is.
Buddhism and Jainism, both of which originated around the fifth and sixth centuries B.C, though like those of Saivite ascetics, their typical shamanic and austere practices like roaming naked, standing motionless etc. are traceable to the early Vedic age and even the Indus Valley civilization. . The term "shramana" is from the root shram, meaning "to exert oneself" or "to practice austerities," and refers to non-Indo-Brahmanical mendicant groups that began to appear in North India some time around the sixth century B.C.E., qualify as Shramana traditions, while Sikhism is of more recent foundation, originating in the 15th century. The Shramana faiths borrowed ideas from Vedic texts and Upanishads, but went on to emphasize ideas like non-violence, meditation, auesterity, etc. Buddhism was historically founded and spread from India, but suffered a decline in its homeland. It remains more widespread in East Asia.	Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion. Both streams have existed side by side in Iron Age India, mutually influencing each other. Buddhism and Jainism are a continuation of Shramana traditions. Classical Hinduism arose in the course of the Middle Ages as a result of this syncretism or cross-pollination of the two traditions, divided into numerous denominations, primarily Shaivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism, Smartha besides much smaller groups like Shrauta, and more recent Hindu reform movements and Ayyavazhi. About 90% of Hindus reside in the Republic of India, accounting for 83% of its population.	Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion. Buddhism and Jainism are a continuation of Shramana traditions. Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara, is often considered as the founder of Jainism. However, now the scholars hold that Parsva, the 23rd Tirthankara, (9th Century BCE) to be a historical person and that Vardhamana Mahavira rather than being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition. Some scholars put Indo-Shramanical period at around 600 BCE to 300 BCE after the Indo-Brahamanical period. This is the period when Mahavira (599 – 527 BCE) and Buddha (563 BCE to 483 BCE) flourished and the Shramanical ideas were at their peak and found a wide acceptance in ancient India. Both streams have existed side by side in Iron Age India, mutually influencing each other. The vedic concepts of caste hierarchy, rituals, chants, worship of demi-gods etc. were assimilated by the later Sramanas in various forms. Similarly, the sramana concepts of renunciation, austerities, ahimsa, karma etc. were adopted by vedics in their beliefs in various forms.	This view tries to incorporate the both views and is properly supported by relevant references from the scholars. This view shows that there is a discord of views by Scholars. For Eg. Some Scholars portray Mahavira as the founder of Jainism and Shraman period from 600 BCE inspite of historical acceptance of Parsva and antiquity of Shramana. I have removed the references of IVC for Jainism (even though they were made by reputable scholars) to arrive at a more acceptable solution.
The Indus-Valley deity of Pashupatinath is very similar to the Hindu god, Shiva also known as the destroyer, which may also indicate the stretching of the Vedic origin to the IVC.	NIL	The Indus-Valley deity of Pashupatinath is very similar to the Hindu god, Shiva also known as the destroyer, which may also indicate the stretching of the Vedic origin to the IVC. Similarly, austere practices like roaming naked, standing motionless and some of the features of Jainism are traceable to the early Vedic age and even the Indus Valley civilization indicating some links of the Sramanas with the Indus Valley civilization.	It is suggested that IAF's edit be kept as it is. Additionally, comments on Jainism to be taken from IAF's previous edit.

I hope that IAF will concur to the above and hence seek his help and cooperation. --Anish (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Now AnishShah19 has finally come to the negotiating table after a long & protracted engagement of reversions and lots of discussions. This compliant attitude after relenting to differing opinions of mine, and aimed at convergence of views toward the final version of the article, is welcome.

Anishshah19 : IAF..it is not the first time that I have offered a friendly consensus…when you started talk on my talk page ….I took it as an attempt to create a consensus in good faith but it was not to be. I had offered before also….here. Let us try to harmonise our views and get away from the negative edit wars in the spirit of Anekantvada and tolerant Indian culture. --Anish (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wanted to convey. I had a slight expectation that you would allude to that very same thing, and you infact did. In that link, my reply is the same which I have repeated above --> No trading of edits, come what may. In your table, edits 1,2 and 4 were totally unnecessary, because were never under any disagreement in the first place. I think you simply placed them to give me the same sort of illusion that you have "agreed" to my edits.

No. The bone of contention is the number 3 entry in your table regarding Jainism and sramanas. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But having said that, we should all remember that factual correctness cannot be traded for anything else. It is the primary ordain of wikipedia. So, at the end no one can say, "oh look, I agreed to x number of your edits, so you gotta agree to x number of mine".

Anishshah19 : The fact that “1 + 1 = 2” cannot be negotiated. Period. But in cases where there are scholarly discords and multiple scholarly views, especially when in case of pre-historic period….wikipedia is inclusive enough to accommodate all views as long as proper respectable scholarly references are provided. Let us follow the Wikipedia policy strictly. --Anish (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AnishShah19's agreement to most of my version of edits in my reverts agreed is quite appreciable. Now the contention is over one line in the third column, "Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion. Buddhism and Jainism are a continuation of Shramana traditions. Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara, is often considered as the founder of Jainism. However, now the scholars hold that Parsva, the 23rd Tirthankara, (9th Century BCE) to be a historical person and that Vardhamana Mahavira rather than being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition."

Let us slice-and-dice that statement and examine each of its parts :-

1) Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion.

Please look that's not SHRamana, but SHAmanic traditions. I suggest you look at the article on Shamanism. McEvilley and Flood refer to the latter whenever he talks of links between Jainism and older civilizations. According to the shamanism article it is said to be any cult practice like invoking spirits, fire, eccentric behaviour like nudity and all that.

The vratya-muni culture described in the Vedas, as pointed out by McEvilley is precisely this Shamanism. The nudity, smearing bodies with ash, long hair, singing, dancing, dirty stuff, is precisely what Vratyas did, as Gavin Flood described. Also, do note that the Vedas do not have the word 'sramana' (as you had incorrectly pointed from an Atharva Ved verse). Yes, Vedas describe Vartyas and munis as McEvilley and Flood have pointed out.

Now the crux here is that along with the Jaina culture, McEvilley does not fail to include Saiva and Ajivika traditions also, because like the vartya-muni ascetics, these 2 groups also followed the same characteristics :- long hair, wearing animal skin, timeless penances. This is even the description of Lord Shiva here http://www.monochrom.at/polytheism/pictures/TanzenderShiva.jpg !! Even today's Kumbh mela sadhus are like that.

McEvilley and Flood only say that these Shamanic PRACTICES like nudity, long hair and penances are traceable to the muni-vratyas of the Vedic age, the Indus Valley and even as far back in time and place as the Mesopotamian civilization (as per McEviley). That it later on branched out into Saiva cults (that survives to this day), the extinct Ajivikas and Jainism (barely surviving) is proof that the Ideas of Saiva and Jaina and Ajivika were developed later --- but their practices were developed much much earlier than their advent.

It's something like as if 3 groups of theatre actors were given their costumes to wear first, and then asked to generate a story around those costumes later. The costumes were animal skin, ash and long hair. One group became Saiva, another the Jaina, and the third failed as Ajivika.

Nowhere do Flood, McEvilley, or for that matter any of the authors say that Jainism with its Tirthankars, 8-fold path, Jai Jinendra etc. was practiced in Indus Valley or in the Vedic age. Yes, its true that their bodily-punitive acts were indeed common amongst many people.

So your sentence should something like, "Apart from the Vedic religion, Ancient India also had another major cult that followed Shamanic ritualism like nudity, uncut hair, long penances etc. Buddhism, Jainism and Saiva cult of Hinduism, as well as the now-defunct Ajivika cult adopted most, or all of these these traditions.....". In the reference note, you can write that although the word 'Shaman' is a likely corruption of the word 'Sramana', it has begun to stand for all practices performed by social outcasts, like unusual bodily upkeep (ashes, animal skins and shaving the body), carefree merrymaking, and chanting incantations to invoke the netherworld.

Then we can add the following reference : "The word shaman is in fact loosely used for almost any savage witch doctor who becomes frenzied and has communication with spirits. In its original form it appears to be a corruption of the Sanskrit Shramana, which, indicating a disciple of Buddha, among the Mongolians became synonymous with magician." Here it should be clarified that although the word SHAman is thought to have been derived from SHRamana, SHAman has come to mean magician-like practices done by peoples in various civilizations spanning geographies at all time. On the other hand, Shramana was a school of ideas restricted to northern India, and which developed in the fifth & sixth centuries B.C. and which reached their pinnacle around the times of Buddha and Mahavira (founders of Buddhism and Jainism respectively).

Prior to this you can add my version of Hinduism and Jainism-Buddhism.

Anishshah19 : Now once again we are going back into the loop of this so-called “logical analysis” and plethora of discussions which is nothing but original research. But since you have put this up, let me discuss it….but there is going to be no end to it.

I am quite aware of what Shamanism means. It is quite different from Sramanans and there is no need to introduce it into out talk just because McEvilley has discussed it in his book…it is a red herring. Although, just for your information he clearly says that Vratyas are connected to Jainism here. Nowhere has he equated Jainism with Shamanism. Unfortunately, you are attempting WP:OR just to fit the facts into your paradigm. The sentence that you have suggested is most unfortunate as you are pushing a POV, maybe inadvertently, when you call Vedic “religion” and others as “cults”. Please note that in the references, the authors, Harry Oldmeadow, Pande and Flood all clearly say – “Sramanas” and not “Shamanism”. I have used this authors as references and have quoted them. This is in conformity with wikiguidelines of verifiability and citing reliable sources by providing full inline citations. You may believe that alternate suggestion that you have given is perfectly true and you are justified in believing it to be true and although I don’t agree with it, I respect that, but it does not confirm to wiki guidelines and much of it is original research. --Anish (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF :Now I too have used your sources in full compliance of wikiguidelines WP:V and WP:Cite. I have infact typed lines and paras from the e-books of Gavin Flood and McEvilley, of course alongwith the duly provided url, page number and sections. I used your sources themselves, and so it does not come under WP:OR. What you are proposing is in fact WP:OR and WP:POV, by not only repeated misinterpretation of educated guesses as facts, but also clear ignorance (purposeful or not), of what the authors are saying.

Firstly, McEvilley makes it clear that the traditions and acts and socio-cultural Practices that are depicted on various seals and motifs ranging from Mesopotamian and IVC civilizations might have formed the ancestry of latter day Saiva, Ajivika, Tantra, Sankhya, Buddhist and.....Jaina schools of cults. These are Shamanic traditions and McEvilley's entire book does not even contain the word sramana.

Firstly, all authors, especially McEvilley and Gavin Flood make it clear that it is the PRACTICES AND NOT IDEAS of vratuya-munis (and Mesopotamian civilization) that maybe linked to Jainism. Further, these practices were the precursors of NOT ONLY Jains, BUT ALSO SAIVAS and AJIVIKAS TOO. The fact that there was a branching out later on means that the Ideas of these 3 cults came later --- they only inherited the practices. This is mentioned by McEvilley in pages 277 & 278 ( I have typed it out below).

You said, "Although, just for your information he clearly says that Vratyas are connected to Jainism. And for your info, I have numerously said that he has devoted an entire section to Vratyas and SOME of their PRACTICES linked to Jainism, and not others like "song, sex and dance". This is on Pg 275. I think you deliberately choose to ignore this. You are also deliberately ignoring that McEvilley also says that not only Jainas, but also Saivas, Ajivikas, Tantras and Sankhyas are also inheritors of the Vratya-muni ascetic culture.

Although I have already typed out sections from that page, I'll retype it below :-

Pg 275 ****

• The Vratyas may have been either a non ARyan or Aryan non-Vedic group.....who brought with them ascetic and estatic practices from outside. The Atharva Veda attributed special austerities to them, saying "the Vratya" stood erect for one full year. This feat connects them to the Jain tradition, in which one of the main duties of the monk is "the stabilization of the body in different postures..which benefit the soul and are difficult to perform" . The most important is kayotsarga, which is standing upright and motionless for long periods of time. The Jain tirthankaras Rishabha and Parsva were doing this when they became enlightened. It was also a common austerity of the Ajivikas and it has tentatively been identified on the Indus Valley seals. The Vratyas...made their living as "travelling magician clans specializing in song, sex and dance". Their ritual practice may have been the source of the tantric ritual of the Paricra Makara or the Five Ms.

****

Is "song, sex and dance" part of Jainism ? Re-read Gavin Flood's commentary on Vratyas and munis. What they did was not Jain at all in any way (magic, dancing, gypsing etc. as described by G. Flood). I already put it up in the previous section of this talk page. As for McEvilley's other discussion on Vratyas and Munis, he does not fail to include Saiva and Ajivika cults also. Those excerpts too are put up in the previous section.

So only feats, or in other words 2 of the sum total practices of Vratyas are compared with not only Jainism, but also Saiva, Ajivika, Tantra and Sankhya cults. Nowhere does he say that Jainism originated with Vratyas. The keywords are feats and practices.

Now for the part where Thomas says that there was a split in tradition, where the Jain monks differed from the Ajivikas and Buddhist streams of thought, and deviated from other sects. For this, he describes the Panca Makara that he described of the Vratyas :

Pg 277 ****

• The tantric sects practice the ritual of panca Makara or Five Ms that is the use of five substances that are taboo in the Aryan cult, and whose Sanskrit names begin with M : Madya (wine), mamasa (meat), matyuna (sexual intercourse), mudra (fried cereals), and matsya (fish). The left-hand stream is made up of the sects that approve of this practice and the right-hand stream which opposed it. .. The Indian sects that share the general inheritance is called the tantric circle. They include Ajivikism, left-hand tantra, Lokayata, Saiva schools, Nath Yogis and a good deal of unspecified village practice.

Another important dichotomy between tantra and Veda was their attitude towards religious asceticism. In the non-Aryan community, it was practiced with Shamanic intentionality. Various practices of sexual magic were involved as well as maintaining a bodily posture for a long period of time... .Aryan reformers edited out the shamanic intentionality, replacing the bodily emphasis with a puritanical tendency toward celibacy.

****

Now after having described the left-wing tantras, McEvilley now describes how Mahavira was just separated from the major Ajivika tradition in the next page. He was a reformer and the Jainism that he gave all of us, was totally different from the original practices of left-hand tantra (dance, sex and song) which the Ajivika sect wanted to follow.

Pg 278 ****

• These contradictory tendencies can be seen at work in the famous schism between Mahavira and Gosala, the Ajivika leader who is described as among the six "heretic" teachers in Buddhism. Gosala roughly represents the left-hand way, while Mahavira is a reformer who turns his back on the left-hand way in favor of the right. At first it seems they were in the same group...Further, Gosala is known to have called himself the twenty-fourth Tirthankara, the same title that Mahavira claimed for himself. The implication is that they both belonged to the same school or tradition and each claimed to be its leader. The Jain Bhagwati Sutta includes 12 Ajivika saints held up as models for Jains..

• Siddhartha was more concerned about Ajivikas than the Jain rivals. Asoka placed Ajivikas before Jains in his seventh pillar edict.. and the Arthashastra placed Buddhists first, Ajivikas second and Jains third in its list of Nastika religions.

• There are numerous signs that Ajivika represents an earlier stage of Indian religion than Jainism, and is more in keeping with Dravidian character and tradition. Indeed its antiquity though summed is formidable. Both Buddhism and Jainism reacted against Ajivikism which must have been present before they defined themselves in part to be in contrast with it. The Ajivika monk's initiation involved physical ordeals like grasping a hot iron, which has shamanic lineages. Ajivikas are said to have performed penances in funeral urns [like Indus Valley].

• .. The Jain texts present Gosala as the disciple of Mahavira who broke away, however, it is widely believed that Mahavira was the disciple and Gosala, the master. It seemed at first that Mahavira belonged to the clothed proto-Jain religion of Parsva, the previous tirthankara to which his parents also belonged. At some point, he left this group with Gosala, an ascetic probably in the lineage of the Muni, whom the tenth book of the Rig Veda described as the vatarasana, or wind-clad. Mahavira became a naked ascetic like Gosala, then later broke away from him and partially returning to his earlier affiliation, led a sect of reform Jains, who went naked, followed rigid rules which formed no part of their ancient creed, that is the religion of Parsva.

• The more puritanical Buddhists and Jains regarded the Ajivikas as immoral for their prototantric advocacy (LIKE THE VRATYAS') of sexual magic, song and dance. Mahavira ruled that, "When found singing, dancing, making music, ....is liable for prosecution". Music, dance and laughter are Ajivika practices which Mahavira is Aryanizing. Imitated animal voices....are shamanic practices. In shamanic practices worldwide, dancing, chanting and speaking in animal tongues are part of shamanic performances. Mahavira's prohibition constitutes an attempt to edit the remnants of shamanic performances out of his version of Jainism.

****

Pg 280 ****

Aryan Reformers.

• Incidentally, some members of the ksatriya community found saw in the example of the Vratyas, the anitomian Ajivikas, the the muni and others, not an old-age retirement plan but a way to spend one's whole life. A number of ksatriya religious teachers including it seems, Siddhartha and Mahavira dropped out of society and formed separate ascetic communities.

• On this view, the Brahmanic ascetic asrama and the Buddhist-Jain orders are to be regarded as reformers of an earlier ascetic tradition. It seems that Gosala, Mahavira and Buddha all engaged in the PRACTICES of the older tradition, perhaps in the lineage of Parsva. Siddhartha's own words indicate that in the six years of auterities, he went naked and shaved his body .. .this is an indication of the Jain-Ajivika tradition, which derives from the same source, or serves as a source for both of them. Gosala, who seems to have been non-Aryan seems to have been an unreformed version of an earlier tradition descending from the Indus Valley. Mahavira and Siddhartha reformed this practice in shaping their Own sects. Mahavira seems to have reformed the practice of asceticism for magical purposes....

****

Now about munis' magic that was renounced by Mahavira :

Pg 280-281 ****

• Magic.

• In the pre-Aryan or atleast pre-Vedic tradition, religious virtuosos practiced austerities and claimed to recieve supernatural powers; the muni of the Rg Veda X.136 claimed with his ability to travel throughout the Universe at will is one example of many..... ...For Mahavira, magical powers "have nothing at all to do with the road leading to salvation". Among the early Buddhists, it was regarded as an impediment.. Stories of the magical powers were inevitably told of Siddhartha and Mahavira by their devotees.

• Contrary to shamanic practice which featured control of fire, Mahavira responded with coolness.. .. He chose to retain the emphasis on austerity, but to link it with nonviolence and release from reincarnation.

****

So in conclusion, the vratyas and munis with their shamanic practices of penances, 'sexual magic', flying with the wind etc. were denounced by Mahavira and Siddhartha who were essentially reformers of these shamanic practices. Both Mahavira and Buddha shunned and mocked the Ajivikas, who truly inherited the entire array of shamanic body practices that was handed down to them through the ages by Vratyas and Munis. Jainism and Buddhism retained some austerities like standing and sitting poses, but rejected forthright MOST of them (including Parsva's practices) and began their own ideas like nonviolence and middle-path.

My suggestion is, "Jainism and Buddhism which arose in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., were essentially reform movements of a long-standing tradition of shamanic ritualism that existed in parallel throughout the Vedic period. They, along with the Saiva and the extinct Ajivika cults adopted some austerities like standing for long periods and roaming naked, but rejected most of the shamanic practices like singing, dancing, sexual magic, sorcery, etc. These two cults, along with the extinct Ajivika tradition (which was at odds with Jainism and Buddhism) are known as sramana traditions, i.e. ascetic traditions..."

Now don't start quoting authors other than McEvilley, G. Flood and Chapple. They too just make brief observations that Jainism's practices are probably linked to IVC ..... Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19: IAF, You need to understand that just because you have typed a long drawn essay from a book, it does not fall within the wikiguidelines of WP:V and WP:Cite. It has to be relevant to the stuff that you are editing on the mainspace article. Else it only has a purpose to mislead people and give a illusion that you have done a lot of research. Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Thomas McEvilley's epoch book is a widely referenced,quoted, and recommended book in the field of ancient history and so it perfectly qualifies as a WP : V verifiable source. WP : cite is infact compounded by other historians Christopher Chapple and G. Flood (whom you and I both have quoted earlier) in turn quoting from McEvilley's book. Citing and quoting such a book on Indian religions is all the more mandatory given that it deals specifically with the origins of Indian religions. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19: No problem in quoting McEvilley, only don’t MISQUOTE or indulge in Original research or push your POV’s. And if there is confusion on Mc Evilley (as you seem to be confused on your hobby horse of Shamanism) then there are other authors that can be quoted and cannot be ignored. --Anish (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19:However you may have not realised it, you have done me a big favour by typing this info and it simply reinforces what I have been saying all along. Let us analyse the info put up by you:-

• • Disassociation of ideas and practices/traditions does not make any logical sense and none of the authors even allude to divorce of ideas and traditions/practices. You feel that you have come to a brilliant conclusion that by disassociating ideas from practices, you can make any claims that you like. Even still, your conclusion that the link between Jainsim and IVC/vratya etc. is simply of tradition, acts and practices and not ideas, (even if it is taken at face value) does not in any way preclude Jainism and Sramanas claim to antiquity.Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Cut the retorts out first. It is Thomas McEvilley, Flood et al who state (as I typed out and don't claim on my own) and conclude that some of the practices of the Vratyas --- notably standing for long periods and abstinence --- were accepted by the Jains and Buddhists and were backed up by religious sanction. However, most other practices like singing, dancing, matted hair, full nudity and sexual magic were completely rejected by them. This was the edit that I made in the article, and did not conclude on my own.

Now you were earlier fixated on the linkage between Vratyas and Jains, that most authors including McEvilley made. What you missed out fully was that only some practices of the Vratyas were followed, whereas most other practices were rejected.

You confused the mere mention of a possible link between the practices of the Vratyas and the Jains to be the proof of antiquity of Jainism stretching back to Vedic or even IVC times. I have repeatedly pointed out that :

• the Vratyas were shamanic practitioners and not people from sramana dharma that you wrongly claim

• that only some of those Vratya's shamanic practices were followed, and others were not like X-rated things, song, dance and matted hair

• that the few that were followed by Jains and Buddhists were given the religious backing, that was to later become their faiths

I had to finally type out the pages 275 to 280 or 282 to finally drive home this point on record on this page, because otherwise you were totally ignoring what I was saying.

As McEvilley has stated in Pg 275 onwards, that the Jains and Buddhists were reformers of an older shamanic (not sramana) tradition. The competing cult of Ajivikas, which refused to budge from the strict austerities perished, whereas Jainism and Buddhism that abandoned most of the practices of the Vratyas while accepting only a few (after giving religious justification), survived.

This is exactly what I wrote in the last edit of the article. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19: Your subterfuge of harking repeatedly on Shamanism in the fond hope of misguiding everyone is not going to fool anyone. See how cleverly you have edited out the lines that were inconvenient to you like on the page 279 that you claim to have faithfully reproduced. Let me quote the following line that you kept out in the hope that I will miss it, which I initially did miss out – “In any case, the origin of Ajivika-Jain TRADITION disappears in pre-history; possibly going back ultimately to the Indus valley itself, where there are iconographic elements that seems to foreshadow the iconography of Parsva.” – belies your utterly false claim that only “some of the practices” of Jainism are linked to “Indus Valley Civilisation” The author not only talks of linking Jainism with IVC by “some of the PRACTICES”, but also by ICONOGRAPHY and TRADITION. Conclusion: irrefutable reference on hoary antiquity of Jainism and expose on your misinterpretation. I have also shown below that these X-rated practices were followed by Vedics also which have been reformed now in Hinduism. --Anish (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19:

• • While we are at “ideas”, it is proved that Sramanas were originators of concept of karma, renunciation, Samsara, moksa are all sramana concepts borrowed by vedics. Refer to my previous post by Gavin Flood – “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
  • Secondly, I have never denied that IVC/Vratyas had a link with Ajivikas and Saivas. Just because Ajivikas and Saivas can claim antiquity, this does not forbid the claims of Jainism. Unfortunately, you see everything black and white, either-or; but actually the truth is lying somewhere in the grey areas. Again, Ajivikas were Sramanas and Saivas were non-vedic, proving my point of hoary antiquity of the non-vedic tradition mostly represented by the sramanas. Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Where do Karma, dharma fit in the current scheme of things ? Chalo, chalo for your convenience lets assume that karma, dharma and reincarnation all originated with the sramanas and the Upanishads have just copied it all from the sramanas, and that nothing in Upanishads is original. So it just implies is that even the older Upanishads were composed very late, probably as late as 100 B.C. to 100 A.d and later. Still, how does this change the fact that sramanas were a movement of the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19: You seem to have forgotten, but I will humour you. Well this was to counter your “original research” that – “…Shramana faiths borrowed ideas from Vedic texts and Upanishads,….” So now you admit that it is actually the other way round i.e. Vedics and Upanishads borrowed from Sramana faiths concepts like Karma, moksa, renunciation etc. And by the way, you have painted this page with irrelevant stuff and then you ask me what do Karma, dharma fit in the current scheme of things? Great! What next?

And come to think of it…….it does matter in the current scheme of things. You had only said that continuity can be claimed by IDEAS and not PRACTICES (An artificial definition). Well the,n Hindus and Upanishads should claim continuity from Sramanas and not Vedas!!! Not an outrageous claim, if one goes by your logic and original research --Anish (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19:**Your “original research” that equates branching out of Sramanas into various traditions as denial of antiquity and continuity of Sramanas is rather absurd, bunk and quite illogical. In the same vein, the branching of the Hindu cults would deny the antiquity and continuity of the Vedic religion into Hinduism itself.Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Correction. Not sramanas, but shamans. Get the terminology right first. I have to time and again correct you that you cannot use sramana and shamanism interchangeably.

The shamanic traditions can claim their ancestry to the Vratyas and munis that co-existed along with the Vedic religion. These shamanic societies of the Vratyas and munis passed on their practices of nudity, matted hair, unkempt selves, and austerities like long penances onwards to not just Jains, but also Ajivikas, Tantras, Sankhyas, Saivas, Buddhists and Jains. The Jains and Buddhists retained only some of these while filtering out the majority of them like those aforementioned.

And don't bank on "original research" vs. scholarly quotes (that I typed out for you to see). You are the one erroneously claiming that a) Vratyas were sramanas, when in fact they were shamanic people and b) they were the ancestors of Jains, when in fact they were the possible ancestors of Saivas, Tantras and Ajivikas too, which never belonged to sramana line of thinking.

The non-sramanas like Saivas and Sankhyas also claim descent from the shamanic lines (not sramana lines) of Vratyas, as did the Jains and Buddhists. Your mistaken idea is :- the Jain and Buddhist religions claim descent from the sramana line of Vratyas. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19: It is not my mistaken idea that - the Jain-Buddhist-Ajivika religions i.e. Sramana claim descent from the sramana line of Vratyas/muni/IVC, but it is a scholarly view of following scholars (to name just a few) which have been discussed to death before (which you are conveniently ignoring before; you seem to be riding McEvilley because of some references on Shamanism which you are trying unsuccessfully to twist and turn) :-

• • Mary Pat Fisher (1997) In : Living Religions: An Encyclopedia of the World's Faiths I.B.Tauris : London ISBN 1860641482 - “The extreme antiquity of Jainism as a non-vedic, indigenous Indian religion is well documented. Ancient Hindu and Buddhist scriptures refer to Jainism as an existing tradition which began long before Mahavira.” Page 115
  • Heinrich Zimmer (1969) Joseph Campbell ed. In: Philosophies of India, Princeton University Press NY, ISBN 0691017581 - Dr. Zimmer believed that there is truth in the Jaina idea that their religion goes back to a remote antiquity, the antiquity in ques¬tion being that of the pre-Aryan, so-called Dravidian period, which has recently been dramatically illuminated by the discovery of a series of great Late Stone Age cities in the Indus Valley, dating from the third and perhaps even fourth millennium b.c. (cf. Ernest Mackay, The Indus Civilization, London, 1935; also Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, pp. 93ff.).
  • Harry Oldmeadow (2007) Light from the East: Eastern Wisdom for the Modern West, World Wisdom, Inc ISBN 1933316225 : What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with vedic Hinduism known as sramana dharma. Essentially, the sramana tradition included it its fold, the Jain and Buddhist traditions, which disagreed with the eternality of the Vedas, the needs for ritual sacrifices and the supremacy of the Brahmins. Page 141
  • Larson, Gerald James (1995) “India’s Agony over religion” SUNY Press ISBN 079142412X : There is some evidence that Jain traditions may be even older than the Buddhist traditions, possibly going back to the time of the Indus valley civilization, and that Vardhamana rather tha being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition. Page 27
  • Valerie J. Roebuck(2004) in “The Upinashads” Penguin Classics ISBN 0140447490 : Vratyas of AV were perhaps a precursor of Sramanas page 501

It is here that we are coming to a full circle, your fetish on shamanism notwithstanding.. This is just a sampling. I am not giving the whole set of references once again, read them above if you want. The above scholars have proved your statement that - “antiquity of Jainism is my invention”- as total bunk. Rather, it is a scholarly consensus. --Anish (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19:**So now let us move to Page 275 and see what objections you harbour? It is clear from the page that Vratyas are non-vedic and austerities connect them to Jainism and Ajivikas. Ok your objection stems from the phrase – “travelling magician clans specializing in song, sex and dance”. This does not disprove anything. Like I have said before, Sramanas were wide and varied had different practices some of them were even precursors of the Charvakas. Refer Valerie J. Roebuck that I have posted above. - “Sramanas like Indian sadhus, seem to have followed a variety of practices some of them wearing distinctive robes or animal skins, others going naked, some of them with shaven heads, other with matted hair. Both Buddhism and Jainism originated in Sramana circles as did a number of other movements that did not survive like Ajivikas.” page xxii .Wearing Animal skins and matted hair does not confirm to current way of Buddhists and jains but still they were sramanas. Secondly, Page 277 itself says that these Shamanic practices were reformed and forbidden by Mahavira. So obviously it is not present in Jainism. Now, the same logic that you are using for denying the antiquity of Jainism can be used to deny antiquity of Hinduism. Vedics used to do Ashwamedh yagna – sacrifice horses; do Hindus sacrifice horses now? The brahmanas and vedic deities are described as “beef eater” in vedas, can it be identified with current brahmanas now? So your so called logical analysis goes for a toss !!! Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Vratyas were non-Vedic outcasts from the Vedic society. They were shamans and as described in the Vedas, their cult or activities hinged on a whole host of un-civil behaviour like singing, dancing, going naked, having matted or very long hair and sexual magic. They also performed penances like standing erect for one year (Atharva Veda). The munis were also similar and the Vedas describe them as nude (wind-clad).

Pg. 275 of McEvilley's book describes the Vratyas' practices in comparison with the kept-alive Jain penance of standing for one year. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19: There is no logical connect between your reply and my comment above. Your premise that the entire magic etc. disproved the antiquity of Sramanas has been refuted by me to which you have not been able to give a rebuttal, but as usual you have put in some irrelevant filler that was previously repeated before. --Anish (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Page 277 – I can’t see any purpose why you have typed this so the above comment holds. Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : The last line of Pg. 275 says that the Vratyas may have been the originators of tantric rituals of pancha makara or the 'five Ms'. Pg 277 begins to describe the left-hand tantric circle that adhered to the tantric rituals or five Ms of madya, matsya .. etc. It says that, "In the non-Aryan community, it was practiced with Shamanic intentionality." This circle included the Ajivikas, the Lokayattas, Saivas and Nath Yogis.

Pg. 278 then goes on to describe the differences or schism between the left-hand way and the right-hand way. The Ajivikas' Gosala was the former, whereas Mahavira left Gosala behind in favour of the reformed right way. He founded the right-hand way, while rejecting most of the shamanic ritualism of the Parsva cult. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19:**Page 278 – The comment “The Jain Bhagwati Sutta includes 12 Ajivika saints held up as models for Jains” – proves the common sramana tradition of Jainism and Ajivika. Another comment – “There are numerous signs that Ajivika represents an earlier stage of Indian religion than Jainism, and is more in keeping with Dravidian character and tradition. Indeed its antiquity though summed is formidable” read in conjunction with one more comment – “It seems that Gosala, Mahavira and Buddha all engaged in the practices of the older tradition, perhaps in the lineage of Parsva.” conclusively proves antiquity of Sramanas as well as Jainism. It further calls Mahavira as a reformer (which even Jain texts say : Uttaradhyana Sutra clearly says that Mahavira introduced nudity and reformed five vows of monks which was NOT in conformity with Parsva) So how does confirm it with your original research that - Jainism “originated” with Mahavira ? The left-hand and right-hand stuff discussion and whether Mahavira was a master or disciple is irrelevant to discussion on antiquity and historicity of Sramanas and Jainism.Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Therein lies the fallacy of your claim. I'll come back to the first typed excerpt of mine that you quoted above. Re-read the third comment that, "Gosala, Mahavira and Buddha all engaged in the practices of an older tradition, perhaps in the lineage of Parsva." Pg. 278 says that Jainism rejected most of those shamanic practices associated with the Vratya, muni and Parsva lineage and most of Mahavira's decrees pronounced or were meant to do exactly that. Ajivikism and Jainism share a lineage of these traditional shamanic practices.

Mahavira even rejected the Parsva cult, but McEvilley mentions that just as Mahavira accepted a few of the practices like standing erect, he also accepted some of Ajivika's sainthoods. The historical fact is that Mahavira broke away from Ajivikism and then formed Jainism. Jainism was a reform movement of those old shamanic practices, and not handed down from generations in Mahavira's hands.

What you are mistaking is your WP : Pov, but NONE of the authors dilute practices and ideas and make it clear that Jainism and Buddhism were reform movements of an older tradition of practices.

Now, as for your first quote they have to be seen in the prism of not only Valerie Roebuck's quotation but the Indiana.edu's scholarly articles that provides dates. “The Jain Bhagwati Sutta includes 12 Ajivika saints held up as models for Jains” proves the common thread of not sramana, but the shamanic tradition of Jainism and Ajivika.

Valerie Roebuck's comment is that :- “Sramanas like Indian sadhus, seem to have followed a variety of practices some of them wearing distinctive robes or animal skins, others going naked, some of them with shaven heads, other with matted hair. Both Buddhism and Jainism originated in Sramana circles as did a number of other movements that did not survive like Ajivikas.” page xxii

Very true, I agree with Roebuck, and also add that the sramana tradition as per the Indiana.edu article dates to the fifth and sixth centuries BC. These traditions were spawned by sramanas of that time two of which became popular during Mahavira and Buddha. You first mixed up sramana with shamanic tradition, and then claiming in all WP : PoV, that the ideas and not practices of the Ajivika-Jain-Buddhist trait were sramana.

From Indiana.edu Module 11 Indo-shramanical (600 BC to 300 BC) :-

The term "shramana" is from the root shram .. .. and refers to non-Indo-Brahmanical mendicant groups that began to appear in North India some time around the sixth century B.C.E. There were many such shramana groups, but two in particular eventually developed into independent religious traditions in ancient India of great importance: the Jains and the Buddhists.

From hereIndian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19: Then why are you ignoring the fact that the same source (indiana.edu) says the following: “Jain tradition is one of the oldest TRADITION in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times” and “Indo-Shramanical layer, reflects the resurfacing of pre-brahmanical TRADITION.” Obviously, the periods like Indo-Brahmanical and Indo-Shramanical have been categorised on the basis of influence and not origins as your “original research” would like us to believe. And can you read Tradition? I hope so! So spare your favourite lecture on “…some practices…”--Anish (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Page 280-1 – Once again I fail to see relevancy of putting up the page on magic. Mahavira rejected Magic…its already discussed he was a reformer.Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : I put that up, because of your continued insistence on equating some practices of the munis with the Jains as rock-solid proof that not only all the practices, but all ideas of munis too were inherited verbatim by Jains.

That's not true as McEvilley showed on the section, Magic, pg. 280-281. As he stated, those practices were discontinued by Jains. Where do the ideas come in, jab pactices hi nati chche ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • By trying to restrict the number of references or books that I can quote, you are flouting wikipedias rules. I am free to put as many references that I like; infact I have already put up more than a dozen reliable references that prove antiquity of Jainism.

So my previous suggestion for consensus edit still holds true. Too bad you are not able to see the whole picture and sticking to your own rehashed versions --Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : This is a dumb claim. Have I come and tied your hands and put a virus in your PC so that you can't access the net ?

Now we have come full circle. Five months back when I first pointed out from the sole Indiana.edu page that the sramana tradition is not before 600-500 BC, you came up with all these references, finally ending with Chappple, Flood and McEvilley's book. Then now we have established that what you mistook for sramana is what the authors called shamanic tradition; that the Jain-Buddhist traditions were essentially reformers of the shamanic PRACTICES (McEvilley, pg. 280, section Aryan reformers) and that what you call sramana cannot be so, because non-sramana cults like Saiva, Sankhya and Tantra also claim descent to the same (shamanic) tradition. Valerie Roebuck's reference of sramana is provided a definitive date in the Indiana.edu page, Module 11 which is 500-600 BC.

Your repeated persuasion that Vratyas = Jains is also untrue, because Vratyas have been clearly described as shamanic peoples, and besides, Jains REJECTED MOST OF VRATYAS' practices.

Now as for Ashwamedha. Firstly, Vedas are chanted by a few million people daily and the same fire rituals are done in much the same manner that they were done originally. Bull-sacifice is mentioned in vedas, not cows (cow cremation is mentioned). You should know that in Ashwamedha, a horse was actually not killed, but made to roam around wearing gold. There are no maharajas and mahajanapadas to perform this ritual today and fight and defeat rival kingdoms who capture that horse.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19: Thanks for giving me the link to Ashwamedha. You should have atleast read it before making authoritative claims that are later proved wrong!! Talking about dumb claims! It clearly says that the Horse and many other animals are slaughtered and flesh roasted! Let me put up the relevant details:-

“After this, the horse, a hornless he-goat, a wild ox (go-mrga, Bos gavaeus) are bound to sacrificial stakes near the fire, and seventeen other animals are attached to the horse. A great number of animals, both tame and wild, are tied to other stakes, according to a commentator 609 in total (YV VSM 24 consists of an exact enumeration).Then the horse is slaughtered (YV VSM 23.15, tr. Griffith) “Steed, from thy body, of thyself, sacrifice and accept thyself. Thy greatness can be gained by none but thee.” The chief queen ritually calls on the king's fellow wives for pity. The queens walk around the dead horse reciting mantras. The chief queen then has to mimic copulation with the dead horse, while the other queens ritually utter obscenities. On the next morning, the priests raise the queen from the place where she has spent the night with the horse. With the Dadhikra verse (RV 4.39.6, YV VSM 23.32), a verse used as a purifier after obscene language. The three queens with a hundred golden, silver and copper needles indicate the lines on the horse's body along which it will be dissected. The horse is dissected, and its flesh roasted. Various parts are offered to a host of deities and personified concepts with cries of svaha "all-hail". The Ashvastuti or Eulogy of the Horse follows (RV 1.162, YV VSM 24.24–45), concluding with………..

So now what do we have here? You have examples of vedics indulging in copulation with dead horse, bestiality, burning of stake many animals including horse and dissecting and roasting the horse……..all these by vedics; not outcasts………..now you tell where does this even remotely resemble the Hinduism today which claims continuity since Vedic age simply by chanting of vedas by millions? Forget today, even during “historic times” hardly any king used to do it with only a few recorded instances in history. So there goes your objection on lack of kings today!!!! So now these x-rated shamanic things that you keep on repeating again and again and again …were not only done by vratyas but by vedics. So now let me logically conclude (going by your discovered logic) that Hinduism is not a continuation of vedas but only “some of the PRACTICES” like chanting of vedas have continued by millions!

2) Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara, is often considered as the founder of Jainism. However, now the scholars hold that Parsva, the 23rd Tirthankara, (9th Century BCE) to be a historical person and that Vardhamana Mahavira rather than being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition.

The tradition of Jainism at most stretches to 9th cen. BC. Still, that is not Vedic, but Vedantic i.e. Veda-anta or end of the Vedas. This was the time that the first of the Upanishads started to get composed. So even then Jainism cannot be said to have been a "parallel philosophical stream to Vedic Hinduism".

Anishshah19 : Historicity of a tradition can be inferred from the antiquity of its beliefs and traditions, its references in the various ancient texts, archaeological evidences, besides existence of historical personalities connected with the tradition. You are simply taking existence of Mahavira and Parsva as a yardstick to measure the antiquity of Sramana tradition, which is not correct. I have discussed this before, but you are forcing me to repeat this – Apply this same logic to vedic period. None of the vedic personalities are historical; they are either mythical or pre-historic - does that mean that vedic period did not exist ?? --Anish (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See I have repeatdly told you that the BOOK called Rig Veda is dated to 1,500 BC. How does it matter whether its gods and goddesses really existed or not, in this context ?

Read the Vedic Period article. The opening sentence tells you that, "....it is the period in India's history when the sacred BOOKS i.e. the 4 Vedas, the Brahmanas and their subsequents were written down......" I have edited parts of that article, and nowhere does it discuss the characters present in those Books.

The Rig Veda is the solid surviving testament to that age. The characters here are unimportant. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3) Now let's examine the statement of Harry Oldmeadow (2007) Light from the East: Eastern Wisdom for the Modern West, World Wisdom. He says, "There has been an ongoing debate between Jainism and Vedic Hinduism as to which revelation preceded the other. What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with Vedic Hinduism known as Sramana dharma. Essentially, the Sramana tradition included it its fold, the Jain and Buddhist traditions, which disagreed with the eternality of the Vedas, the needs for ritual sacrifices and the supremacy of the Brahmins."

See, there can be 2 cases here : what McEvilley, G. Flood and others describe as shamanic, he is calling sramanic. Or, by Vedic Hinduism he means classical Hinduism that came to originate in the Vedantic age. I think its the second case in all likelihood. The majority of authors compare muni-vratyas & IVC to Shaman, and not sramana.

Anishshah19 : Once again you are committing the same mistake. You are equating Sramanas with Shamanism, which is once again wrong. If Shamanism = Sramanas then this will push back the antiquity of Sramana more. Both Jainism and Hinduism display and have certain beliefs common with Shamanism. But that does not prove anything. You have put up a long drawn para on Shamanism. If you want to discuss Shamanism in detail then start a new section on it; but I don’t think it is appropriate on Indian religion page. Sramanas were quite inclusive and included many sects. Buddhism speaks of 6 different Sramana teachers other than Buddha himself, each with varying different practices and beliefs. Check this out. Template:PaliCanonSamanaViews On “Vedic Hinduism”, you are putting words in mouth of the author. You are interpreting it as per your paradigm and once again indulging in OR. Let the intent of the author stay as it is. --Anish (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now I won't make any changes in the article because you take time to read and make out whatever you can of all this, and also because a certain modrator is after my account. Take your own time to reply here. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anishshah19 : In conclusion, I have tried my best to adhere to WP:VER. In the spirit of Consensus let us be inclusive and include all views (of course backed by adequate references) so as to make the article truly WP:NPOV

True, and I agree. I have suggested my version of the edit which is fuly verifiable. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply on Sramanas and IVC continued

I note that Thomas McEvilley is a professor of Art History. Any reason his views should be more acceptable than recognized experts in Jainism and Buddhism?

The Shramana tradition is indeed much older than Mahavira and Gotama Buddha. There were Jinas before Mahavira and there were Buddhas before Gautama. Ashoka erected a column dedicated to the memory of one of the former Buddhas and the two chinese pilgrims met followers of Devadatta who worshipped at the memorials of former Buddha. There were also other ajivikas before Goshala. --Malaiya (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil

Editors here are reminded that civility is not an option on Wikipedia, it is a core policy. Some of the above dialogue appears to contradict this policy. Also, no one is required to give their real name on Wikipedia, and anyone learning the real name of any editor is prohibited from publishing it. Please discuss the article, not each other. Rumiton (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "Religion" applied to Dharmic Traditions is culturally insensitive and engenders an insidious cultural bias

Dharmic traditions are spiritual traditions that subsume, and are united by, the meme of Dharma. Most of the indigenous spiritual traditions of India correlate with the set of what Western scholarship has historically denoted as "Indian religions", "religion" though, being a Western scholarly construct and misattribution to both Dharma and Indian culture, is culturally insensitive and engenders an insidious cultural bias. Many of the Dharmic Traditions originated in India or the Indian subcontinent. They are Sanatana Dharma, Jain Dharma, Buddha Dharma, and Sikh Dharma. Dharmic Traditions comprise a subset of the set of "Eastern religions" that include Taoist traditions. Tao and Dharma being etymologically rooted and semantically cognate, given their congruent semantic field. These traditions share similarities in core tenets, mode of worship, and associated practices due to their common fulcrum, shared geographical context, cultural substrate, entwined history, dialogic lineages and generations of permeable discourse.
Flower Sermon
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. Please cite all this to reliable sources. Relata refero (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird hovering, could you stop spamming us with such PC non-issues and focus on writing an encyclopedia please. dab (𒁳) 10:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole rubric of "religion" vis-à-vis non-English spiritual traditions as a meaningful descriptive is bunk, a contagion, anathema, a Western scholarly paternalism, a misattribution: an obscuration of what is a reticulum of dialogic and dialectic lineages and disciplines of practice, and experiential and existential cognizance; the insipid taint of attribution and accretion, conceptually rendered by the construction of "isms" be damned! Western scholarly discourse is to be rewritten through sapiential sentience. Hark!

i bite my thumb @ u Sir, to you Sir I bite my thumb...

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Better cite sources for your unencyclopedic edits

User:B9 hummingbird hovering|B9 hummingbird, you had better cite your sources for this edit [16] and even if you find them, this should be phrased as an attributed opinion. I propose that the obscure term dharmic tradition is not used throughout Wikipedia , but that the far more common term Indian religions is used. Andries (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence without citing any reputable source except the partisan Frawley strikes me as very unencyclopedic. I reverted it.

"Emergent discourse denotes "Dharmic Traditions" as the appropriate rubric for scholarship. The former rubric, "Indian Religions" is an English and Judeo-Christian paternalism. The traditions construed as Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism conceal the centrality and unity of Dharma."

I am not saying that such opinions have no place in the article if properly explicitly attributed, but as it is now, it does not help the encyclopedia and deserved to be reverted.

Andries (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No No No

The Dharmic Traditions of Hinduism. Edited and Compiled by Kosla Vepa PhD: Indic Studies Foundation B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look. What is the relevant page nr. ? Andries (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

B9, you are just trolling at this point. Sometimes you can overdo "political correctness" to a point where it isn't possible to use English for fear of Anglo-Saxon bias. This is just silly. "Hinduism" gives you a smacking 9 million google hits, many of them Hindu sites. Your position that the term is a "paternalism" is, to be blunt, bunk. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if Hinduism is an attempt to create a Western construct around a different mode of thought, there's not a damn thing we can do about it on WP. That opinion is actually not uncommon but the fact is that the construction has been completed; most scholars (and indeed non-scholars) think of it as a matter of the history of thought as opposed to current thinking, and WP will reflect that. Relata refero (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

move protected

The question of titling has been formally discussed on two full-blown AfDs. There was clear consensus to keep the article at its present title. B9 hummingbird hovering keeps moving things around according to some idiosyncratic pov he is pushing. I am move protecting the article against this. The possibility to move-protect the article does however not excuse B9's disruptive behaviour, and if he keeps up his present vein, we may need to impose sanctions on the user instead of the article. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The democracy of Truth

Enforced hegemony, threats, mud-slinging: profound, unmitigated disappointment.

When the alternative nomenclature of these four traditions is stated, namely: Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), Jain Dharma (Jainism), Buddha Dharma (Buddhism), Sikh Dharma (Sikhism), these "traditions of Dharma", "Dharmic Traditions" is clear and unquestionable. That this is concealed demonstrates the mixed blessing of scholarship. Also, that Western scholarship of Dharmic Traditions has not clearly questioned and explicitly explored the auspice terminology and rubric classification demonstrates the rudimentary and partisan nature, thus far, of Western scholarly endeavour in relation to these traditions. To state this amongst my peers is painful and shames me and my scholarly lineage(s): a defensible journal of peers is calling!

There is an insidious tendency for Wikipedians and Internet users in general to equate number of returns from an Internet search as signifying validity through raw numbers: Quality, not quantity, is true scholarship.

"Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice."

Thank you for your contributions
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic vs Indian religious tradition

I'm really unsure of the logic behind using Indian instead of Dharmic when discussing this group of religious traditions. Yes, they all originated in the Indian subcontinent, but they aren't exclusive to India or limited to India. With the Abrahamic religions we refer to a common belief they hold: The connection Abraham had with God. We don't call them Middle Eastern Religions because they originated in the Middle East. The Dharmic religions (or traditions) hold a common belief in Dharma - thus they are Dharmic. If they're going to be called Indian religions we should change the Abrahamic article to Middle Eastern Religions. I read the talk page and the choice to use a region instead of common belief was never explained. I know to some this may just be semantics, but I think it matters. Maiku (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

this has been discussed at length. You need to understand that we don't choose the term that is "better", we choose the term that is more current. If in ten years, "Dharmic" should become a widely used term for this group, we'll be able to change the title. As it is at present, we were simply not able to establish that the term sees any use beyond a very few isolated cases.[17] This is not a question of our discussing the term's semantics. The only debate we can have here is related to the term's usage in notable publications of religious studies or Indology. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Widely-used terms that are inaccurate should not be used. Buddhism is not Indian and while Hinduism originated in India, it is not strictly-speaking "Indian." I am certain I can find sources to establish this and I plan to. Zenwhat (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Few terms in religions are completely accurate and well defined. Andries (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the term Indian religions is more accurate and better defined than the very vague [[Eastern philosophy]. Andries (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

""Indian religion""????!!! such thing does not exist.. its a propaganda. India in its current form exist mere since 1947 where as people in subcontinent have been living and practicing those religions before this country came into existance......It is absulutely wrong to use the term ""Indian religion"" instead it should be ""South Asian Religion""". Its not about chosing accurate or current term... you cannot incapuslate buddhhism and other religion which existed before India as country existed.....this page does not have any meaning except to propagate indian's immoral dominance in south asia and to promote its neo-colonism.

Its a serious issue here. As an example there are more Hindus and Bhuddhist living in Nepal when we see the percentage. Buddha himself was born in Lumbini which is in Nepal. So how can a religion or philosophy of a Nepali guy (Gautam Buddha) be an """Indian religion?!!!!""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.166.40 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

I have fully protected the article for one week to insulate it from a rekindled edit war between versions. Please take the time to work out consensus and seek help in doing so if it is needed. Keep the tone civil and productive, staying focused on finding an acceptable compromise. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The following sentence, being the central point of dispute can be removed, as it represents the sole viewpoint of one of the consensus-seeking parties :- "Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion. [2] [3] Both streams have existed side by side in Iron Age India, mutually influencing each other."

Till the time the issue reaches resolution, the sentence must reflect neither points of interest. So, it should thus not mention which culture it was parallel to (AnishShah's viewpoint), nor any dates (my viewpoint). So, it should be changed to, "...Jainism and Buddhism were the by-products of the sramana stream of thought. Buddhism was founded by Gautama Siddhartha, and Jainism is largely said to have been founded by Mahavira, who is said to be the last in a long line of 24 enlightened beings ..." Since it looks like no one will leave their stated positions, atleast the article must not be tilted to one side. Otherwise I can go on arguing endlessly while the one-sided status quo will remain protected. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, that is not possible. Administrators protect on the version that they find it at. Those involved in the edit war must discuss the issue and come to a consensus before the page will be unprotected or edited. Admins will always protect it on the wrong version. Woody (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Woody, the disclaimer on the top of the edit protection template mentions that the admins do not associate with the version the article's been frozen at. You probably mistook my suggestion to be an endorsement of my views alone. I say that DO NOT adhere to either party's version, till such time the article is in abeyance (the article is currently oriented towards one party's view).

The "protection of the wrong version", as you say does not supercede the maintenance of neutrality throughout consensus discussion, and this maintenance of neutrality is perfectly possible by an admin, as mentioned on the protection template.

This is necessary, because as the article is currently positioned toward one particular PoV, any attempts to reach consensus from my side will be futile, as the other party already has its version under lock & key. It probably won't even bother to reply then .... Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Page protected, again

I have protected the article for two weeks. Please work out your differences and find a compromise here on the talk page. Continued edit warring is intolerable at this point. If you cannot work out your disagreement here, please seek outside assistance. If disruption and edit warring continues, I will apply blocks as needed to prevent further disruption and post to AN/I asking other administrators to endorse a topic ban for all involved parties. Vassyana (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest admins (including you, Vassyana) also be passive observers in the topical debate too. As you can see, my latest edit is neutral because it panders to neither AnishShah19's sramana-parallel-to-Vedic theory, nor sramana = 500 BC view of mine. This is because, should a topical ban take place, the article should not be out of bounds for either party, i.e. it should still remain neutral. The article should not be frozen on one particular view.

The "quarrel" has reduced to me reverting to the neutral view, whereas AnishShah19 continues to push his PoV nonetheless. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IAF’s claim that this article has now neutral is false, as he was pushing for removal of sramana-parallel-to-Vedic references, which was very well referenced by scholars, and he succeeded in it and hence the protected article is now tilted in his POV. His tall claim that - he was reduced to reverting to neutral view - is another joke, as seen from his history of POV pushing. Nonetheless, I give him credit for seeing some sense and removing the Mahavira-founder-theory.--Anish (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith edit. Please revert it if it is unacceptable.

I have dared to work on this Article, in spite of a long history of learned debates that have accomulated over time. It is my two-cents, in good faith, open to Wikipedians revision, even to rv. Thanks and regards. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsism

Its an well known fact even on Wikipedia that Persians are of Indo-Aryan race see Indo-Iranians its documented and sourced in there. --Padan (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Zoroastrianism is not an Indian religion although 80% of the world's Parsis are in India. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and Jainism as Offshoots of Hindu Dharma

Obviously the two use Sanskrit/Indo-Aryan words such as Ahimsa, "Arya Dharma", karma, Nirvana, "Brahmapatha", etc. Were they any religious texts in the world before the Veda?

The following scholarly sources will be used in the article:

Scholars Jeffrey Brodd and Gregory Sobolewski write that "Jainism shares many of the basic doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism."

Jainism derives its title from the Sanskrit verb root "ji", meaning to conquer.

Victor N. Davich writes, "The Buddha Buddhism arose from Hinduism 2500 years ago and Buddhists share some of the central beliefs of Hindus."

Bashir Maan writes, "Buddhism Buddhism arose as an offshoot of Hinduism in the Behar region of India in the fifth or sixth century BC".

National Geographic edition reads, "The essential tenants of Buddhism and Hinduism arose from similar ideas best described in the Upanishads, a set of Hindu treatises set down in India largely between the eighth and fourth centuries B.C."

Scholar James Bird writes, "But when primitive Buddhism originated from Hindu schools of philosophy, it differed as widely from that of later times, as did the Brahmanism of the Vedas from that of the Puranas and Tantras."

Buddhism survived followed by Hindus. National Geographic edition reads, "The flow between faiths was such that for hundreds of years, almost all Buddhist temples, including the ones at Ajanta, were built under the rule and patronage of Hindu kings."

Peter Marshall speaking of Ahimsa, writes, "The compassionate message of Hinduism was further developed by its offshoots Jainism and Buddhism."

These sources are not specialists and not reliable. The word "Hinduism" is here being used in a misleading way. Modern Hinduism is a confluence of streams of thought that were once opposed; Brahmanism (Vedic religion) and shramanic thought. Buddhism and Jainism are more pure representatives of shramanic thought, although this was originally just for recluses so there is a lot of other stuff in these two religions as well. Mitsube (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but please state why all sources are not reliable. It is rather obvious that Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are similar religious traditions that emerged after Brahmanism, and have influenced each other, link and overlap with each other. Feel free to remove the sources that state Buddhism to be offshoots of Hinduism. Trips (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Trips, you seem to be a reasonable and a good faith editor. But, how it is obvious that “Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are similar religious traditions that emerged after Brahmanism” This seemingly innocent statement implies that Buddhism and Jainism, emerged from Brahmanism, which is not true as they emerged from the Sramana tradition. --Anish (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus is different:

1. "Buddhism was influenced by Brahmanism, Kung explains, and by the idea of the wheel of rebirth and the six paths: hells, pretas (hungry ghosts), animals, humans, asuras (titans) and devas (gods)."
2. Professor Jacobi marks that Jainism and Buddhism are offshoots of Brahmanism.
3. Arthur Anthony Macdonell writes of Jainism (like Buddhism), "Equally an offshoot of Brahmanism,..."
4. John Mackinnon Robertson writes "Of Jainism, another offshoot of Brahmanism,..."
5. Roger G. Newton writes of Jainism (like Buddhism) as "another heretical offshoot of Brahmanism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.164.208 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You can copy-paste whatever you want, but National Geographic, Hans Kung etc are not specialists and not reliable. This seems to be outdated 19th century scholarship. Mitsube (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "emerged from", and "emerged after". Trips (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

THE VEDAS MENTION THE TIRTHANKARAS ALTHOUGH NEVER MENTION JAINISM. IF JAINISM IS PRE-ARYAN THEN WHY DO THE TIRTHANKARAS HAVE SANSKRIT NAMES? WHY NOT NAMES IN A NON-INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE? WHY ARE THERE NOT ANY TEXTS OLDER THAN VEDAS? ALSO WHY HAVE JAIN ACCEPTED WORSHIP OF GENERIC HINDU DEITIES?

Jainism on HinduWiki Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.164.208 (talk)

As dab has pointed out earlier, you will do us a great favour by reading the previous discussion and sticking to the truce or consensus or whatever. Also desist from using the all caps and bold…it will not help you cause. For every one reference you provide, I have ten more scholarly references to contrary. Your references (howsoever scholarly you may claim) are clearly one part of story and push the Hindu orthodox POV. So you desist from putting it up and everyone will thank you for not indulging in edit war. The Jainism article on hinduwiki is a big joke. No will take it seriously.--Anish (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and Jainism ARE NOT Offshoots of Hinduism

It seems that you have really not seen the debate above. I have quoted a dozens of references above from scholars and Indologists that :-

• Jainism is not an “offshoot” of Hinduism.
• If not older, it is as old as vedic religion.
• Vedas refer to Jain Tirthankaras proving that Tirthankaras existed before the documentation of Vedas. This itself proves antiquity of Jainism.
• Jainism and Buddhism arose from the common ancient sramana tradition which was not in anyway related to Vedism.
• Ahimsa, Karma, Jnana, samsara and Moksa are essentially Sramana concepts of which vedics were not aware and borrowed by them in the Upaishads.

I have hundreds of such references from established “Scholars”. So I suggest you stop pushing you Hindutva POV or it will be treated as vandalism.--Anish (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The historical Vedic religion and Hinduism are not the same thing, please get the fundamentals right. Trips (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Same thing" is a pedestrian term here, and shouldn't lead one to jump on to concluding that HVR and classical Hinduism were 'entirely different', 'independent' or 'not related'. Hinduism has been evolving and HVR is it's precursor, it's crux, it's bedrock (call it whatever). Note that the word 'Hindu' is a Persian construct and never once appears in any Hindu text.

As for Buddhism & Jainism, they arose from the larger sramana cult, which began around 500-400 BC. This movement itself was part a general intellectual era that began in 800 BC to analyze/summarize the Vedas and which in fact led to the formation of ideas like 'Dharma', 'birth-cycle', salvation etc. The primary Upanishads recorded these terms first. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"This movement itself was part a general intellectual era that began in 800 BC to analyze/summarize the Vedas." That's not what scholars say. The shramanas didn't care about Brahmanism. They weren't interested in it. They had their own, parallel culture. Some of them tried to incorporate the Vedas into their way of thinking, likely Brahman recluses, and others didn't, often non-Brahmans, like the Buddha and Mahavira. Mitsube (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not what scholars say. Oh yes, they do right here. Vedanta is a coompound word of Veda-anta or end of the Vedas, and contains commentaries on the Vedas. Vedanta began around 800-900 B.C. a good 300-400 years before the time of Sramana movement itself, leave aside the time of Mahavira and Gautam Buddha.

The shramanas didn't care about Brahmanas. Correction. Some did and some didn't. Those that did were [Samkhya] and

Dude, it seems that you are a very late entrant into the article's edition. You have produced verbatim, exactly those very references that had been forced out of this article many months ago. To see why, you have to take time out and read the previous sections of this talk page and the archives to see why.

Now this edit of yours, "“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.” Masih, page 37."

Mr. Masih's lack of knowledge on the above has been answered here. Adding to it, the BRHADARANYAKA Upanishad is one of the three primary Upanishads that date back to 800-900 BC or preceding Mahavira by 300-400 years.

So, that's that. This article has reached a 'truce' on further editing that favor either of the two sides (this is not the same as a consensus, but something like a ceasefire). That's why Cromwell, Masih, are cliche here. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The early Upanishadic writers did not describe themselves as "Vedantic." The early Upanishadic movement, which the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad is part of, is classified by scholars as shramanic, not Vedic. Though they make reference to the Vedas, the ideas are new. See the Werner quote you removed. It is a complicated picture I admit. The point is that the new ideas were "shramanic" and came from the shramanas. Regarding your personal response to Masih, he finds the ideas not clearly spelled out in the BH, not absent. Mitsube (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whhhatttt ???? Brhadaranyaka Upanishad is Shramanic ? Probably in your own invented history. So now Jainism is laying claim to even the Upanishads ! Great.

Dude, I hope that you do realise that if you are postulating that Upanishads are Shramanic, you are nailing the claim that Jainism is independent, because then it would invariably prove that Jainism is a direct outgrowth of the Upanishadic thought --- or in other words, from the precursor of classical Hinduism. And the Upanishads accepted the full authority and reverence of the Vedas. AnishShah19, Manish Modi & Co. will lunge for your throat then.

Vedanta is synonymous with the Upanishads. If you still claim what you do, back it up with a source, like I did just above to counter this claim.

Masih clearly said that the ideas are not clearly spelled out in the Vedas, and are absent in the Upanishads. This subjective claim can be dismissed even if you read the passages of the Upanishads that I've mentioned. There is mention of Karma, Dharma and life-cycle is crystal clear. So, Mr. MH's opinion of the B. Upanishad is easily retractible by anyone. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You have it reversed. Read the Masih quote. He says the ideas are absent from the Vedas and not clearly spelled out in the Upanishads. Clearly they are mentioned in the Upanishads and are mentioned there first. However scholars are saying that the ideas are shramanic. The Upanishads are where Vedic thought and non-Vedic thought (shramanic thought) meet. They are an attempt to make the Vedas relevant by making them shramanic. I'm not in conflict with any Jains. The Upanishads, Jainism, and Buddhism all came out of shramanic thought. That's what the modern, specialist sources I've quoted say. Mitsube (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No sir, that's not what the scholars you quote say, but what you alone conclude. Read the next section where I've replied in detail.

Mr. Masih must take the trouble of walking the talk and not make grandiose pronouncements out of his arm-chair. Dharma, Karma and rebirth are explained in conversations in those sections of the Upanishads that I wrote. Dharma and Karma also find a fleeting pass in the Vedas too. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that.......whether historical Vedic religion and Hinduism are the same thing or not I am not concerned. In fact I suggest you guys sort out this fundamental thing. Many editors seem to suggest that Hinduism and historical Vedic religion are the same. But one thing that i do know that Buddhism and Jainism were never a part of historical Vedic religion (or Hinduism or whatever you may call it) and emerged from Sramanas. --Anish (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian-based Religions are 'Dharmic Religions'

These quotes should be added to the article to describe the common root of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism, compared to with religions of foreign origin:

"Both Buddhism and Hinduism belong to the dharmic religions, where dharmic refers (1) to the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence, that is, to the divine law (2) to the conformity of one's duty and nature."

" Dharmic religions all originate from India, and they are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.164.208 (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, what you've said is perfectly true. However, the sad truth is that in India you can't speak all this without ruffling political feathers the wrong way. That's why you find only western authors writing all this. The only strings the Jain editors here are precariously clinging on to are the references from some credible western authors who have likened Jaina/Buddhist practitioners --- and not religious beliefs --- of the Vedic period, to those from the actual period of Mahavir and the Buddha. This reinforces their dogma that Jainism transceds all time, etc. etc.

This article still hasn't reached consensus but is in stasis, so to speak mildly. The current status quo is indefinite. Anyway, good try. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This point has been debated to death. Check out the link here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion. The term Dharmic religions is an obscure neologism and is disfavoured in scholarly circles. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a personal blog to put up personal orthodox beliefs.--Anish (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand the controversy about the term. Is it because the word is Sanskrit, and there is a misconception that Sanskrit is a "Hindu" language? There are many Jain and Buddhist texts written in Sanskrit. Mitsube (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed Buddhistic and Jain texts written in Sanskrit, although the Vedas predate them all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.164.208 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the word is apt, because it indicates the similarity of the four religions, distinct from other groups of religions. Trips (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You will understand the "controversy", and the decision reached, if you actually read the discussion at the link provided. Everyone will thank you if you stop bringing it up without actually presenting new evidence. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The National Geographic quote

First of all, National Geographic? Really? Second, there was no such thing as "Hinduism" then. I have produced a scholar even saying that we should view the early Upanishads as shramanic. Third, the Buddha rejected the primary doctrine of the Upanishads (atman), so the NG statement is misleading. Mitsube (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not the first o discover that "there was no such thing as Hinduism back then". It is well known that even the word 'Hindu' appears not once in ANY of the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata. What is indeed universally accepted is that all of this were indeed the foundation stones of what was to later evolve into classical "Hinduism".

What is 'Hindu' ? Nothing more than a stamp given to us by Persian invaders. According to Swami Vivekananda, our technical definition should be 'Vedantists' or 'Vedantins', meaning those who uphold the Vedas and Upanishads. 'Hindu' is nothing. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

um, the Upanishads are, of course, part of the canonical circum-Vedic corpus of texts, even though they are (with a few exceptions) post-Vedic. The Upanishads present themselves as in the Vedic tradition, and as revealing the "secret" meaning of the original Vedas (hence, Vedanta). Yes, that "secret meaning" pretty much amounts to shramana, this is the whole point. The Upanishads do indeed discuss Vedic rituals, only, in these discussions they cease to be literal rituals and become symbolic, for example, the Ashvamedha isn't "really" about killing a horse any more, it's about "connecting to the Inner Sun", etc. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism is a mixture of Vedic and shramanic thought. The shramanic thought was a parallel tradition that produced the ideas of karma, reincarnation, samsara, and moksha. These ideas were adopted by the Brahmins. I have actual sources saying that. IAF, you have National Geographic. Please stop this revert warring and give a counter suggestion as to how my sources should be used. The sources are legitimate unlike National Geographic. I don't insist on my version but you can't just write this article without good sources to suit your POV. Mitsube (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, you are arriving at your own conclusions based on heresay by authors that have been thrashed here before (Crawford and Masih). Take the trouble of reading the talk-page will you ? It has all been discussed and thrown out of here. You are not bringing any new reference to the table.

The crux of all your argumentations is your unfounded, unreferenced personal view that the Upanishads were shramanic and so Hinduism now is a so-called "mixture" of Shramana and Vedic thought. What you conveniently forgot is that the Vedantas are also subtly termed as Brahmanas, which in words means the word of the Brahmins.

Brahmanas from Brittanica Encyclopaedia :- Brahman.a (is) any of a number of prose commentaries attached to the Vedas, the most ancient Hindu sacred literature, explaining the significance of the Vedas as used in the ritual sacrifices and the symbolic import of the priests’ actions. The word brāhmaṇa may mean either the utterance of a Brahman (priest) or an exposition on the meaning of the sacred word; the latter is more commonly accepted by scholars.

More from here : A common designation of the priest is brahman (nom. brahma), originally denoting, it would seem, "one who prays, a worshipper," perhaps also "the composer of a hymn" (brahman, n.); and the same term came subsequently to be used not only for one of the sacerdotal order generally, but also, and more commonly, as the designation of a special class of priests who officiated as superintendents during sacrificial performances, the complicated nature of which required the co-operation of a whole staff of priests, and who accordingly were expected to possess a competent knowledge of the entire course of ritual procedure, including the correct form and mystic import of the sacred texts to be repeated or chanted by the several priests.

So there goes the vision of Upanishads being Shramanic. Or not, if you are further willing to gamble on the Brahmans themselves being ascetic vratyas or munis (earliest [Shaman]s mistaken as ShRamanas) in garbs.

And contrary to your view, your very quotations from Masih, Crawford and Crmwell have been muffled out of this article on this very talk page by McEvilley, Flood, Chapple and later edits [ here] by Torkel Brekke, Victor N. Davich, and James Bird........ and of course, good ol' National Geographic. So, I'm not edit warring, but you have barged in and introduced all that was painstakingly removed from the article. That's why you have to go through the talk-page and see why your edits have already been boxed out by months of discussions. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read the Werner quote, you didn't respond to the fact that you misread the Masih quote, and you didn't understand my point. The new ideas in the Upanishads were shramanic. I've said that. Even if you refuse to accept that and somehow find a good source contradicting Masih (you are not one), it does not follow that the new ideas were borrowed by non-Vedics from Brahmins, which seems to be your wish. What is wrong with Cromwell? I see no source provided that contradicts him. Mitsube (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

IAF, you have gone off on a tangent once again and you have put up some irrelevant definitions and comments on Brahamans which have no bearing on the current debate. I see a déjà vu here with shamana and all that. Anyway coming to the point…..I will not say that Upanishads were work of sramanas, but they were definitely influenced by them deeply…The brahmanas borrowed the karma, reincarnation, transmigration, moksa and mainly Ahimsa from the sramanas and moulded it in their own way to differentiate themselves. This fact is testified by the Upanisads themselves. The karma theory was borrowed from outside by the brahmanas. The verb Karma occurred in the earlier upanisad more as an action and rituals rather than in connection with reincarnation, transmigration, moksa and good/bad deeds. Brhad. Upanisad (BU) 6.2.2-8. In a dialogue between Pancala King Pravahana Jaivali on one side and the young Brahmin Svetaketu and his learned master Gautama or Udalaki Aruni on other, it is revealed that Brahamans are not aware of the unorthodox ideas like – Karma, rebirth and transmigration. In another section, BU 2.1.15 admits that Gargya the Brahmin comes to king Ajatsatru to learn the unorthodox ideas 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. In Chandaogya Upanisada, (CU) 5.2.7, clearly says : “The knowledge of the karmas had never reached the Brahmanas, as a result all the power to rule rests exclusively with the Ksatriyas.” Thus Karma evolved in Upanisads only in the latter sections by the time the sramana teacher well established. Now let us what the scholars say:

Oh no you don't AnishShah19. There is no need to refurbish stale references that I've already discarded by proving them inaccurate, and even so glibly pathetic that I didn't even bother to reply to Mitsube pointwise when he tried to recycle Messrs Masih all over again. Talk about taking over the baton from you.

And no, my locus standi has a pertinent standing on this whole debate. If you don't, or rather refuse to distinguish shamans from sramana -- ironically brought to us by your own sources, McEvilley and Flood -- then I can't help it. Convenient ignorance I do not entertain; be like that at your own risk. Besides, since when did Upanishads themselves "testify" to have borrowed from sramanss ? This, when your protege Mr. Mitsube has rightly said that sramanas don't even find a mention in the Upanishads. Or are you brewing yet another theory once more, this time by saying that the Kshatriyas were sramanas ?

Here, read this book :- "Philosophy of the Upanishads", by Paul Deussen. Pg. 209 states the clear transition of man through Kama, Kratu and Karma desire, discernment and deed or action (Brh. 4.4.5; see the footnote). No clearer exposition can be given than this. In II.IV, good karma and bad Karma is told about. Pg. 330 explains the basis of the transmigration theory of the Brih. 3.2.13 and says further that, "In the last words, the motive which lies at the doctrine of transmigration is clearly expressed". So how are you saying that transmigration and karma theory aren't elucidated in the BU ? Now, I have a professional scholar too who also says th opposite of this.

Paul says in Pg. 329 (referring to BU), "This so-called chief text teaches a double retribution, once by reward and punishment in the other world, and again by rebirth upon earth." This is also hinted at in the Rig Ved, according to him.

As for King Pravahana, on Pg. 18 he points out to his learned courtier Gautama, that he pleaded ignorance about a soul's transmigration and admitted that he had learned it from the 'warrior caste'. Deussen then explains how most of the Brahmans earlier concentrated only on the ritual, whereas the kshatriyas fostered the original Rig Vedic teaching of transmigration amongst their own clan, and shielded it all from the Brahmans (although the credit for it's originality goes to the Rig Ved/Brahmans themselves). The ignorant Brahmans, when enamoured of all this, later claimed it as having been their own all along.

Now this does not mean that Kshtriyas were sramanas. True, Mahavira and Buddha were also kshatriyas, but they renounced this world to run full monty in the jungles. So how are you linking kshtriyas and sramana ? Serendipity, I would say. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150 - “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

Y. Masih should probably read Paul Deusson above. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• 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

"Very possible ...that it entered". Just "very possible", but not true as seen above. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Padmanabh S. Jaini 2001 “Collected Paper on Buddhist Studies” Motilal Banarsidass Publ 576 pages ISBN 8120817761 : The Upanishadic doctrines of Brahma and Atman can be consistently traced back to their original sources viz. Vedas and the Brahmanas. But the doctrine of transmiration (punarjanam), action (karma) and emancipation (moksa), the doctrines fundamental to the sramana religions and at a later stage to all Indian religions, do not follow with equal consistency from vedic tradition. Page 50

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

"Highly probable" yes, but can never be proven. Proven that ksatriyas were sramana ? No. In fact the buck stops when Pravahana admittedly gave a copyright to the warrior caste, and try as much as you might, NO historian has even contemplated linking the kshtriyas to the sramanas. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Robert J. 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 - The Upanishads were like a breath of fresh air blowing through the stuffy corridors of power of the vedic brahminism. They were noticed by the Brahmin establishment because the yogis did not owe allegiance to any established religion or mode of thought.. So although, the Upanishads came to be noticed by Brahmin establishment, they were very largely saying what may well have been current among other sramanic groups at that time. It can be said that this atheistic doctrine was evidently very acceptable to the authors of Upanishads, who made use of many of its concepts. Page 27. 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

I was not aware of all this myself. The evidence from the prose Upanishads that the Brahmins got the karma doctrine from the Kshatriyas is quite conclusive. "the yogis did not owe allegiance to any established religion or mode of thought" this is why Werner groups them in with the Shramanas as opposed to the Brahmanas, because the Shramanas were a much looser culture. In order to get a stable version I'm willing to keep out the now established fact that karma, reincarnation, etc were developed by non-Vedics. But we can certainly not put in the opposite. It is vital to note that the Buddha rejected the Upanishadic Atman which seems to be the only Upanishadic idea not borrowed. I believe the Jains have a very different version as opposed to the Upanishads though I know almost nothing about it. Mitsube (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say, "Non-Vedic", by the admission of the Upanishads themselves, they were kshtriya at the most and even then, as Deusson established by quoted verses from the RV, transmigration and Karma were indeed present in the RV earlier, and later 'expanded' by the kshatriya caste. No matter how much you may try to maneuver the origin of Karma, Dharma and transmigration, it NEVER once does fall in the lap of the wandering ascetics of sramanas. At the most, it can only be surmised that it is so -- note that each and every one of the authors that AnishShah19 quoted right above, from Y. Masih down to Vivian Worthington are all cautious in their approach by disclaiming sramanic origins of all this by "perhaps" and "quite possible" and so on and so forth. Not one has proof, but only strong hints.

And about the last one, Mr. Worthington proves his worth when he says, "So although, the Upanishads came to be noticed by Brahmin establishment....". The guy must be told that the Upanishads were written down by the Brahmin establishment itself and so the question of'noticing it' doesn't arise.

On the other hand, it is of the utmost academic interest to note that Paul Deusson's book, "Philosophy of the Upanishads", from which I put up extracts above in my reply to AnishShah19, has NOT A SINGLE mention of yogis, or wanderers and least of all any sramana influence. It doesn't even contain the word 'sramana' or 'shramana'. The e-book is right here

So, at the most I can allow you to add something like, "it is theorized that the earliest Upanishads may have been influenced by the sramana clan, although from the conversational accounts by the Brahman authors themselves, they seem to have expanded on Karma and transmigration from the dominant and powerful kshtriya caste, who were initially reluctant to share this with the former. This, despite that the Vedas themselves were the origins of these seeded theories" After this, you can cite your references.

I won't be reverting anything this time around. You take your time to chew on this, and post what you think here. Then we'll converge on a solution.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Deussen book is 100 years old. The research that Anishshah and I have brought here is actually modern. Your theories are quite outdated. Modern scholars say that the ideas in question (reincarnation, karma) are not Vedic. The weight of evidence is definitely on the side of the argument that these ideas were developed by yogis/shramanas who were not concerned with Vedic ritualism. Worthington's quote is true because the Brahmins were not a monolithic group. It took some time for Vedanta to push Vedic sacrifices off center stage.

"the motive which lies at the doctrine of transmigration is clearly expressed." That doesn't make sense. Did you copy it correctly? Or is this ancient book written with an archaic English dialect?

If you're trying to put words in my mouth, I never said Brahmins = Vedic, Kshatriyas = Shramanic. But the most influential shramanas were Kshatriyas. Also in the Pali Canon in addressing people concerned with spiritual matters the Buddha always says "brahamanas and shramanas" because there were two distinct groups. Many brahmanas did become shramanas and in fact most of the Buddha's early disciples were brahmin converts.

The current version doesn't assign credit for the karma, reincarnation theories. I'm fine with that even though credit is due to the shramanas. Not being a shramana I'm not so concerned. Also the Buddha accepted the clothing doctrine and did not run around full monty. Mitsube (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh ? What's up with the "Your Deussen book is 100 years old" ? In a day and age when a 19th century linguist and historian Max Mueller is still standard, how do you exactly discount Deussen ? He was Mueller's contemporary. All of the ancient Vedic/Vedantic texts were translated and done with way before the 20th century, and which prompted Nehru to write his magnum opus "Discovery of India" (that also contains refs to sramana).

And, no neither shramana nor is it's possible link to Vedanta is a late 20th cen. discovery by historians. Sramana has been known since ages. Besides, I can bet that your comrade AnishShah19 was posting stuff from Deussen's book itself, after garbling it - the same book that you call "outdated". One boat and two rudders.

You should get your 'isms' right first. You can't use 'Vedic' and 'Ved-anta' interchangeably. What your refs are saying is that sramana people "could have" or "perhaps have" been originally responsible for much of later Vedanta's content (note the fine-print : emphasis on likelihood, probability and never certainty). This does not mean, in as much as that wasn't said by Masih & Co. that "we should view Vedanta as shramanic", like you said 2 days back.

Till yesterday, you were peddling Masih's bunkum as gospel, which was [roughly] "...the doctrine of karma-samsara-mukti is not clear in the Rig Veda and not even in the earliest Upanishads". This was put paid by Deussen's exclusive and volumnous book on the Upanishads along with the necessary references that, "In the last words the motive which lies at the basis of the doctrine of transmigration is clearly expressed." I too independently quoted from the Brih. Upanishad itself to show that BU is quite lucid in it's explanation contrary to what Masih would like us to believe. About samsara, here's what this page has to say, "The origin of samsara must be credited to Hinduism and its classic writings. It cannot have appeared earlier than the 9th century BC because the Vedic hymns, the most ancient writings of Hinduism, do not mention it, thus proving that reincarnation wasn’t stated yet at the time of their composition".

And by what pretext do you quote relative unknowns like Masih and Cromwell while ignoring dismissing Geographic ? The NG reference states, "The essential tenants of Buddhism and Hinduism arose from similar ideas best described in the Upanishads, a set of Hindu treatises set down in India largely between the eighth and fourth centuries. " This is perfectly accurate. Even if there was no "Hinduism" then, you very well know that it is still the sacred text of what today is called "hinduism" and nearly all of this "Hinduism" draws from this, besides epics and Puranas. So a word-play on "Hinduism" is not of the order. That 'Atman' thingy (though not ignorable) does not mean that the rest, or almost all of of Buddhism was not impregnated by Upanishadic thought, and this is exactly what NG states. As per McEvilley, even Mahavira abandoned the cult practices of his predecessor Parshva (now the 23rd Tirthankar). This does not mean that Parshva and Mahavira did not essentially belong to the same stock.

Let's take Zydenbos who writes, "....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."

Karma and rebirth due to that (kama, kratu, karma) appear in the BU first, by way of Yajnavalkya's descriptions -- a decent 3 centuries before Jainism even began to show signs of being. This is said here, besides Deussen's extractions that I copy-pasted above. And these verses from BU and Chandogya are not one off exceptional extractions like a candle-in-the-wind sort of way. BU and Chandogya considerably deal with all this throughout their respective texts.

Take Padmanabha S. Jaini, (note Jaini) "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." This portion is likely to be true, because that was pilfered from Kshatriyas, by the king's own account. Historians like Maurice Bloomfield also take it further by saying here that, "it is possible the germs of this belief to have filtered into the Brahmanical consciousness from below, from popular sources, possibly from some of the aboriginal, non-Aryan tribes of India." It is undoubtedly clear that these tribes that were called by names like Vratyas and Munis in the RV, and which are INCORRECTLY presumed to be sramanas. Practitioner line predating sramanas yes, but not sramanas themselves.

As McEvilley has shown, what came to be later known as sramanas, probably inherited from this mendicant society, and so sramana is therefore its successor. That society at that time was NOT sramana, but were only Munis and Vratyas -- naked outcasts in and around Aryan settlements. But all this prompted AnishShah19 to excitedly say that Jainism is even older than Vedanta and rivaled Rig Ved in time.

Now, sramana's time period is well defined. According to the "Passage to India" series of articles by Indiana Univ. here, Sramana "..began to appear around 600 BC...and were engaging in the same sorts of speculation about the Self or Soul that we noticed in the proto-philosophical Upanishad-s of the Indo-Brahmanical tradition." The earliest Upanishads are regarded as post-dated attachments to the Vedas themselves, and so the period of the primary Upanishads did definitely precede the formal 'beginning' of sramana. (All this I'm repeating for the nth time because you didn't scroll up to read previous talk).

We can definitely say that the later Upanishads and sramana were indeed symbiotic. Latter Upanishads that were composed down in parallel to the rise of Buddhism or Jainism were quite indistinguishable in content with sramanic ideals. It is in this overlapping portion that historians like Masiha goof up in by saying that even the earliest Upanishads could have been sramanic because, "this doctrine (of karma etc.) is emblazoned on almost every page of sramana scriptures". They must be told that sramana began atleast 300 years after the first Upanishads are estimated to have been recorded. The Vedic-brahmanism-was-parallel-to-sramana applies only to 600 BC onwards when the non-primary Upanishads were being written.

That's why Bloomfield is bang on target, because he rightly attributes the borrowed ideas to possibly the aborigine tribes, which undoubtedly were the Vratya-Muni-Kesin-Yogi consortium depicted in the Rig Ved. This is exactly what Werner has said (she discusses their description in the Rig Ved), which is that these groups lived outside the mainstream and later came to be called sramana. This reached it's peak during Jain-Buddhist movements. The sramana-was-throughout-all-time theory has gained credence only very recently.

Now Jaini further writes that, "the doctrine of transmigration (punarjanam), action (karma) and emancipation (moksa), the doctrines fundamental to the sramana religions and at a later stage to all Indian religions, do not follow with equal consistency from vedic tradition." Fine, they don't "follow with equal consistency" in the Vedas, and may be "emblazoned" in sramana pages. Still that does not negate the observation that the Vedic tradition no matter how "inconsistent", was originator of these and that sramana which came about much later only fed on and expanded on it.

So, the references by Masih, Jaini, Worthington and other worthies have gotten it totally wrong, and must be removed. What I'll allow is a line something like, "..the earliest Upanishads had descriptions of good/bad karma, transmigration and rebirth, which may not entirely have been due to original authorships of the Brahman caste, but also of the ksatriya caste according to the accounts in the Brih. Upanishad itself. Some historians like Maurice Bloomfield are also of the opinion that they could possibly have been 'germinated' from other classes of society, including the aborigine tribes that lived in the periphery of Brahman society..." and "...sramana began to appear around 600 BC, which essentially had descended from the penance-emphatic aborigines of Vedic period. This movement reached it's peak during the time of Buddha and Jain leader, Mahavira (ref. Werner). They took Brahmanic/vedic views that were established earlier (including Atman and karma) and extended them much further (ref. NG)..." Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough post. We give precedence to more recent scholarship. The shramana/vedic dichotomy is more modern as you say (in terms of analyzing a specific time period; it is there strongly in the Canon already as I mentioned). I am willing to concede that the term shramana is also not so ancient. But that is just a matter of labeling. The culture was a continuous stream and that's the point. Some scholars use the word in a more general sense than others. The point is that there was a culture from the ancient times that was non-Vedic and had successors as Jainism and Buddhism (and Vedanta!). If you want to put "shramanic period" in between I don't care and it doesn't affect the point. Nothing in your post contradicts this. The word choice you have attacked only. Fine we can be more careful with the word "shramana."

It is undoubtedly clear that these tribes that were called by names like Vratyas and Munis in the RV, and which are INCORRECTLY presumed to be sramanas." I don't understand the point of this. I never cited the RV at any point. You are trying to rebut an argument that I didn't make.

I admit that the Upanishads are the oldest scriptures containing the yogic ideas. However that does not imply that the ideas originated in the Brahmanical tradition. You certainly agree to that. The people they got the ideas from weren't as big into scriptures. I am not sure what to make of the idea that Jainism is as old as the Vedas personally. I believe that the yogic ideas were developed by the Dravidians before the Aryan invasion/migration (like the proto-Shiva on the Harappan seal). Whether or not the doctrines were anywhere near crystallized into Mahavira's beliefs at the time of the invasion I certainly doubt. I believe also that the Buddha founded Buddhism himself. It is the Buddhist belief that the Buddha is the first Buddha of this age anyway. It is also true that the "Upanishadic" ideas "impregnated Buddhism." But the Upanishadic ideas were taken from the earlier source. Upanishads is when Brahmans started to get into meditation and asceticism. It would be better to say that the yogic ideas (taken from let's call it proto-jainism or early yogic culture) were written in Upanishads in rough form and greatly influenced the Buddha and later Hinduism. Any other formulation would be misleading and superficial. Especially misleading because the main doctrine is atman and the Buddha attacked the idea of conceiving of any permanent "self" quite vigorously. That's why we don't use photography magazines for religious articles. Much of the meditative technology the Buddha did not develop from scratch. The shamatha techniques he learned from the shramanas. Mitsube (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Look dude, I'll gently walk you through the history of a certain peoples. The Vratyas, kesins and munis of the RV were shamans and not shRamanas. (In fact, Kelly Werner's paper itself is titled, "Longhaired mystic of the RV : Shaman, mystic or Yogi" ? here ). OK ?

Now this little-recorded myriad group gave rise to many other successor groups like Shaiva, Samkhya, Ajivika and Jaina and Buddhist. Note that Lord Shiva of the Shaivas is shown with a snake-skin, long hair, and if not found dancing on mountain tops, is found penancing --- just the description of munis/Kesins in the RV. Even todays naga-babas (Hindi : naked seers) at the Kumbh Mela can be said to be direct practitioner descendents of these people of nearly 3 millenia back.

Now, the others who also shared the mantlespace along with Shaivas were the Yogis, the Samkhyas, Ajivika , Buddhist and Jaina traditions. Only the last 3 were shramana. So, shramana was just of one of the many descendents of the Vratya-muni outcasts described in the RV. By lifestyle and dress sense, you couldn't distinguish the Shaivas with say the Jaina monks or Yogis, but by ideology the Shaivas, Shramanas and Yogis were all in different worlds. According to Indiana Univ. article the specific shramana branch began only about 600 BC and ended about 300 BC, while peaking during the times of Buddha and Mahavira (Werner also says that the Kesins and Yogis of RV broke out into the Shramana movement which peaked during these times).

What is most important is that this period is way after the last of the RV portions and the earliest of the Upanishads were crystallized. As the Indiana article rightly says, " [the shramana groups]....and were engaging in the same sorts of speculation about the Self or Soul that we noticed in the proto-philosophical Upanishad-s of the Indo-Brahmanical tradition."

Now, Bloomfield is right that the copyright of some portion of the "Religion of the Veda" and "Brahmanical religion" including even some gods in the Rig Veda were due to the "non-Aryan aboriginal tribes" of that time. He is unmistakably referring to the kesins, munis and Vratyas of the RV. Werner (1989) also says the same thing that whatever mysticism one comes across in all the Vedas is due to these non-Aryan shamans, who later came to be called sramanas (in fact, only one tributary was sramana; Shaiva, Yoga, Samkhya besides others were the other branches of this).

So, even if the Brahmanas of the earliest Upanisads were caught copying by Kings, we can write that [as Bloomfield said] "...they borrowed from many other lower classes of society, possibly also from the aboriginal tribes of the time..." About Jainism and Buddhism, we can write the second line that I suggested earlier. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I re-read your last post that you edited just now. As Bloomfield and Werner from 1989 have said, the Upanishads were influenced possibly by aborigine tribals of the society, besides others too, most notably the ksatriyas. These tribals were NOT shramana, and the ksatriyas, were definitely not too. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said that the shramanas were descendants of the "this little-recorded myriad group." This is a straw-man argument. I'm just reporting what the sources say. I'm not trying to tie my argument to vague references in the Rig Veda. You said "Now this little-recorded myriad group gave rise to many other successor groups like Shaiva, Samkhya, Ajivika and Jaina and Buddhist." I will say that there was some loose non-Vedic culture that gave way to these groups, but I never said anything about tribes in the Rig Veda and neither did the sources I have brought. Your argument seems to be (and I might be wrong), "you're claiming these groups thought of yoga, but they were actually just shamans, so they didn't think of it, so the (also Aryan) Kshatriyas did." I never said that. Also there is no way you would be able to show that those groups mentioned in the Rig Veda did not develop the yogic ideas (not that I'm saying they did). Karel Werner also says that the long-haired mystic should be taken to be a yogi, and an interesting example of Brahmins showing respect to someone who did not believe in their ideas. The current secondary sources are all in agreement and they say, basically, that yoga is non-Vedic in origin. You are seeing everything through a certain lens. Why does every sentence have to have the Brahmanas as the grammatical subject? Why do they have to be the dynamic force doing things and thinking of things? The facts show that it was non-Vedics who came up with the core ideas, and even the also Aryan Kshatriyas were more interested in spiritual advancement. The Brahmins were the last ones to come on board with yoga. Being the keepers of orthodoxy you would expect that. This is what the facts say. The article as it is now doesn't even put credit where it is due and I'm willing to accept that because this article seems to get people upset. Let's keep it calm here. And let me say yet again that I'm not claiming that there are references to "shramanas" in the Rig Veda. It may well be that groups mentioned there were the proto-yogis whose culture developed karma-reincarnation-samsara-moksha for all I know but that doesn't affect my argument either way and I don't have an opinion about it. You and anishshah can argue about the age of Jainism without me. Mitsube (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IAF You can keep your bad taste comments like full monty etc to yourself. These sort of comments will come up and get you in trouble. Even when I am not talking of Shamanas, but Sramanas, by some clairvoyance or maybe hallucination you feel that I am talking of Shamanas. For the nth time – I am talking of Sramana and not Shamanism. You keep your red herrings to yourself. And do not waste time and space by filling up irrelevant stuff. At least I am quoting some scholars – you keep on peddling discredited sources like Stephan Knapp (that have preposterous claims that ancient western civilizations are offshoots of Vedic religion). Now you scourge the net to pick sources like www.comparativereligion.com which is a proselytizing Christian site and has sections like “Possible difficulties in the philosophy of the Bhagvat Gita”. Just to prove your point, you have no scruples to pick up a site that discredits even a magnum opus like The Geeta. Now let us take the National geographic quote that you are tom-tomming about – “The essential tenets of Buddhism and Hinduism arose from similar ideas (Only similar, not the same ideas), best described (emphasis on best described…it does not talk of origin or first described) in the Upanishads, a set of Hindu treatises set down in India largely between the eighth and fourth centuries B.C” So this can also been mean the other way round – Hinduism is offshoot of Buddhism as Upanishads may well be best describing the ideas of Sramanas. Now another exposé – Check out this article here in verbatim – [18]. The NatGeo ref. seeks to confuse readers and give wrong impression. This reference gives an impression that NatGeo has done some serious study on origins of Buddhism and arrived at some conclusion to suit IAF & co. But it is simply an article on Ajanta and Ellora caves and an off the cuff remark to link Buddhism and Hinduism, without any serious study on the historical origins.

I am glad you brought up the point of Munis, Vratyas etc. You have a one-point agenda. For you they were outcasts or non-vedics of Rgveda or whatever, anything, anything, maybe even Romans blah…blah … anything but Sramanas. Why? Because Sramana survived by Jainism and Buddhism are a big threat to your pet offshoot theories and that by crediting RV non-vedics to some now defunct tradition you can wish away the problem. The problem for you is Taittirtya Aranyaka [2.7.1] of Black Yajurveda says – Vatarasana Rsi’s were Sramanas and celibates – check the transliteration here – [19] Page 45. Vatarasana are clearly described in Rgveda 10.136 as Munis and Kesins. Hence various scholars like Valerie J. Roebuck have mentioned that Vratyas of AV were a precursor of Sramanas pg. 501 “The Upinashads” Penguin Classics ISBN 0140447490.

Now once again you are selectively rehashing the Indiana site without giving the full picture. Let me repeat what it says once again - MODULE 6: THE JINA AND THE BUDDHA ( http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm ) which says : “As mentioned earlier in our brief summary of the religions of India, the Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times, that is, to the second millenium Before the Common Era (2000-1500 BCE), although the precise origins of the tradition are not yet fully known.” MODULE 11 itself admits that: “With the Indo-Shramanical layer, which may well reflect the resurfacing of pre-brahmanical traditions.'”

Brahmins were authors of vedas. If they were not aware of Karma, Samsara and Moksa…then how can these things enter vedas??? Plain and simple logic. How did Ksatriyas know these unorthodox concpts if not taught byvedic teacher. Obviously from Sramanas. These is what the scholars are shouting from the rooftops.

I am not interesting in repeating the same arguments. I am not interested in proving that Jainism predates vedas or age of Jainism. For now I am happy with the so called truce that says that – ‘Jainism is said to have been established by a lineage of 24 enlightened beings culminating with Mahavira.’although it is not the entire picture. Even if Buddha was founder…it had nothing to do with vedism or anti-vedism. He was influenced by the ancient Sramana teachers. Hence Buddhism is not offshoot of any religion or tradition. The point here is the Sramanas, not Jainism or Buddhism…. The point here is as Mitsube says of crediting the proper traditions. IAF’s pet offshoot theory that first targeted Jainism and is now targeting Buddhism. Too bad! Indoctrination of certain people is so strong that they refuse the accept the obvious truth provided by the scholars. It's as if, acceptance of some sramana influence is going to shake the very foundations of vedism. It's pathetic to see that some people believe in grandiosity of their own religion by belittling the other traditions.--Anish (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is very interesting that the predecessors of the shramanas may be mentioned in the Vedas. This should be explored, but in other articles. Karel Werner finds the same thing actually about the long-haired ascetic. He says this is Brahmanas paying respect to non-Vedics.

The whole problem has been seeing all of Indian history through the Vedic lens. So everything must be "Vedic" or "anti-Vedic" and even the anti-Vedic things must have their origins in Vedism somehow. This is a religious belief about history, nothing more. Many non-Hindus likely believe it as well. Dbachmann was saying things like that for a while but he seems to have come around. I am intrigued to know why Hindus feel the need to believe this. I don't understand it. Why must Buddhism and Jainism be off-shoots of Hinduism for Hindus to be happy? Can someone explain it to me? Is it because the Hindu myths actually say this? Is it because Indian Hindus want to equate "Indianness" with "Hinduness" for nationalist reasons? I am very curious to know the answer. Mitsube (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not for nationalistic reasons. Jainism and Buddhism is considered Hindu in Indian nationalism. Though of course Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese Buddhist sects, which incorporate a lot of local mythology, is not. Trips (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, you have raised a very pertinent question. Why is this happening? It’s a lot of cultural and a bit political thing. You need to be an Indian to understand this problem. I am tempted to agree about the nationalistic and ideological part……but it is just one-tenth of the problem. The Hindutva fanatics are just at the fringe of the tolerant Indian society. The problem is the basic indoctrination of the laypeople. In a population of one billion, you find atleast a million holymen, gurus and babas. (religion is the opium of masses. You must have heard of this.) With due respect to their holiness, scholarship and history is not their forte and these holymen attribute everything good in this human civilization and world to the Vedas. This is lapped up hungrily by the laypersons who really believe that their religion is literally Sanatan Dharma or eternal. Since there is no prophet from whom the authority can be derived, the authority is derived from the ancientness or the antiquity of the Vedas. Whatever is the oldest is believed to be the best. I have read many such so called scholarly papers that push back the date of Vedas to 9000 BCE and that of Sankaracarya to 5th or 6th Century BCE. Checkout this one interesting article on antiquity frenzy that has gripped these people. [20]--Anish (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Trips comment above is a good example of indoctrination and how he views everything with his religious blinkers. You give them testimony from 100 scholars, but nothing is good for them. Nothing should shake the antiquity of the vedic foundations built on the offshoot theories. --Anish (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This explains it. Hindus need some certificate of authenticity for Hinduism so they make it antiquity. So then signs that the religion changed over time partially due to non-Vedic influence challenges that. Also yogic ideas must be old and Vedic, so then Jainism and Buddhism must be offshoots. That explains it. Mitsube (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its all a big bad Hindu conspiracy against the Jains. My statement earlier doesn't mean that the independent Jainism and Buddhism falls within Hindu dharma, but that the word Hindu in Indian nationalism refers to native religious traditions of the Indian subcontinent, of which even Mr Anish Shah would agree that Jainism is one. And of course the inter-religious influence over millenia is undeniable. Trips (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Trips, your statement is contradictory. First you start out with - It's certainly not for nationalistic reasons. Then you contradict and say - Jainism and Buddhism is considered Hindu in Indian nationalism. Get the fundas clear my friend. The word Hindu cannot be equated with Indian. The terminology Hindu belongs to the category like – Muslim, Christian, Jain or Buddhist. Ditto for Hinduism. Indian falls in category like – American, Pakistani, British etc. For. eg. American cannot be equated with Christianity. Jainism is as Native Indian as Hinduism, but your statement Hindu in Indian nationalism refers to native religious traditions of the Indian subcontinent is totally wrong. I hope that you get the idea now.--Anish (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, read it again so you understand. It's becoming harder to take what you say seriously. Trips (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm....Too bad....So I was right about the indoctrination and blinkers part.--Anish (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So Hindu nationalists use a different definition of the word "Hindu." So for them "Hindu" means "Indian." They believe that Hinduism is totally ancient and unchanging, and Jainism and Buddhism couldn't possibly be complete rejections of the eternal truths of Hinduism. Mitsube (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hinduism is totally ancient and unchanging, and Jainism and Buddhism couldn't possibly be complete rejections of the eternal truths of Hinduism.", Hindu nationalism is not Hindu dharma centric, as you are implying. Hindu nationalism would have nothing to do with classifying Jainism and Buddhism as Hindu offshoots, it's probably mostly attributable to sources that breifly skim the topic which do so out of ignorance. Trips (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, Tripping Nambiar, I made major revisions to Mitsube's edits, keeping in line with what I presented and backed up with sources. They were related to mainly dates of the Vedanta era. Now this sentence, "The Shramanas were wandering ascetics. Buddhism and Jainism are a continuation of the Shramana tradition, and the early Upanishadic movement was influenced by it," must be changed roughly to, "In parallel to the Vedic society, there did exist a non-Aryan aborigine society of recluses and outcasts. They were a shamanic people, the extremities of monastic or penance-centric people. It is very probable that this class of people had an etching and irreversible influence on the composition of what came to be known as Vedanta. Later on, this group were later came to be known as sramanas, and which through the same line of thinking gave birth to many orders prominent being Buddhism and Jainism, and Shaiva, Ajivika, Samkhya, Yog amongst others.." Add a ref to Werner and Bloomfield. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Next round

IAF - I appreciate your collaborative approach. the problem is that with your new edits you are placing the development of the yogic ideas into the post 900 BC period. I haven't seen a source for this. In fact the sources seem to say that these ideas are quite more ancient. The other sentence wasn't a complete sentence so I added what it needed.

With your proposal, this sentence is not best: "They were a shamanic people, the extremities of monastic or penance-centric people." For one I'm not sure exactly what it means. Also they were a yogic people. The refs say they were more like Jainism if anything. What does shamanic mean in this context? They were not monastic (monasteries were a late development I believe) and do we have a source saying they were penance-centric? Also "It is very probable that this class of people had an etching and irreversible influence on the composition of what came to be known as Vedanta." It would be better to say "it is very probable that key concepts in Vedanta were originally developed by this group." Mitsube (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said 3 or 4 times earlier, the sentence is based on the topic of Karel Werner's paper here. She discusses at length the kesins, munis and yogis that find a good amount of mention in the RV, who she says were shamans and mystics. Shamans are like Australian aborigines, Red Indians, African rain-men, etc., you know the kind of god-men who try to communicate with the "other world" by ho-haa, magic etc.

Werner says that it was only over time that these people together came to be called sramanas. McEvilley further says that not only sramanas, but also Shaivas offshooted from them. In fact, just look at lord Shiva here. This diety fits the description of the kesins and yogis of the RV to the t. Besides Shaivas, McEvilley says that Samkhya and Ajivika and numerous others splintered off from the original shamans of the RV.

Note that Shiva also sits in a manner very similar, if not the same, as the Jain meditating stance/posture. McEvilley says that all that was done by the vratyas and Munis of the RV was almost the same as what later came to be done by the naked Shaivas, Yogis, Buddhists and Jains. The nudity, renunciation and all that was characteristically muni culture, had by 600 BC, become sramana culture. The Atharva Veda says that the naked munis used to stand motionless for a year -- McEvilley likened this to what Mahavira and Parsva were later said to have done. In fact, he also found great parallels between the Jain kayotsarga posture, the yogic posture of Veds and Indus valley edicts, and some depictions in the rock edicts of Mesopotamia, suggesting that there could have been cultural contact between these civilizations. The bull Rishabh, which was an important character in the Rig Ved, later came to be called as a Jain Tirthankar. Such a hybrid man-bull being was also shown in the figurines excavated in the sites of Sumer. Siva, has a counterpart in the "cosmic dancers" of Greece.

What Bloomfield called non-Aryan aborigines, McEvilley called ascetic outcasts/shamans and Werner has called shamans/mystics. All these were one and the same, and the source from which all this was inferred by these three authors, were the Atharva Ved and Rig Ved.

Coming to your queries :

The refs say they were more like Jainism if anything. Let's be clear about this. Only their stances, poses and dress sense were like latter day Jainism and Shaivism. They themselves weren't Jain (don't make the same mistake that AnishShah19 made). McEvilley and Indiana.edu also say that Jain postures as well as Shiva-Devi figureheads can be linked to even Indus Valley figurines. What does shamanic mean in this context? Shaman is exactly what McEvilley and Werner have attempted to classify the RV and AV aborigines/mystics as. Technically, they were shamans. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate Mitsube and IAF’s attempt to bring about consensus. Some finetuning is required to make the sentences NPOV. For eg. Just because something does fit in ones limited perspective, it does not become orthodox views. Following are my further observations:

• Muni, vratyas were outcasts, but only from vedic viewpoint. I agree with Mitsubes edits which makes the sentence NPOV as saying “outside the caste system.”
• The date of Upanishads – 1000 BCE -900BCE does not match with the references – 9th Century is 800 – 899 BCE and 8th Century BCE is 700-799 BCE. So 8th or 9th Century means 800 -700 BCE. So changing 500 BCE to 1000BCE is taking a lot of liberties even with these references.
• I have added one more reference from Indiana University on Jainism.

A matter of strategy

Our recent encounter with the disruptive anon has shown us that if we explicitly state that the yogic ideas were developed by non-Vedics, it is almost certain that one of the hundreds of millions of Hindus that has other ideas will quickly object to it and remove it. We could do something like I had before IAF's last edit, which didn't give credit to anyone. That version would probably be a lot more acceptable to people. IAF and others, what do you think about that idea? Mitsube (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)