Jump to content

Talk:Jainism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.218.85.222 (talk) at 22:04, 26 November 2011 (→Should this page be part of the series on Hindu philosophy?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ancient

Here is an argument for my position that 'ancient' should not be used in the introduction of this article.

As Baseball Bugs pointed out on my talk page (User talk:Munci#Ancient), 'ancient' can be used to refer to things which have existed for a long time and still do as well as referring to those things which existed long ago but which do not continue to exist. It is confirmed by looking at various dictionaries that there are both senses.

However, the prototypical usage of the word is probably in such phrases as "Ancient Egypt" or "Ancient Greece". Given the fact that ancient redirects to ancient history, this seems likely. This hypothesis is also confirmed by google searches: google ancient and it will suggest 'ancient egypt' and 'ancient greece' as possible search terms. In fact, seven of the ten suggested search terms are relating definitely to history (Egypt, Greece or Rome), not to anything which continues today. Also, the search results generally are about the same topics. Exceptions being a dictionary definition, a myspace site of a band called Ancient and ancient scripts. All the others are about history and only that.

BaseballBugs also give the idea that the present tense might be enough to distinguish between the two meanings. However, looking at the article Ancient Greece, I see that the introduction begins "Ancient Greece is". The same goes for Ancient Greek.

I am definitely talking about the word 'ancient', not about 'extinct'. Extinct is rarely used in the context of religions, whether continuing or not. 'historical' is used in the case of historical Vedic religion and 'ancient' is used in the context of ancient Egyptian religion. Otherwise you usually get 'paganism' as in germanic paganism. 'Ancient' is rarely used to describe Judaism or any number of other religions dating back a considerable time and the word certainly is not used in the lede of the wikipedia articles for any of these languages. People might not know what 'dharmic' means at first, but they will realise that they don't know, which is better than them thinking they understand when they don't. Also, they can go and check on that article and will then understand.

In order to state the long length of the existence of Jainism, I believe a statement similar to that found in the Judaism article ("Judaism claims a historical continuity spanning more than 3000 years.") might would be well suited here. Just replace Judaism with Jainism and get the right length of time in that sentence and that in. Except the first two sentences of the second paragraph might do enough to that end. Munci (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to necessarily argue for or against using the term "ancient" in the lead of the article, but I will say that I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word. According to EO,[1] "ancient" simply means "old" or "long-standing", which strikes me as being completely compatible with reference to an old or long-standing religion. The word "ancient" comes from "ante", meaning "before", i.e. "before modern times". That's a bit vague, but the EO entry gives a rule of thumb of "ancient" being used by historians to mean "before the fall of the Roman Empire". Obviously, that's a bit of a Euro-skewed viewpoint, but it does give a frame of reference. "Ancient" does not imply obsolete, it simply means "very, very old". It is also used metaphorically sometimes, as with The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which is recited by a very-much-alive sailor; or The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, which was actually founded in the 1750s and is very much alive and operational. There are many examples. One I ran across that you might find interesting is Ancient counties of England. Then there's Ancient of Days, a synonym for God, and to believers, this "ancient" God is very much alive and well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Etymonline is a good source for what a word means. That's only for the origin. Try oed.com if you can access it. Or dictionary.com or Cambridge dictionary or Merriam Webster.
It isn't entirely clear to me from the article whether the ancient counties of England were referred to as 'ancient' before they were abolished/had their boundaries changed.
I am not denying that 'ancient' can be used to refer to something still continuing. I am denying that that is the normal and standard usage. Just as not all birds can fly, not all that is ancient is gone. But it's certainly one of the first things that will come to the average mind I am sure, especially in this context. Seeing Prototype theory might be useful. Come to think of it, there really should be an article for Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Might make it myself. Munci (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first definition my Webster's gives for ancient is "Having had an existence of many years". Just substitute "very old" anytime you see "ancient", and the meaning and usage should become clearer. You had mentioned Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt. Well, those civilizations are still in existence. When they say "ancient", they are talking about the portion of those civilizations that occurred thousands of years ago. I've spoken English natively all my life (so far) and to me "ancient" simply means something with very old "roots". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another way around this, though, rather than leading the reader down a pointless debate over what "ancient" really means, is to state the age of the presumed origin of the given entity. My Webster's says Jainism dates to the 6th Century B.C. So in the opening statement, simply say "Jainism dates to the 6th century BC (or BCE if you prefer)", a quantitative figure that obviates any need for qualitative terms like "ancient". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a good idea. How about "Jainism is a religion of India dating back to at least the sixth century BC(E) that prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings."? Munci (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the trouble with these terms is the usual confusion caused by English being a hybrid of Latin (filtered through French) and old Germanic languages. You end up with differently-rooted words that mean the same thing. In French, ancien means "old", and of course the English "ancient" comes from ancien. Meanwhile, "old" and "ancient" both translate to alt in German, which is also the root of the English word "old". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah English has so much Latin and French influence. Sometimes the difference is clear between the loans and the originals thoguh like with meat you use the Romance word e.g. mutton for the food and the Germanic word for the animal e.g. sheep. I see similar happening in Malay for example as well: Malays nowadays will use 'chicken' to mean the food and 'ayam' for the animal. I think in Hindi and probably other Indian languages it's similar. I should probably ask my Tamil friend. At least that means they're no actually in danger of extinction in the way other languages are; they just get the influence only. Munci (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English has become the universal language of business, and with its strong Latin roots, I'm sure Julius Caesar would be proud. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquity of the Jainism

I have doubt of the antiquity of the Jainism, it has much carateristics of new religion incompatible with a primitive hunters and gatherers societies with competitive clans. A tribe with this philosophy at base, in Egypt in Mesopotamia or in Archaic Greece or China would be annihilated.

Andriolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.55 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is abundant evidence of the antiquity of Jainism. The fact that that mgiht clash somehow with your expectations doesn't mean the facts are wrong, but that your expectations were wrong. In any case, the most accepted time for Jainism to emerge is long after sedentary farming settlements appeared in India so hunter-gatherers aren't really relevant. Munci (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Regarding antiquity of Jainism I would like to add some information below: "Jainism is an independent and most ancient religion of India. Jainsim is an eternal religion. Jainism is revealed in every cyclic period of the universe, and this constitutes the pre-historic time of Jainism. And there is a recorded history of Jainism since about 3000-3500 BC.[reply] 

The discovery of the Indus Civilization seem to have thrown a new light on the antiquity of Jainism. The evidence suggests that Jainism was known among the people of the Indus Valley around 3000-3500 B.C. Some nude figures, considered to be of Lord Rishabha, on the seals have been discovered at Mohenjodaro and Harrappa. There is an article that suggests the representation of the seventh Tirthankara SuParsvanath. The people of the Indus Valley not only practiced Yoga but worshipped the images of Yogis. There are figures in Kayotsarga posture of standing are peculiarly Jain. 
 In addition, the sacred signs of swastika are found engraved on a number of seals.  Furthermore, there are some motifs on the seals found in Mohen-jo-Daro and it is suggested that these motifs are identical with those found in the ancient Jain art of Mathura. This presence of Jain tradition in the earliest period of Indian history is supported by many scholars. It strongly suggests that Jainism existed in pre-Aryan time. 
Janism in Vedic Period 
In the Rig -veda there are clear references to Rishabhdev, the 1st Tirthankar, and to Aristanemi, the 22nd Tirthankar. The Yajur-veda also mentions the names of three Tirthankars, viz. Rishabhdev, Ajitanath and Aristanemi. Further, the Atharva-veda specifically mentions the sect of Vratya means the observer of vratas or vows as distinguished from the Hindus at those times.  Similarly in the Atharva-veda the term Maha vratya occurs and it is supposed that this term refers to Rishabhdev, who could be considered as the great leader of the Vratyas. 
Jainism in Buddha Period
Lord Mahavir was the senior contemporary of Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. In Buddhist books Lord Mahavir is always described as nigantha Nataputta (Nirgrantha Jnatrputra), i.e., the naked ascetic of the Jnätr clan. Further, in the Buddhist literature Jainism is referred to as an ancient religion.  There are ample references in Buddhist books to the Jain naked ascetics, to the worship of Arhats in Jain chaityas or temples and to the chaturyäma dharma (i.e. fourfold religion) of 23rd Tirthankar Parsvanath.
 Moreover, the Buddhist literature refers to the Jain tradition of Tirthankars and specifically mentions the names of Jain Tirthankars like Rishabhdev, Padmaprabh, Chandraprabh, Puspdant, Vimalnath, Dharmanath and Neminath.  The Buddhist book Manorathapurani, mentions the names of many lay men and women as followers of the Parsvanath tradition and among them is the name of Vappa, the uncle of Gautama Buddha.  In fact it is mentioned in the Buddhist literature that Gautama Buddha himself practiced penance according to the Jain way before he propounded his new religion."

Regards, Ankur Jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurjain555 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am agree is a not a primitive and natural society religion. But is not excessive to affirm "....has prehistoric origins dating before 3000 BC, and before the beginning of Indo-Aryan culture...." ?? and is necessary to use hyperbolics sentences: " Some have speculated that the religion may have its roots in much earlier times, reflecting native spirituality prior to the Indo-Aryan migration into India.[7][8][9]" Why the Jainism must be ancient than Induism, or other indoarians religions, it shares many symbols with them ? For example the svastica. Often is impossible know the religion of the ancient culture that have a written word !!! The difficulties increase with society without written documents. For example at the moment we haven't decode ancient Harappa and Mohenjo-daro tablets, Can you affirm to know the religion of this exceptional culture ??

Andriolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.73.127 (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to writing, people would look at architecture and burials and so on. It is possible that Jainism (and possibly other Indian religions at the time that are now gone?) had e.g. the swastika before the Indo-Aryans came and then the Indo-Aryans adopted it. That would make sense considering the swastika isn't appearing in other Indo-European cultures outside India. Anyway, the crucial sentence on the dating is possibly "Organized Jainism is believed by historians to have arisen between the ninth and the sixth centuries BCE." Munci (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andriolo, pls check the references. They are valid and scholarly. And as far as ancient history is concerned, much of it is speculative even by scholarly standards. Hence, that is what is mentioned in the article. I suggest rather than arguing logically, (which can be argued either ways) go with the references and scholars. Leave the speculation of "who borrowed Svastika symbols to scholars from whom" and let us do our job of quoting them. Thanks Munci, what you say makes a lot of sense.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a question about antiquity of Jainism. Your arguments are based on the assumption that Aryans invaded India and destroyed the native culture. You also quote archealogical evidence from Harappa and Mohenjodaro. I suggest that you read the following article: http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/harappa-mohenjodaro.html Sanjaydh (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you check the references provided in the article. These are scholarly references. On the other hand the reference provided by you is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. Author Tarini J. Carr's work is not peer reviewed or published in scholarly works and she quotes and relies on pseudo scholars like David Frawley and Subhash Kak.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you assume that the scholarly references are unbiased? If Jainism really predates the arrival of Indo-Europeans in the Indian subcontinent, then you would expect to see Jain scriptures in Dravidian languages like Tamil. Unfortunately, no Tamil scriptures exist. At least the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda shows a considerable amount of Dravidian influence. Hokie Tech (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myth vs Facts

As with many religious articles on wikipedia this one contains myths presented as facts, such as "Lord Rishabh did not eat or drink water for 400 days." even a camel would not survive that long without water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism isn't pro-life

Editors might want to chime in on the discussion at talk:pro-life, where those arguing against a page move claim that the US moral-conservative characterization of the anti-abortion movement as 'pro-life' is the only significant use of that concept. I can't think of a greater pro-life philosophy than Jainism, but it's nowhere mentioned in that article, not even under the section on religion. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Few Correction Required

One is Bahubali is not a Arihant. He is able overcome all 8 karmas. That I think need to be updated. Another issue is: Terapanth are worship Idols they are not against it. So I think this point should also be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.96.34 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Also the mark: "According to Jainism, there are sixteen heavens in total.[39]" and its statement is wrong. There are seven heavens and not sixteen. Total fourteen levels, seven heavens and seven hells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.101.246 (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be part of the series on Hindu philosophy?

Shouldn't this page be part of the series on Hindu philosophy?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jainism&oldid=462633855"