Talk:Criticism of Jainism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The tone of this article is slanted. While there are valid criticisms of Jainism, this page contains a lot of seemingly deliberately incorrect anti-Jain information. For example, the section on women states that they cannot achieve moksha in Jainism, whereas in fact the majority of Jains are Svetamabara, a school that holds firmly to the opinion that sex is not relevant and believes one of the Tirthankaras was, in fact, female. The opinions cited in other sections are also unclear: they apparently cite random passers-by from states in the American Midwest, with no information about notability and little reference to existing criticisms of Jainism by scholars and by Jains themselves. Ogress smash! 17:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ogress. Thanks for the feedback.
You are right that 'woman not able to achieve moksha' is only in Digambar sect and svetambara disagrees with it. And the article clearly state that -
"the Digambara sect of the religion believes women must be reborn as men before they can true deliverance. Another sect, the Svetambara, disagrees with this theory"
so I assume your this point is clarified.
BTW I was raised as Digambara Jain, so do have some knowledge of Jainism, but I completely agree that this article need better citions, I would be searching for such, and would appreciate if you could provide some. Please let me know if you have any more points, so that we can improve this article. Abhishikt (talk) 05:33, 13
September 2011 (UTC) (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ogress, I have provided clarification for the point you have raised regarding "incorrect anti-Jain information", so I think the POV tag can be removed. If you have any additional concerns, please provide them. Abhishikt (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ogress, thanks for taking time to edit and update this article, I have done some more improvements, also changed bare urls to full citations. I guess now we can take out the Cleanup-link rot and POV tags. Abhishikt (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Karma (nitya-nigoda)[edit]

The statement that "certain categories of souls who have always been nigodas" is not factual. There are many references in Jain Agams which support the fact that Jiva (soul) in nigodas can attain Moksha. It is a possibility that here, nigodas means nitya-nigoda (which is different from nigoda), and therefore nitya-nigoda should be used, not nigoda.Rtalk 09:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

criticism is poorly explained[edit]

There is no text in Jainism which says women are "impure". Citation or reference of the original text is needed. someone has written, "Women are believed to be harmful by nature", the question is where & in which text?. As per the policy of Wikipedia, ones own idea or interpretation is not valid.

someone has written " Their menstrual blood is considered to be impure in several important Jain texts (But which text? It is not mentioned?). The bleeding that occurs in menstruation is thought to kill micro-organisms in the body, making the female body less nonviolent than the male body.[5] " . This is mere interpretation by some news reporter who doesn't have deep understanding of the religion. Menstural Blood kills microorganism is hilarious interpretation of a news reporter. Let this be a sensational news not a "quote from religious text". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Dayananda's views.[edit]

I have removed the following lines from the article:

Philosopher Dayanand Saraswati wrote in his book Satyarth Prakash regards Jainism as "the most dreadful religion", he writes that Jains were intolerant and hostile towards the non-Jains.[1]

The reference provided says that "The views of Dayanand Saraswati towards other religions as expressed in Satyarth Prakash was strongly condemnatory, predominantly negative and positively intolerant and negative. Jorden observes, "there is quite a lot of sarcastic bitterness" in the criticism of other religions." It then provides examples of dayananda's views towards Jainism, Christianity and Islam, and ends with "The militant Aryas followed the path of Dayananda and rejected any suggestion to soften Dayananda's criticism of other faiths or to change, in any way, the word of their rsi." This seems more of a criticism of Dayanada rather than Jainism. Rahul (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

He has made such remark about Jainism, which is confirmed, and it's critical in form. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Following reverts by User:Ohnoitsjamie[1] and User:Jethwarp[2] I have added balancing material so that the statements do not misrepresent the source. I would, however, be in favor of removing the whole content about Dayandanda views.. Would request them to comment here too, instead of reverting edits without discussion. Rahul (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
What's the point to mention about Christianity or Islam here? This is page related to Jainism, not Christianity or Islam. People say same about Richard dawkins too that he makes negative opinion about religions, but does it means it should be added? Obviously not. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The source should not be misrepresented. Nowhere does it say that Dayanand is a philosopher and it clearly says that dayanand views were intolerant and negative towards other religions. Jainism, Christianity and Islam were examples of how intolerant Dayananda's views were to other religions in general. --Rahul (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems like you dislike what he has said, your funny edits speaks enough about it. How it's intolerant? Are you saying that criticism based on a judgement is invalid? By profession, Dayanand was Philosopher. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The source that you presented say that he was intolerant and it does not say that he was a philosopher. It is not relevant what I like or dislike. --Rahul (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This topic is not even about "christianity" or "islam", this is not the page of Dayanand Saraswati, but page of Jainism, you don't have to cherry pick from the book, especially when it's off topic. You have already made enough attempts to remove the dayanand's quote, just because you don't like it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
That's not a reason good enough to misrepresent the source. --Rahul (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Misrepresent? No way, he's not some random philosopher who needs description. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It's funny that you are telling me to "stop edit warring", yet you have made at least 7 disruptive reverts in less than a week. How it can be proved that Dayanand didn't criticized hinduism? He criticized not only hinduism, but his views are also situated in the page of swaminarayan, and others. So kindly you should better stop edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I have read the original Satyarth Prakash. There is indeed truth in statement "Dayanand Saraswati towards other religions as expressed in Satyarth Prakash was strongly condemnatory, predominantly negative and positively intolerant and negative". His criticism of other religions/sects is even stronger. However his views of Jainism are interesting. Perhaps I will add them sometime. It has been suggested that he was inspired by the Sthanakawasi Jain tradition to formulate his opposition to idol worship in his native Gujarat. Malaiya (talk)
You can read about Dayananda's view as expressed in Satyarth Prakash in original Hindi ( or in English Translation (, now on the web. In Ch. 11 he claims that the Jains introduced image worship (p. 371) and the Hindus copied the Jains.
"Thus the practice of worshipping idols originated with the Jains (in this country)"."When after Raja Bhoja, the Jainis installed idols in their temples and began to frequent them for paying homage and adoration to the images, the disciples of these popes (Vaama Maargis and Shivites) began to follow their example"."The Jain idols were always naked and represented a being who was seated in a contemplative mood and had renounced the world, while on the contrary the Vaishnava idols symbolized gods having by their sides goddesses, who were dressed out in fine style and excited lascivious thoughts by their lewd charms and licentious looks."
In Ch. 12, he claims that Jainism and Buddhist are the same in p. 525-526 (obviously wrong, but Swami Dayananda had access to only a few Jain and Buddhist texts). He criticizes Jainism (p. 528-) for Denial of the existence of Creator God and Denial of the Vedas as the eternal revelation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaiya (talkcontribs)
Satyarth Prakash is not a reliable source. Rahul (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Reliable enough for expressing his opinion, I know it's primary, but we have already provided the additional source. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The secondary ("additional") source is not being represented properly. Rahul (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Malaiya, this is getting off topic, but I would still mention, those times were different, whoever denied the authority of Vedas is either writing his/her own vedas or being a atheist, if you think about the times during the 500 BCE + Bladesmulti (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Rahul, that's why we have only represented the one liner of his criticism, otherwise it had to be larger than it is right now. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said earlier, that's not a reason good enough to mis-represent what's written in Reliable Secondary Source. Rahul (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok this source [3]. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide the full quote? Rahul (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
If this source is not suiting you(the current one) we can add the above one instead, we might add "Philosopher Dayanand Saraswati wrote in his book Satyarth Prakash regards Jainism as "the most dreadful religion", he writes that Jains are "possessed of defective and childish understanding."(ref "Hindu Response to Religious Pluralism", page 52, author = Pi. Es Ḍāniyēl) Bladesmulti (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
One has to agree with Rahul Jain. The quote from Pi. Es Ḍāniyēl is being misused here. The author's intention is to point out the harsh language used by the Swami. He states "it was not the rationality, but the malice and spite against them. He simply argues and his criticism, as Khan Durrani notes, degenerated into "wholesale abuse" (p. 96).
Satyarth Prakash presents the views of Dayanand Saraswati, and thus of Arya Samaj, an important religious movement. While it is definitely not a reliable source of history (for example see the list of kings of Delhi), it is a valid source of Arya Samaj perspective.Malaiya (talk)
He hasnt' talked about Es Daniyel yet. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of jainism..[edit]

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Criticism of jainism.. "Hindu nationalism" is appropriate? When we add the criticism by Richard dawkins or chritopher hitchens, do we add like "Atheist ideology"? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Dawkins is an ideologist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Added Sam harris, so now it's "criticism by source".. As we got multiple critics on the page. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Now I am not getting the reason behind removing the quote by Sam harris. I added better source for Dayanand though. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh please Bladesmulti, stop pushing POV, and contextualize Dayanand. Fowler&fowler gave an edit summary. I'll contextualize your Dayanand-quote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
And what about Sam harris? One of the most popular critic. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That's fair; I'll take a look at that one too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hindu revivalism and Indian identities[edit]

The content recently added solves the POV problem.[4] However, I do not think it should be present in the Criticism of Jainism page. It seems to go a bit off-topic. The same content should be more appropriate for the article Jainism and Hinduism. --Rahul (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, the line "These strategies are not supported by Jains and Buddhists" does not seem fully correct, because many Jains have joined the Hindu nationalist movements without giving a second thought. --Rahul (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, Are we going to add this same long explanation into Swaminarayan's page as well? Or any articles where we can find the criticism from Dayanand Saraswati.. This page is neither about Hinduism, nor it's about the explanation of Dayanand or brahmo samaj. Only one comment from Dayanand Saraswati is enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
One comment from Dayanand saraswati without the analysis is definitely not enough to be present anywhere. --Rahul (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Dude.. Make some rational argument, Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not gonna help. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The need to come with some rational arguments is probably at your side, Bladesmulti. Rahul's argument is perfectly valid: such quotes without context are meaningless, or worse, insulting and inflaming, and definitely not encyclopedic. You've inserted Dayanand times now 4 times [5] [6] [7] [8] and removed attempts at contextualizing also 4 times [9] [10] [11] [12] despite opposition from at least three editors. Doesn't it dawn on you that you can't just throw in a quote without providing a sufficient context? What's the use of such inflaming quotes? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine, now back to Sam Harris. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you any source? Hemant Mehta, whom you presented earlier, isn't reliable. --Rahul (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Why hemant mehta is not reliable? There are many sources, one here[13]. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That blog is also written by Hemant Mehta. --Rahul (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Try this[14]. BTW, do you really believe that there's need of so large notes? Regarding the given references, it's like saying "Dayanand is wrong to criticize religions, because it doesn't deserved to be", something like that, don't you think so? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't. I think that such a quote needs a context, to understand why he's saying what he's saying. Otherwise, it's a cheap and rhetoric way to criticise Jainism in general. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly same can be said for anyone else in general(like dawkins, hitchens, etc), but why we don't? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:POINT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This point is yet to be discussed. Right now, I am also looking forward to the quote by Sam Harris. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


This is the paragraph which talks about Harris' views on Jainism. It doesn't seem like a criticism of Jainism.

  • Sokal, Alan D. (2008). Beyond the hoax: science, philosophy and culture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923920-7. Harris does not, in fact, claim that all religions have a negative net effect on the world. At one point he comments semi-facetiously that “the uncontrollable spread of Jainism throughout the world would improve our situation immensely”, even though “we would lose more of our crops to pests” because “observant Jains generally will not kill anything, including insects”(p. 148). Later in the book, he commends Buddhist views of consciousness and happiness, which he insists are “empirical” doctrines that are “susceptible of rational discussion” (p. 221). Harris reserves his (justified) venom for those religions that make radical claims in the absence of any credible evidence, and which indeed disdain subjecting their core doctrines to the test of evidence. 

Its fine by me if the source is summarized properly with proper context. --Rahul (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he seems less critical. Maybe, he wouldn't be needed for the page. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
So, where does your comment come from, "Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith, he regarded that Jainism theories are not harmful, but one would be surrounded by violence", if the actual statement is "the uncontrollable spread of Jainism throughout the world would improve our situation immensely"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Atheism is either correct allegation or false allegation, it is one of the minus points, [15] for example, can be looked into previous version of the page as well.. I found a good one from there..

"If atheism is defined as disbelief in existence of a God, then Jainism cannot be labeled as atheistic, as it not only believes in existence of gods but also of the soul which can attain godhood. As Paul Dundas puts it:

[W]hile Jainism is, as we have seen, atheist in a limited sense of rejection of both the existence of a creator God and the possibility of intervention of such a being in human affairs, it nonetheless must be regarded as a theist religion in the more profound sense that it accepts the existence of divine principle, the paramātmā i.e. God, existing in potential state within all beings.(Dundas (2002) p.111)

So if minus point is added with the quote above, it might be coherent with the subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Status of women"[edit]

I have removed the section on status of women. The section does not belong to this article, since it is not a criticism. The content in it talks about the doctrine of Jainism in which Digambara denies moksha to women, where as svetambara does not. It does not state who criticises this doctrine or how or why is it been criticised. The same content might be more suitable for the article Jain schools and branches, but it is unsuitable for this article. --Rahul (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree nor agree with the editor, he should back up here. But then again, if texts are deleted this way, there would be certainly no need of this page, like discussed before too. The only part for which Jainism is critical is for it's creation theory and the quote by Dayanand Saraswati.. Other than that there's no really agreed criticism.. The page, criticism of hinduism lacks criticism too, only caste system which is neither hindu authority or unique. Although Buddhism and Sikhism got a lot of criticism. Bladesmulti(talk) 18:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Rahul, you are missing the point. The point of criticism is Jainism gives less privileges/ respect/ value to women compared to men. Women are considered impure. Read the source. May be we should word it better. -Abhishikt (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Obviously this is part of criticism. So reverting it back. Jethwarp (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have taken that source to WP:RSN, because I am not sure for its reliability. --Rahul (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect representation of sources[edit]

I have removed these lines from the article:

Although Jainism is dedicated to equality in many ways, women do face difficulties in attaining moksha "liberation" in Jainism. Some texts state that women are spiritually unequal and impure. Women are believed to be harmful by nature. Their menstrual blood is considered to be impure in several important Jain texts.[2][3]

None of the given sources directly support any of the claim made in those lines. --Rahul (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The article currently uses lots of incorrect sources:

Adi Shankara has criticised the Jain position on the supremacy and potency of Karma in Jainism, specifically the insistence on non-intervention by any Supreme Being.[4]

There is no such claim made in the page 1 of Pandey.

It is notable that Adi Shankara defeated Jain in religious discussion and Hinduism extremely revived, while Jainism began to decline.[5]

The source does not claim that this was notable, nor does it claims that it actually happened. I have thus removed these claims --Rahul (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Where's the source of "[4]}}" you are reading, and The source of "Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism", by Jyotirmaya Sharma, p. 33" does adds the whole thing that has been added on the page, as well as the other source, now since multiple sources are claiming the same thing, and Jainism having one of the lowest population for the "world religion" today.. Where's the doubt? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism", by Jyotirmaya Sharma, p. 33" does not say that it is "notable". It does not even say that it is a fact. It is talking about the beliefs of Dayananda. --Rahul (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
It does explains it as a notable fact. Same with the other source that i had given which adds 4-5 more names for crediting the decline of jainism. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
What other source? --Rahul (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"Paths to the Divine: Ancient and Indian", by Vensus A. George, p. 322 - 323. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Santhara, commonly called Sallenkhana is a procedure in which a Jain stops eating with the intention of death. The death reports of Jains were prevalent In India. As per Indian law, euthanasia is outlawed and suicide is a crime. In Rajasthan, it was petitioned that High Court of Rajasthan should declare santhara illegal. Despite the petitions were rejected citing it the practice as important belief of Jains, and that it was protected under article 25.[6]

The above claim is also not supported by the mentioned source. --Rahul (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Does,[16] Bladesmulti (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That is Indian Affairs Annual 2007 not Indian Affairs Annual 2006. --Rahul (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
What's the matter? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I have corrected it in the article. --Rahul (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Are the sections "Non-creationism", "Fasting to death" and "Women" relevant to this article?[edit]

I do not think these sections are criticisms and hence should be removed.

The section "non-creationism" talks about a doctrine of Jainism, according to which there is no creator deity. It does not talks about criticism of this doctrine.

The section "Women" talk about an internal dispute between the two schools of Jainism, one holds that women can attain liberation in that very life, the other holds that women needs to be reborn as men to attain liberation. The section also mentions various line of reasoning put forward by Digambara sect of Jainism. This, also, cannot be called as "criticism".

The section "Fasting to death" mentions a practice of Jainism which was challenged by a random lawyer in the High court of India. This content, also, does not seem fit for this article. --Rahul (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think delete the Non-creationism and Women sections. They can be created again if there does turn out to be notable criticism about these aspects. By the way, "criticism" of a religion can come from within that religion, e.g. Protestantism critiques Catholicism and vice-versa, within Christianity. The Fasting to death issue looks more likely to be notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The section "Women" is valid criticism. A religion de-valuing women is clearly noteworthy. This is well supported by reliable sources. This has already been discussed here. I have brought back a para deleted from this section. In fact, I would like to see expansion of this section as described in BBC sources. The sentence about Svetambara sect is just added info for clarity.
The "fasting to death" is clearly notable. Just a simple google search yielded me multiple sources. I have added one to the article. Rahul, please don't repetitively try to remove same content and avoid wasting of wiki communities time/effort. -Abhishikt (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I had reverted Rahul's removal of those sections, with a request to come to talk, so thank you for starting this talk discussion. I'm open to either revising or deleting the "Non-creationism" section on the grounds that it's unclear what, really, is being criticized. That section reads like it's recounting certain beliefs in Jainism, without any explanation of what the criticism is. Maybe there are sources that find fault with the absence of a theory of how the world came to be, but we should indicate who takes that position, in the text. On the other hand, it seems to me to be very clear that the "Fasting" and "Women" sections belong here. For "Fasting", there needs to be some clearer explanation of why the court petition was made, why there were objections to what is arguably a form of suicide. But that shouldn't be difficult: it's pretty obvious why some people would criticize that. I would be interested also in seeing what the scholars who study it (see Sallekhana#Santhara/Sallekhana scholarship in Western academia) say about it. As for "Women", where it says: "Some texts state that women are spiritually unequal and impure. Women are believed to be harmful by nature", can there really be any doubt that there are also people who criticize that? Criticism from within the religion is, indeed, relevant to this page, and I find it very hard to believe that stuff like that hasn't also been criticized from outside. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course, these are all valid points/sections relevant to the article.Jethwarp (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the section of "non-creationism" as per the rough consensus here. Also, I have removed the two lines which were recently added by Abhishikt. It contains too much POV-pushing and weasel words. --Rahul (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
How many times we had the same conversation? Non-creationism is important for this page, because the actual theory of Jainism contradicts the based scientific theory about creation. Consensus are not made in 2 hours, but takes 2 days at least. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There may be an emerging consensus to remove the "non-creationism" section, although its removal is far from urgent, pending further talk. However, Rahul, I don't think that there was any consensus for you to remove the two lines from the "women" section. If there are weasel words, let's identify and revise them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Tryptofish, the non-creationism of Jainism was criticized by Dayanand Saraswati. Except these sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in the section, as it is written now, does it say that he criticized it. If we retain the section, then it needs to be revised to indicate what the criticism is, and who made it. (You mean "accept", not "except", don't you?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Killing the section as it has been almost a year and the section still contains nothing at all that could be considered a criticism just a series of statements on Jain belief that if they belong anywhere belong in the main article on Jainism — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 15:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
While a few authors, like Dayanand Saraswati were critically analyzing Jainism, they are also pointing its non-creationism. It is notable and it should still be there. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Revisions in the "Women" section[edit]

I deleted the following lines:

Although Jainism is dedicated to equality in many ways, women do face difficulties in attaining moksha "liberation" in Jainism. Some texts state that women are spiritually unequal and impure. Women are believed to be harmful by nature. Their menstrual blood is considered to be impure in several important Jain texts.[2][3] [7]

I added the following lines:

The religion of Jains included women in their fourfold sangha; the religious order of Jain laymen, laywomen, monks and nuns.[8] There was a disagreement between early Hinduism, which did not allow scriptural access to women, and ascetic movements such as Jainism which were based on equality.[8] However, the early svetambara scriptures prevented pregnant women, young women or those who have a small child, to enter to the ranks of nun.[9] Regardless, the number of nuns given in those texts were always the double of the number of monks. Parsva and Mahavira, two historical teachers of Jainism has huge numbers of female devotees and ascetics.[9]

According to the svetambara's scriptures such as Chhedasutra, women were given lesser authority than their male counterparts.[9] The reasons for this, in the commentaries, were that things which could endanger the vow of chasity should be avoided. Nalini Balbir writes that the belief that women are more fragile then men were all-pervading in these texts.[10]

  • "Although Jainism is dedicated to equality in many ways, women do face difficulties in attaining moksha "liberation" in Jainism." This is highly POV. Even men face difficulty in attaining moksa according to Jain doctrines. The claim that women cannot attain moksa in that very birth is specific to the digambara sect which is numerically smaller. It is unnecessary generalized.
  • "Some texts state that women are spiritually unequal and impure." Which texts? Instead of this, a svetambara and a digambara text is mentioned now in the article. They are more specific on what inequality and impurity is mentioned.
  • "Women are believed to be harmful by nature." The nature of women is not considered as harmful. Their body is, according to the digambara sect, himsic (which BBC source roughly translates as harmful).
  • "Their menstrual blood is considered to be impure in several important Jain texts." Again, which texts?

I am also highly skeptical of the source. It incorrectly quotes Gautama Buddha in the end and ascribe it to Mahavira. The bbc religions also does not seem to be a very good source. Women in Jainism have been extensively studied by many scholars, they should be used, in my opinion, and are relatively better than BBC religions. --Rahul (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating on that. I want to hear from other editors about the merits of it, because I don't know enough about it. It was me who added the subsection header. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
"There was a disagreement between early Hinduism, which did not allow scriptural access to women, and ascetic movements such as Jainism which were based on equality" is not related to the page. Because the page is related to jainism, not hinduism. Nor it has any competence with hinduism in this regard. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Bladesmulti, I'm not sure what you are saying here. We should discuss this on User_talk:Bladesmulti, so I can get a clearer picture, of what you mean. (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think what Bladesmulti is trying to say is that this is page about Criticism of Jainism and not a comparision between Hinduism and Jainism and therefore lines like "There was a disagreement between early Hinduism, which did not allow scriptural access to women, and ascetic movements such as Jainism which were based on equality" are not related to the page and I think he is correct. Therefore, I have removed one line as of now. Jethwarp (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What is a actually a criticism in the women section[edit]

Do we have any sources that actually criticize Jain belief about women or even that verify that the two schools, by differing in their beliefs, actively criticize each other.

At present we have evidence that there are different attitudes. that is not criticism.

Disagreements are not criticism.

To be a criticism there has to be an actual denigration, censure, or disparagement. At present this section (while undoubtedly relevant to the article) does nothing to show how it is relevant. And if actual direct criticism can be referenced, it needs to be removed. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 15:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Panicker, P. L. John (2006). Gandhi on Pluralism and Communalism. ISPCK. p. 39. 
  2. ^ a b "Women Impure During their Menstrual Cycle?". Anekant Education Foundation. Retrieved 2011-09-27. 
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference ZZ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Pandey 1978, p. 1.
  5. ^ "Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism", by Jyotirmaya Sharma, p. 33
  6. ^ "Indian Affairs Annual 2006", p. 18, by Mahendra Gaur
  7. ^
  8. ^ a b Balbir, p. 121.
  9. ^ a b c Balbir, p. 122.
  10. ^ Balbir, p. 122-123.

Wrong criticism[edit]

I have removed this para: "In the Upālisutta dialogue of this Majjhima Nikāya text, Buddha contends with a Jain monk who asserts that bodily actions are the most criminal, in comparison to the actions of speech and mind. Buddha criticises this view, saying that the actions of mind are most criminal, and not the actions of speech or body.[1]"

This seems wrong because Jain philosophy also postulates that actions of mind (or intentions) are more important than actual action. According the Jaina view, if a person kills a living being with no bad intentions, he/she will not acquire any sin. -Nimit (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Women section[edit]

I have removed the following content:

These claims are very controversial and there is only one source cited. Also, I couldn't find the text referred by the author and therefore these claims need additional citations. -Nimit (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are several suggestions of this article even criticism?[edit]

By definition a criticism article should only contain sourced criticism. An article should not contain merely statements of belief with the reader being led to infer criticism.

Statements of religious doctrine are NOT criticism and should be removed or corrected. I stated this position almost a year ago and my changes were reverted for discussion. The majority of the discussion has agreed with my position, as recorded above, and yet the problematic sections, most especially the one on non-creationism remain.

Simply put, no matter how important that subject may be in understanding Jain beliefs, the paragraph as written offers NO criticism whatsoever.

It needs to go.

Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 20:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Falerin: There is no such section named "non-creationism" in the article. Regards,-जैन (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Apparently for some reason Wikipedia was showing me cached versions of the page. You are quite correct there is no such section. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 22:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)