This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. Please participate by editing the article Jainism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Please discuss any planned edits in the talk page first.
Fyi, I noticed the inclusion of more than a dozen minority opinions in the article.
Over the coming weeks, I plan on finding some time to comb through the article and highlight any issues here.
Thanks --Ratha K (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Since your bold edit got reverted, I think it applies on you to establish consensus. "Jainism is a Near Eastern religion that established its presence around the 6th century B.C. Led by the spiritual elite of the Hindu establishment, the new religion sought to focus on what they believed to be the core aspect of Hinduism - spiritual understanding of man and the universe." This actually is serious POV-pushing. Jainism is older than that and it was not led by spiritual elite of hindu establishment. Also, "The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity" cannot be used to replace sources which are written specifically for Jainism. I am reverting the recent edit as of now. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Rahul, I will continue to assume good faith, despite your two reverts.
Historical revisionism aside, even your own source contradicts your claim. Historia Religionum, notes the following:
• "Jainism appeared more than two thousand five hundred years ago"
• "Thus it accords fully with the atmosphere of the late Vedic period in which it originated"
• "In its ethical imposition, Jainism is closely related to Buddhism, with which it is roughly contemporary."
I'll attribute this to an honest mistake instead of cherry picking facts.
Your second source, meanwhile, is written by "a retired medical practitioner, PhD in Jain religion; author of Jainism: The World of Conquerors 2 volumes".
In light of this, I am reverting your edit. I will be returning soon to check through the rest of the article.
If he has a Ph.D in Jain religion, what makes him unreliable? Motilal Banarasidass is a reputed publisher of books on Indology. The claim that Jainism established its presence around the 6th century B.C. is POV if not hoax. It has been established that Parsva is a historical figure and that Mahavira who lived around 6th century BC is not the founder of Jainism. Secondly, you did not justify the statement "Led by the spiritual elite of the Hindu establishment, the new religion sought to focus on what they believed to be the core aspect of Hinduism - spiritual understanding of man and the universe." Its probably based on that apologetics book which cannot be considered as reliable source for information on Jainism as far as I understand. Helmuth Von Glasenapp points out, in the reference you provided, that there are remarkable similarities in Hinduism and Jainism's social and cultural life which I agree. However, this does not support any of the claim that you made. There is a similar discussion at Talk:India, please participate in it. But I would suggest that you self-revert until a consensus has been reached. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
He is neither an anthropologist nor a historian, just a medical doctor and a practicing Jain who obtained a post graduate Phd in Jain religion from somewhere. He provides no credible references to his statements. Feel free to add credible references to support your claims, and we can discuss it here. My references provide an exact reference to what I wrote. For the record, historically, Jainism has been accepted as an off-shoot of Hinduism. I could provide ten more references if you like. Please do not confuse Jainism with Brahmanic or Vedic teachings. As for Talk:India, as the other editors have pointed out, you need to provide specific, credible references. I do not intend to jump in another discussion. Thanks. --Ratha K (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea why you insist on having same discussion at two different talk pages. The book of christian Apologetics is not a credible source for information on Jainism and Helmuth Von Glasenapp does not even remotely states what you wrote. Since your bold edits were reverted, please maintain the Status Quo until a concensus has been reached. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It has been proved beyond doubt that Jainism is not an offshoot of Hinduism. Hinduism did not even exist during the time of Mahavira. Kindly do not push Hindu POV. Indian Chronicles (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Are we actually arguing that Jainism is not off shoot? Well, you can't deny the most obvious, and hinduism was known as "Sanatana Dharma" or "vedic" that time. BTW i looked the edits of Ratha K, i agree with them. Capitals00 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Excepting Mahavir all other Tirthankars are not proved by any source of historical data. Probably, they are creations of later story writers. Mahavir made this ideology popular and before his time it was not know to common people. However, Hinduism existed much before Mahavir as we know that many Vedic references are much older than Mahavir's time. Mahavir and Buddha existed practically at the same period. It is a common experience that Jains of today want to prove that their ideology existed prior to Hinduism but they cannot do it due to lack of enough proofs. Since 'Hinduism' is a generic term covering all ideologies which had arisen to guide people since the earliest times, it will be better to stop this unnecessary argument because, by my experience of Jains of today, this argument will never reach any consensus unless others admit that Jainism is older than Hinduism. Fact of the matter is, we Hindus believe that Jainism is just another ideology included in a pan-Hindu 'family of ideologies'. Therefore, to say that Jainism existed prior to Hinduism appears to be senseless. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we asking for a 'search for the historical Mahavir' and a 'search for the historical tirthankars' the way Christendom conducted a 'search for the historical Jesus' to find out what historical data there is in hand, at whatever the latest time had acquired, as an ethical duty to objectivity and honesty? Well, that could be part of this broder 'Hindu' tradition of reflection about Jainism, which holds some beliefs that are quite contrary to some beliefs within some putatively 'Hindu' perspectives - one of which is the centrality of the practice of ahimsa, a non-negotiable moral commitment (which NOMINAL 'Hindus' seem willing to trade-off for immediate convenience, even when it proves materially harmful for them to 'go along with the crowd'). MaynardClark (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Scholarly consensus is that the matrix of Vedic sacrifice and shramana practices were both present in the earliest period and that established proto-shrauta and proto-shramana practices as independent religious movements are both descended from this period. Shramanism and "orthodox Vedism" are both the product of earlier Indic religion. The term "Hinduism" is much, much later (as is Sanatana Dharma); it's improper to call both Jainism and Buddhism "Hindu". Ogresssmash! 10:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Himanshujain, I did not undo your edit because it was wrong, but because it was abrupt, provided no explanations about the terms, and unwikified (ie. not quite ready for prime time) and that too only because Jainism is a GA article. Please don't be discouraged, but please discuss the issues (how to introduce it and where, its scope, level of summary etc) with the editors here. I'm not one of them, but others above are. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 12 September 2013 #UTC#
Himanshujain, I have deleted it again; I have to agree with Fowler&fowler. I really hope you will work here on the talk page to make your proposed text article-ready. Are there any reliable sources that you can cite? Can we work on a way to introduce the subject less abruptly, and offer some explanation of the terminology that you use? Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As for period when Jainism emerged as a full fledged religious activity becomes clear from the fact that all its literature in in Ardhamagadhi a prakrut language whereas all important scriptures of Hinduism are in Sanskrit. Emergence of Ardhamagadhi language is about 3rd century BC. Whereas, Sanskrit we know existed ever since Vedic period (about 700 BC). This evidence clearly shows that Jainism is of much later period and any claim that Jainism influenced Hinduism becomes baseless. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't we look for the truths in such matters and document that these are known truths that are known as truths? Claims in en.wikipedia.org cannot be left without documentation. MaynardClark (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes) before restoring the infobox to this page. The Jainism infobox currently violates several of the main concepts that are supposed to be present in an infobox. This affects other pages on Wikipedia, so this is a big issue. Basically, navigating internally on this page should be done using a table of contents box, while an infobox is supposed to be used on other (non-Jainism) pages when those other pages mention Jainism. Under the Wikipedia Manual of Style an infobox isn't for a topic's own page, but rather to allow other pages an easy way to summarize this page's topic. This is done to allow those other pages a quick summary of Jainism without actually needing to repeat large amounts of Jainism information. The infobox is a way to give unrelated pages that mention Jainism some quick links for a reader who wants more information on the topic, but doesn't clutter up their unrelated page with repeated information that's already available somewhere else. The changes that need to be made to the infobox: First, the infobox needs to be editable from the page that shares the infobox's name. Second, under no circumstances should a flag or organizational symbol be a part of the infobox as the purpose of an infobox is to be inserted into other (often unrelated) pages. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect on several points:
while an infobox is supposed to be used on other (non-Jainism) pages -> No, an infobox can be a navigational tool. See Christianity and Islam for example.
the infobox needs to be editable from the page that shares the infobox's name -> No, that's not how infoboxes works. They're templates.
under no circumstances should a flag or organizational symbol be a part of the infobox -> No, symbols are fine. See the articles I linked to.
I always thought 'nirvana' was exclusively Buddhist. I thought it would be useful to link to the wiki article that says "The terms moksa and nirvana are often used interchangeably in the Jain texts. In Jainism, moksha (liberation) follows nirvāṇa." This was helpful to me. I think it would improve this article if someone knowledgeable could address the use of these terms in Jainism. I'll add the Wiki link at Mokṣa to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha_(Jainism). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The article has been removed from the list of "Good articles" following the reassessment of the GA status. But, a detailed review was not done. A detailed review like this one, will be helpful in improving the article. Nimit (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)