Talk:Dharmic tradition/Archive 1

Further, Jain theology believes the universe to be self-sustaining and without any external entity as its benefactor. Thus, Jains do not believe in "God" as the creator of the Universe, or its sustainer or destroyer. Further, another very interesting facet is the Jain belief of time, according to which in each "Avsarpini" and "Utsarpini" "kaal" (hindi for "time period") there is a "Chaubisi" (the set of 24 tirthankars). Thus, per the Jains scriptures, the universe is much older than the present "Chaubisi" (with Lord Rishabh as the 1st, and Lord Mahaveer as the 24th), there have been infinite "Chaubisi's" in previous times, and there would be infinite more, in times to come. 

Besides, do have a modicum of an iota of any idea about the IAF ? I almost single-handedly re-wrote the entire page on HAL Tejas. Then on discussion with an aeronautics engineer Askari Mark, the article was revamped again. Do also see my edits on 4th generation fighter jet. Till then....Anish-ben Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Dear Sister IAF....I suggest you restrict yourself to HAL because you are still bent on imposing your biased viewpoint blinded by your false ideology.

As for your threats and rotten language they do not work here. Even two can play the game. I suggest you take some History classes to get some better perspective. Till then I will ensure that your false viewpoints are always reverted back. I have seen many cowards who prefer the anonimity of Internet by hiding their true names and writing trash. I glad that you admit it. Till then bye sis.. IAF--

Legalese 19:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Hey, IAF, the article after your recent edit is not in a good shape. See the above mentioned scholarly views, read them and then please decide yourself.[reply]

The author of River of Heaven, from which you quote and rely upon is Dr. David Frawley. The follwing is his profile. "Dr. Frawley is the President of the American Council of Vedic Astrology. He is the author of over twenty books on Yoga, Ayur-veda, Hinduism and Hindu Philosophy, as well as several training courses and numerous articles on various aspects of Vedic and Yogic knowledge. Dr. Frawley was a student of Dr. B.L. Vashta, one of the most respected Ayurvedic doctors in Maharashtra, India and received the title of Pandit through the Masur Āśhram in Mumbai in 1991. He has worked with many Ayurvedic doctors and authors worldwide including Dr. Vasant Lad, Dr. Deepak Chopra, Dr. Sunil Joshi, Dr. Subhash Ranade, Dr. Marc Halpern, Dr. Frank Ros, Atreya Smith and many others. He has helped in the founding of several Ayurvedic and Vedic schools in several countries. He also has a degree in Chinese Medicine (OMD, 1988) through the International Institute of Chinese Medicine in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where he taught from 1983-1990. In addition he is an approved Yoga teacher through the Yoga Alliance. He was the Director of the American Institute of Vedic Studies and holds several advisory positions in International Yoga and Ayurvedic Institutes" http://www.hindu-university.edu/faculty/faculty%20pages/dfrawley.htm Now, come on....he is not even a Professor on Theology or Religion.

I believe the views I mentioned, because of their consistency, and because numerous professors support them are more credible than a "degree in Chinense Medicine" holder's view. Please undo your change.

In 2006, the Supreme Court opined that "Jain Religion is indisputably not a part of the Hindu Religion". (para 25, Committee of Management Kanya Junior High School Bal Vidya Mandir, Etah, U.P. v. Sachiv, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors., Per Dalveer Bhandari J., Civil Appeal No. 9595 of 2003, decided On: 21.08.2006, Supreme Court of India)

For further reading as to differences between Hinduism and Jainism follow this link http://jainperceptions.blogspot.com/

Legalese, please read this. I have answered the stuff about the SC's latest judgement, and why Jainism is a religion later in date than the Vedic religion at least 10 times there. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Legalese 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Hey, merely repeating 10 times in a noncoherent way would not change the fact of the matter. Have you taken the pain of going through the opinions I submitted for everyone's consideration? If not, please do it now. "The stuff" you wrote on SC's present judgment is not correct in as much as the doctrine of "implied overruling" is applicable. Please understand that judgments of a Court of Law hold more water than the statements of "a degree in Chinese Medicine Holder's". Of course, needless to say that the Supreme Court has only clarified the stance which Professors from Yale and other "reputed universities" have already stated. Please IAF, do not, for the sake of making a point, overrule all notions of logic, or even plain civility. We all are here to make WIKI a better knowledge and information system, not just to prove our points. I hope you will appreciate. And I still wait for your reply, as to WHY did you simply DELETE the latest judgment which goes, as it seems, against the shape you want this article to take. Only because it goes against you, you delete it outright? That is not good in the spirit of WIKI.[reply]

If I have repeated something 10 times then have YOU read it ? I have even replied to all your,points above.

• Legalese, why can't you keep the discussion only on one section (the one started by Vassyana) ? Why do you and AnishShah start separate sections altogether to rebuke what I said ? "On IAF's response to 10 times...", "On IAF's edits....". Do you even know how to use a talk page or simply like creating newer sections ? So you're the one who is actually being noncoherent.

If I'm not mistaken, I gave you the link to the appropriate section also earlier. If you still haven't read it, or can't read it or don't want to read it is not my problem. I don't expect you to see the old Dharmic Religions talk-page. Besides, do point out for everyone's sake where have I held a private hobbyist's opinion to be legally bindng on all of the Indian Republic.

Anyway, I'll write it all over again and in the process, teach YOU some Legalese... The SC's latest opinon is NOT an overruling implied, otherwise it would have been explicitly mentioned as it is in other cases. The judgement itself makes no mention of it anywhere as it always is in case of overrulings of previous judgements. It simply says that its an "interesting observation". That by itself is no implication of an overruling.

Again before blatantly and base-lessly accusing me of deleting something simply because you say that I don't like it, I may point the finger back at you for never reading what I've commented earlier. I repeat, that is a judgement pertaining to a STATE, and not the Union of India. The Bal Patil judgement pertained to the Union of India (the case was Bal Patil vs. the Union of India) and it was therein that the SC made the observation that "Jainism is a sub-religion of Hinduism etc...." .

DO recall that Nationally Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs are NOT religious minorities, but only POPULOUS minorities. That's why the judgement in agreement with that.

Now I hope you know that that different states in India have accorded minority status to Jains/Buddhists. So was the case in the state of UP, of which the SC has pronounced its latest judgement.

And for the last time, I repeat :- Jainism and Buddhism have a liturgy that is in Sanskrit---which was originally not just used, but developed for composing the RV, AV, YV and the SV. Ideas like Moksha and rebirth occurs in the Vedanta first and then simply rephrased by the Buddha and Jain tirthankars later on. They DO NOT predate or were even synchronous with the composition of the Vedas. They all were documented much later onwards.

Sanskrit is the key-word, which was originally developed for the Vedas and later on whose usage and liturgy was copied by latter cults which grew into religions like Jains and Buddhists. Anyway, forget Jains, even within Hinduism also there are many protestant groups like the Arya-Samajis (who don't worship idols or other gods & goddesses), the Vaishnavites (who can't tolerate anything else but Vishnu; they don't even read the Vedas), the Shaivites etc.Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Legalese I'll respond point wise to you, IAF. 1.Implied Overruling: May I please bring to your kind notice, that the doctrine of "implied overruling" is exactly about the ABSENCE of an " explicit mention" of the previous case, hence it is "implied" and not "express". I hope this clarifies to you that your stance is not correct. Though, I welcome your effort to teach me some legalese. 2. Whether Judgment pertains to a "state": and on what basis do you conclude that the judgment pertains to a state, and not to the Union...only because of the name title? Please have the Supreme Court of India Rules 1969 which explain how the name titles of cases are kept. If I go by your logic, than the case of "M.C. Mehta v. UT of Delhi", should apply, only to the territory of Delhi. (This is a Supreme COurt Case of 1987, which governs the application of precautionary principle of Environmental Law THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY). Also, if you may please read the case at hand, the paragraph where the observation in question has been made, the Supreme Court Judge who wrote the judgment did not really qualify his statement with the words (that this observation would apply to the State of UP, ONLY). 3. Liturgy in Sanskrit: I am sorry, but the Jain texts (Aagams) are not in Sanskrit at all. They are in Prakrit and Pali. Also, the Buddhist (tripitaks) are in Pali and Prakrit, and not sanskrit. Perhaps, you might wish to check again with your sources on which you say that these texts are in sanskrit. 4. The concept of Moksha is drastically different in Jains and Buddhists, qua the Hinduism belief. Infact, even amongst Jains and Buddhists, there exist differences. On the 4 points that I submit, if you have any clarification, you may please revert. I request you again to withold your edits, on the question of whether Jainism or Buddhism existed prior to Hinduism, for you still not have been able to resolve how you are going to counter the consistent version of several professors who specialise on the subject, and some of whom are from Universities as prestigious as the Yale. Largely, may I request you to take all of this in good spirit, and I proactively say a "sorry", if you may find any of the above offending, however not at all would it be any of my intentions. While you analyse a judgment of a court of law, please bear in mind that they are not pieces of literature, but could be technical pieces based on concrete evidence laid before the Court. In any case, once the Supreme Court pronounces something, atleast for India, it becomes the "law of the land" per Art. 141 of the Constitution.I thank you again for your offer to teach me legalese, and would be glad to...for I am surely wanting to do a PhD in law, after my present masters and my previous five year law graduation.

• OK so you reveal only NOW, albeit "nonchalantly", that you are a student of Law. So I'll discuss the legal part later on. I don't want you to apologize for anything because I never asked for an apology though I did complain against you to an admin.

I'll discuss the 2 remaining points here :-

Pali & Prakrit : The very fact that the liturgy of Jaina literature is in Pali proves that the Jain pantheon does NOT predate the Vedic religion. Vedic Sanskrit was the oldest language of the sub-con and is a member of the Indo-European familiy and the Proto-Indo-Iranian language family. The RigVeda is the oldest attested composition of literature of the Sub-con (along with the other 3 Vedas of course), and it is in none other but Sanskrit.

Pali is a Prakritic language and originated at a much much later date (around the time of the Buddha). Prakit itself has a much latter date of development than Sanskrit.

Moksha and Rebirth : I never refered to the finer nuances of Moksha and re-birth. I refered to its being originally a Vedic concept that has been fully expounded earlier in the Vedas in its absolute meaning. Same goes for rebirth, which holding the virtue of being a Sanskrit word and having being elaborated in the Vedas, is an idea which clearly predates the Buddhist and Jaina pantheons.

Hence the statement >> Dharmic religions....which encompass the Vedic religion (now Hinduism) and the 3 other religions that have spawned from it..... I can say spawned from it because these core ideas of Jainsm & Buddhism are ideas that have clearly been loaned from Vedic Sanskrit literature and were NOT developed independently. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Legalese 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Again, this is not fair. 1. Only because I am a student of law, you would reply later? Which means, had it been otherwise, you still would have held "your version" on the judgment, and kept on repeating it as you did above? Please, IAF, this is not fair. 2. Only because something goes against, the way you want it to be, you can use any means to put your point? (viz. your explanation of the doctrine of "implied overruling", which you did just to support your stance? Whereas, in its present frame, your explanation most clearly reveals that you are not aware, even a bit of these nuances.) 3. Jain literature is in Prakrit, and a. your argument that Prakrit came subsequent to sanskrit, b. because prakrit came subsequent to sanskrit, Jainism came subsequent to Hinduism...is logically flawed. It is, analogically, similar to an argument, where if I was born in 1900, and you were in 1950, and because you started talking in 1951, and I did in 1952....I become "subsequent" to you? Literature is only an expression. Infact, Jains are colloquially called "Nirgranths" i.e. one without granths or religious texts. 4. Further, for your information, the first Veda, Rigveda, has a mention of Tirthankar Rishabh Dev. Hence your version doesnt stand at all. (if you want, I can supply you the exact citation from Rigveda...if you so wish, you may also do a little bit of googling to find it). Again, I have no benefit in levelling anything against you, and let me please make it clear, I am writing this, not against you, but against what you wrote. 5. I strongly object to your statement "because these core ideas of Jainsm & Buddhism are ideas that have clearly been loaned from Vedic Sanskrit literature and were NOT developed independently" What do you know about these core ideas of Jainism, and Buddhism to make such a statement? Kindly explain? What do you know about the concept of "Moksha" and "Nirvana" in Jainism? How do you know if the theory of "rebirth" is not different in Jainism?[reply]

Hold back, do not go to the extent of being RIDICULOUS, please. Just because you want to make a point, you will say anything and everything to support your stance? Again, at the cost of repetition, let me say, PLEASE, BE FAIR.Legalese 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Legalese !!! You have pointwise replied to IAF. All scholars agree that Jainism is a unique and a seperate religion from Hinduism. We have nothing against Hinduism and have an equal respect for its philosophy. But to say that Jainism is an offshoot of Hinduism would be great travesty of Truth. It may be difficult to accept the truth but the evidence is there if one removes ones ideolgical blindfold . Thanks Legalese for carring out the debate rationally and in a polite and cultured manner that reflects the principles of Jainism.--

A tortoise avatar (or something similar, I don't exactly recall) is mentioned in the Puranas >> a very latter day creation. Even the Upanishads predate the Puranas. They were essentially commentaries on the Vedas.

From the article on Upanishads (with citation) : The philosophical edifice of Indian religion viz., Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism is built on the foundation laid by the Upanishads.[1]

b) Tirthankars : From this page, Lord Rishabh was from the Ikshvaku clan, which clearly came after the RigVed. Eastern Indian Ikshvaku cities like Ayodhya came about much later than the RV people who were centered around the Punjab and NWFP regions. The burial sites of Jain Tirthankars are also cities which evolved after the Aryans (or whoever) had finally settled in Central India.

b) Prakrit and Pali : The very invention of not only the words, but the associated ideas of Ahimsa, Karma, Mokha, Nirvana and other important concepts of Jainism & Buddhism has first been done solely in Sanskrit during the compositions of the canonical texts called the Vedas only; no other parallels in time prior or dating to it, any other place (during that time) or by other peoples (during that time) exist. This is an established fact.

These ideas are futher built and extolled in the Upanishads, from which as I've pointed out above stem many core ideas of Jainism too.

This itself proves that Jainism does not predate or even parallel Vedic religion.

Now let's assume momentarily that despite the Prakritic tongues being much latter developments, the Jain/Buddhist traditions can trace their origins to a time-period that is at par with the RigVed. Then what was the language in which their literature was recorded ? If something has to be recorded, it has to be done so in a language. That language would be Sanskrit.

But to what I know, Jain/Buddhist literature has NEVER EVER been recorded in Sanskrit.

Moksha & Nirvana in Jainism : Please do not portray the words Moksha or Rebirth as some tremendously profound concepts that are radically different from Hinduism and then question the loaning of these ideas from Vedic literature. Fact is :- They mean the same in Vedic literature and Jainism, and the meaning itself comprises the idea :- liberation of the soul from reincarnation. Period.

Some minor differences are there like the Jains believe that Lord Rama attained Moksha while Hindus believe he was a re-incarnation as is stated here. Same goes for Ahimsa, Brahmacharya (note the etymology in relation to Brahma), etc.

It is undisputable that these ideas were developed first when Vedic literature was being composed. That they find mention in other faith-systems is proof that the latter have loaned it from the Vedas.

Even within various cults in Hinduism exist minor differences like the ones that are between the Dvaita and Advaita schools of thought.

That's all for now. Till Sunday I'm busy and hence may not reply in these pages. Please do not assume that I've left the discussion. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

I GIVE UP'' Legalese 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Dear IAF, after reading what you just wrote, I feel that I SHOULD withdraw.[reply]

"I asked for time to reply on the legal aspects because I definitely would take a few days to catch-up with a Ph.D student in law. My earlier assertions too are atleast logically valid : No explicit mention of an over-ruling, which logically definitely does not mean that it is an implied overruling (now you say that legally it does, so I'm flummoxed), repeated references from various State-verdicts to judge this UP-state case and no mention of upturning the National Status of Jains/Buddhists/Sikhs in India, and no upturning the verdict in the Bal Patil case...... Anyone who understands English would have made these common-sense arguments. It is your legal traditions in such matters (like implied-overruling or not, National status upturned or not) that form the nuances which I do not know of, and will take time for me to reply."

Atleast logically valid and Anyone who understands English

Look here- we were talking about "implied" overruling.

To quote you,

1. Anyway, I'll write it all over again and in the process, teach YOU some Legalese... The SC's latest opinon is NOT an overruling implied, otherwise it would have been explicitly mentioned as it is in other cases.

2. '"No explicit mention of an over-ruling, which logically definitely does not mean that it is an implied overruling "Bold text

hahah, so your argument is that because there is no "explicit mention of an overruling" THEREFORE it is not "implied" overruling, and this...you call a logical argument?

Lets get to the roots, then.

My dictionary says:

Explicit: Precisely and clearly expressed or readily observable; leaving nothing to implication

Implied: to suggest that sth is true or that you feel or think sth, without saying so directly

hahaha, should i go any further? It is amazing, out of other things, you said Atleast logically valid and Anyone who understands English and these common-sense arguments....hahahah

Given this level of "reasoning" and "logical" arguments based on "common sense", in "English", I'll prefer to leave this article to its fate, and let you keep it in the shape you want. Smile, buddy ! I withdraw.Legalese 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Legalese I can understand your frustration.--

B) Iksvaku Clan When Rishabh Kumar was one year old, Saudharmendra came to Kulkar Nabhi for formalizing the family name. He carried a sugar-cane in his hand Baby Rishabh was sitting in his fathers lap. When he saw the sugar-cane he eagerly extended his tiny hands to grab it. Saudharmendra gave the sugar-cane to the baby and seeing his affinity for sugar-cane (Ikshu) he formally named the family as Ikshvaku. http://www.jainworld.com/book/24tirthankaras/bhag1.asp As Rishabha predated Vedas there is no chance that it came after Vedas.

C) Jaina Texts - The Jaina texts prior to Mahavira were called Purvas which were 14 in numbers. As per the Jaina tradition, with establishing of the order of new Tirthankars, the old order along with the laymen, monks and texts merges with the new order. This is attested by the meeting between Kesi (old order of Parshva) and Gutama (new order of Mahavira) and its subsequent merger as described in Uttaradhayana Sutra. The Purvas were passed on by oral tradition as per the existing lingua franca of that age. That is the reason why current Jaina texts are in Ardhamagadhi and Sauraseni Prakrit and are traced to Mahavira. The 14 Purvas of Parshava and prervious Tirthankars are either lost or merged with current agamas. By the way most of the commentaries of the texts are in Sanskrit and subsequently 2nd century CE texts like Tattvartha Sutra are in Sanskrit.

D) Difference in Terminalogy- Moksha and Nirvana are radically different in Jainism and Hinduism. Moksha in Jainism means attainment of Godhood where the liberated soul maintains its individual identity and resides on Siddhashila at the top of Universe. It is preceded by Kevala gyana and 14 stages of spiritual development through which a soul passes on its way to liberation. In Hinduism by moksha the soul merges itself into a higher entity i.e. Brahma. Karma in jainism refers to subtle karmic particles. Lokmanya Tilak has admitted that Ahimsa is an Original Jain Doctrine. "In ancient times innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifice. Evidence in support of this is found in various poetic composition such as Kalidasa's Meghaduta. But the credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the Brahminical religion goes to the share of Jainism." (Bombay Samachar, 10-12-1904). Hence it can be seen that the concepts of Moksha, Ahimsa, Karma etc are tightly and elaborately defined in Jainism as against loose and confusing definations in Hinduism. For eg Hindus belive in Law of Karma as well as belive that Gods can grant favour and Moksha is subservient to divine grace. In Jainism each soul is his own lord and denies creatorship or lordship of GOD for universe as well as the destiny. In fact, in Rig Veda Song of Creation, questions the omnipotence and omniscience of God, and perhaps even the existence of any entity like God. This is a concept borrowed from Jainism. This proves that Rgveda is later than Jainism.

You are continiously harping on Sanskrit Prakrit Pali etc and ignoring the archeologiocal evidence of Mohenjo daro and Harrapa, the evidences provided by the western and Indian scholars and evidences in the Buddhists as well as Hindu scruiptures. Unfortunately your arguements do not hold water will generalised statements which are easily thrashed by the scholars. Simply parroting the views if ill informed persons will not change the facts.

In conclusion it has been proved that Jainism is a different and unique religion and totally seperate from Hinduism although both have coexisted and influenced each other greatly and thus creating this great Bhartiya parampara. It had its origins independently from Vedas. However as we dont know the dates of origins of Hinduism as well as Jainism, we can definately atleast come to a conclusion that both paramparas have existed parallely rather than one being an off-shoot of another. If Hindus believe that Vedas are divine then I respect that belief and have no arguements on that and do not want to go in proofs and evidences. But twisting facts to suit ones beliefs is not acceptable.--

AnishShah19 : I'll reply to you on/after Sunday. Indian_Air_Force

AnishShah19, whatever that you have stated are actually Jain orthodox beliefs. Even Hindus believe that Lord Rama came about in 10,000 B.C. etc.

• Ram Prasad Chanda's reference that you gave, never says that the Indus Valley seal or edict that has a man showing Yogic postures (again a Hindu science), is Lord Rishabha. He merely states that that posture is like that of Rishabha. As I told you earlier, the Puranas are a much later occurence than the Vedas and even the Upanishads. The Puranas mention Jain tirthankars numerous times.

I hope that you understand that the Indus Valley script is as yet undeciphered. We do not know their language or their script.

Again, Magadha and eastern Indian states came at far much later dates than the earliest Vedic sites. Sure, the tirthankars may have lived/preached there but that doesn't mean that they predated Hinduism.

• The
  Manu Smriti

• According to this site on Jain Agama literature, the earliest known Jain literature can be traced back to a time after Lord Mahavira's death. The Purvas themselves are a part of the 12th series that comprise that literature. So when they cam later than Mahavira (i.e. later than 500 A.D.) how can they be older than Vedic literature ?

• Moksha means liberation of the Soul from the endless cycle of rebirths. This idea is clearly Vedantic if not wholly Vedic. Now whether the soul perches itself on top of the Universe, or merges itself with the Brahmaan are minor bifurcations. Even within various Hindu cults there are many theories and opinions.

Just like a generic medicinal compound which is marginally different in composition from the original, can't be granted a patent, Jainism's Moksha can in no way be claimed to be unique. In this regard I'm frank and don't mean to hurt feelings. I'm only reciting historical facts.

• Kālidāsa is said to have lived between the 1st cen BC to 5th cen AD. The concepts of Karma, Dharma and Moksha
  (note : all of these are Sanskrit words) are not not only defined for the first time in Hindu scriptures but are defined precisely and unambigously. That there are different viewpoints within subsects and cults does not imply loose definitions.

We also have to discuss about the cohesion that exists between Hindus and Jains of today (in culture and even religion). Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

• I am restating a scholarly comment from the article on the Upanishads (I have posted it earlier also) : The philosophical edifice of Indian religion viz., Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism is built on the foundation laid by the Upanishads.ref.

Indian_Air_Force

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

IAF, You told Legalese that you feel like crying. Why ? We are not insulting Hinduism or Vedic religion by claiming it that it is 2nd oldest religion or it is offshoot of Jainism. On the other hand anyone ignoring the originality of Jainism is definitely on a wrong track. Just because the Hindus are in majority, one cannot subvert the facts. This happened because Jainism was ignored by Western Scholars for long. However this wrong has been now rectified. How much ever galling and difficult to accept it may seem, it is the truth. It requires an open mind and a paradigm shift to admit that hundreds of years of belief are proving wrong.

In fact what you are saying are Hindu Orthodox beliefs because you have not been able to substantiate your claims with necessary scholarly references. Upto now the history was written by the majority. Last Hundred years or so thanks to Western Scholars as evidenced by Indian scriptures, it has been conclusively proved that Jainism is a different and oldest religion that Vedic religion. This view is also now seconded by Indian Scholars. In fact Rigveda also mentions Arishtanemi the 22nd Tirthankar. So even the 22nd Tirthankar predated Rigveda. You have also not provided any new arguments except resorted to hair-splitting arguments on the language used by the scholars. Out of dozen or so more scholars, you have atleasted managed to find objection on the language used by one of them. Also some of the comments are irrelevant such as “hope that you understand that the Indus Valley script is as yet undeciphered” . I hope that you understand that it has not prevented the scholars from predicting the nature of Indus valley civilization. Thanks for providing the link to Jain Agams. But you have not researched properly. If you had carefully read it, it clearly saya that Purvas are lost. The word purva means “prior knowledge”. You have conveniently taken what fits your preconceived notions and ignored the rest.

Yes I admit there is a strong cohesion between Hinduism and Jainism. If you are talking of a scholarly discussion without preconceived notions I am all for it. --

• We also note that the Jain text, the Kalpa-Sutra, notes of Mahavira and Arishtanemi, two Tirthankaras or Jaina Saints, descending from Vimanas or aerial-chariots. As noted, their faith of Yakshasic and semi-divine (not admitting to a deity as the Supreme, but to a non-being, which Hindu texts note is characteristic of asuric or demonic species - the Yakshas are such a species). Tirthankaras are hence incarnations of out-worldly beings that came down to create Jainism on earth and promote the worship of Yakshas, and create materialism (we note Jainism is a materialistic-spiritual faith). Scholarly reference. This might explain why Jains reject the Vedas. Some of what they claim as Tirthankars are depicted as demons in it.

Your last comment did not produce anything new. I hope that your next comment brings concrete, neutral and well-substantiated claims. And I won't be replying again to anything from jainworld.com, because we are discussing history as laid bare before us and not orthodox or fundamentalist beliefs. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Legalese 21:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC) . User:IAF|Indian_Air_Force(IAF) You have crossed all limits. This is simply not tolerable anymore. Please have Sec. 153A of the Indian Penal Code. While, the link you have cited and quoted from, holds a statement which is questionable, your interpretation or addition in sequel to it, namely, "This might explain why Jains reject the Vedas. Some of what they claim as Tirthankars are depicted as demons in itBold text." is strongly objected to. Please be in your limits. This is not a threat, this is a request, however with your attitude and approach towards the subject, you adequately make a point that you do not deserve the freedom of expression being made available through WIKI. I have previously "warned" you on the same page, for using derogatory and absolutely improper language regarding the Supreme Court of India. If you continue doing such things, you would only put "WIKI's best interest" in a jeopardy. Let me further inform you that even if you hold that you were merely trying to "quote" from a webpage, still, such act of yours, in as much as you made this abovenoted statement, suffices to accuse you under the relevant section of Indian Penal Code. That apart, I am in process of writing to this webpage's owner to remove the objectionable portions or amend appropriately.[reply]

• Legalese, I would strongly urge you to rein in your own mental faculties first and then introspect your own actions before preaching others to be in their limits thereon.

As an explicit preamble to discussions on this page, all of us (but excluding you) discuss history, and facts with pure and unbridled objectivity. They are NOT personal comments. Someone who has a miniscule knowledge of historic and scientific temper without the blinkers of orthodoxy will understand this.

The quote which I gave said that, "...the Kalpa-Sutra, notes of Mahavira and Arishtanemi, two Tirthankaras or Jaina Saints, descending from Vimanas or aerial-chariots (UFOs?). As noted, their faith of Yakshasic and semi-divine (not admitting to a deity as the Supreme, but to a non-being, which Hindu texts note is characteristic of asuric or demonic species - the Yakshas are such a species). Tirthankaras are hence incarnations of out-worldly beings that came down to create Jainism on earth and promote the worship of Yakshas, and create materialism". Even if you don't bother to find out, the quote clearly says that Yakshas means DEMON.

Merely stating a fact as written in a book while discussing HISTORY does NOT in any way, constitute as you said, a prejudicial attempt to create communal disharmony.

If you have a problem with that, please turn back time around 3500 years, and ask the authors of the Yajur Veda to rethink what they write. Or else transport them to this time and initiate cases against them.

Till then, what the Yajur Veda states shall remain and I, along with all others who are interested in the subject will comment, in complete cognizance of the bounds of our freedom of expression, that the Arishtamemi (or Arishtameni) are depicted similar to Yakshasic or in other words Demonic beings in the Yajur-Veda, and that this fact be noted, mulled over and opined as one which is of historic significance in the shaping of the Jain faith, and one which is a possible reason why the authority of the Vedas is rejected by adherents of the Jain faith. There is no question of my reverting anything that I have commented earlier.

Here is what the Yajur Veda states :- This above, bringing riches; the leaders of his host and bands Tarksya and Aristamemi, and Urvaçi and Parvacitti his Apsarases, his missile the lightning, his weapon the thunder. Yajur Veda, Kanda, IV

Arishtamemi (as depicted above) carries missiles of "lightning", and "thunder" as weapons. These 2 (Tarksya and Arishtamemi) along with the 8 others described in the verses just above their own description (i.e. verses 4.3 a- 4.3 d) are either described as carrying Rakshasas, wizards, those who kill people, those who snatch the wealth of people etc. Non-deities and non-human people are refered to as being Yakshasic or Demonic in the Vedas.

Now these beings are being appeased in the next verse, and a prayer is made to pay respect to all these people so that they are endowed with prosperity, power, well-being etc. They are not necessarily evil but they are projected as beings who have weapons that are potentially harmful, and must be appeased.

Firstly, I don't think that a Yajur Vedic mention of Arishtamemi necessarily means that he was a Tirthankar (for that matter, the other people like Senajit, Asamaratha, Ratheprota could also be Tirthankars). Anyway even if it is so, the Vedic pantheon has the full credit of having first encountered and even worshipped this Tirthankar. Same goes for Rishabh's mention in the Rig Veda. So this in fact strengthens the view that the Jain faith has indeed spawned from the Vedic religion.

Coming to the Supreme Court's judgement, to which I am accused of being contemptuous. Boss, this is what I stated in due reverence to the SC :-

"At a risk of contempt of the hon'ble SC and taking advantage of the anonymity I enjoy through the internet, I must say that the judgement is self-contradictory. On the one hand it says that Jain religion is indisputably not a part of etc.... but on the other hand a few paragraphs below, it makes an "interesting observation" that as per an earlier judgement, "Jainism is a sub-religion of the Hindu religion".

So to make sense of all this, it can only be inferred that the present observation that Jain religion is not part of Hindu religion is MADE IN REFERENCE TO THE MATTER OF STATE ONLY. Anyway, the SC quotes various old State Court observations in passing a judgement to the case of the State of UP, whereas the Bal Patil vs. Union of India judgement was a matter pertaining to the Union of India. right here

That I respect the SC can be ascertained with the almost customary adjective of hon'ble that I accorded to it.

I can say with utmost confidence that despite repeated pleadings on my part, you never scrolled up and looked for this line and continuously built your case on a frivolous argument (salvage the garbage) which was my critique to AnishShah19's loose arguments i.e. the non-stop argument of his that heralded to the SC judgement, and to which I had gone hoarse replying to. You did not even note the context of the discussion and instead keep on to this date and time, hold an incorrect perception.

Again, I never announced any withdrawal from the debate on legalese when you told that you are a student of law. In the very next comment of mine, I replied that I need time to reply because I do NOT know the prevalent traditions of SC judgements like :- whether an "interesting observation" and no explicit mention of an overruling means that an overruling is implied, whether the status of Jains now stands overturned in the Union or not despite the previous laws that often refer them as Hindus and despite that they still continue to be governed under Hindu laws of social contract stand.

Finally, I have not undone any edit on the main article since like the last week or so. I am adhering in full spirit to the rule of building proper and unanimous consensus before editing. So how am I being accused of being unwanted here ? It is you who are not only an irritant, but an impediment to the smooth flow of ideas (that too which are only related to the article, and nothing else) between me and AnishShah19 by bringing all these ill-conceived charges and accusations. Please Legalese, I don't mean to be rude, but this is a talk:page and Not your court room. Please limit your discussions to the article at hand. Your comments are bordering towards not only being offtopic, but being senseless. On Game rules, I'll reply later on.Indian_Air_Force

IAF It has been conclusively proved that Jainism is an original philosophy of India seperate from Vedic religion. All the relevant points have been provided. Thanks to legalese, he has exposed how language was twisted to wrongly prove that Upanishads are basis of Jainism etc. Many such exposes and lies will be blown up. Your bombastic view points repeating Hindu folklore submitted ad nausem are not going to change the facts. I am only going to reply if you come up with something new. --

• Upanishads : The quote that I gave is from the article on Upanishads. Please click on it and read the relevant quote and its reference. I copy-pasted it as an argument here, thinking that that must've been the original quote in its exact form as available on the said reference.

Now, Legalese pointed out on my talk:page that on the website, the quote is differently worded. I repeat the original quote as he has posted, "Presenting secret doctrines mainly in the form of dialogues between teachers and students of sacred learning, the Upanisads contributed substantially to the development of philosophical ideas in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism."

Is there any difference in the meaning of what I quoted from the Upanishads article and what is actually quoted in the main article ? There is NOT, unless one resorts to elaborate word-play.

I repeat the ORGINAL quote, "the Upanisads contributed substantially to the development of philosophical ideas in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism." This conclusively proves that Buddhism and Jainism owe their origins to Hinduism.

AnishShah19, feigning igonorance will lead to your exposure, not mine. I will only count arguments and arguments alone.Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

IAF, you may assume anything that you may want, but your assumptions cannot change facts. I have put my points and you have not been able to refute them in a proper logical and scholarly manner. Simply parroting Hindu misrepresentation of Jainism cannot be considered a refutation. I dont have time to reply to same points again and again as I am not compelled to have last word like some people. For some people glory of their religion depends on belitting other religions. I may not reply to your post if I find it illogical and not adhering to decency, that does not mean that I agree to all hogwash that comes up for discussion. --

Blaming me of "hogwash", accusing me of belittling other religions........tut tut AnishShah19. That's what you've been doing what with the terms like "Hindu misrepresentation" and "I won't refute illogic". It is amply and deterministically clear that you don't have the slightest idea about the Histories of religion. Since you are at a loss of words (having seen my strong historically referenced valid points), you are now wantonly and deliberately projecting my facts as "belittling other religions" and "Hindu misrepresentation". This is gross violation of the spirit of not only discussion at wikipedia, but also of that of all rules of constructive and amicable debate.Indian_Air_Force

Legalese 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)"Don't salvage the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement again and again to chew. I've trashed it already on this very talk page." IAF, please, understand that while WIKI gives you the freedom to publish yourself, you must respect that the unbriddled use of this freedom can get you, and all of us, in trouble. Your use of such language for the judgment of a Court of Law,and that too, the Apex Court of the Country, is deplorable. Further, if you have heard of something called "contempt of court", please have Sec 2 of the Contempt of Court Act. Your expression falls squarely in the category mentioned in sub-section (c) thereof. In the war of words, that you seem to have undertaken, please be CIVIL. WIKI keeps a history of its edits, sadly even of talk pages, and you may be inviting wrath of a Court....by your words.[reply]

Legalese, do take care before I report you to the admins for :

• Targetting ME in talk-pages instead of discussing the topic at hand.
• Needlessly starting new sections which frivolously discuss nothing but ME, instead of anything NEW on the topic.
• Baselessly accusing me of disrespecting the SC's judement (I have criticised it in a more respectable manner earlier in this very page, but alas I resign to my fate of replying in newer and newer sections). That garbage thingy was in context to the ARGUMENT that was repeatedly being given by AnishShah19. IAF

Legalese 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC) I am sorry, if it hurt you. I responded on the admin's page to whom you reported.[reply]

) Peace !

Legalese 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) . Regarding your latest post, User: IAF/Indian Air Force, where you have quoted from a page, which you claim is a "Scholarly reference"(and you give all of us another chance of how you use pieces of information from the WORLD WIDE web, without even noting their context or relevance) please note the following DISCLAIMER on the end of the page. 1. You accused User: Anish Shah of quoting from a Jain "Orthodox" Website. Can you read ISKON or ARYA Samaj out there? No information is to be re-used or quoted, unless from permission by the Author. Please note that views held here, are in conjunction with Vedic views, such as those expressed by ISKCON members and the ARYA SAMAJ, not held by Islamic, Christian and other such organizations, and the author takes no responsibility for the results of the views held here and their consequences.[reply]

The author strongly advises that the content in these articles is to be used for non-commercial personal use, and not to be researched further, because of the risky nature of this content.

2. Your use of the quote is in "copyright violation" Because the author "reserved" the right "not to be copied"

3. Regarding your statement that "The philosophical edifice of Indian religion viz., Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism is built on the foundation laid by the Upanishads" which you said you are "quoting", I will show how you grossly misquoted.

You quoted it as follows: "The philosophical edifice of Indian religion viz., Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism is built on the foundation laid by the Upanishads"

The website you refer to ACTUALLY reads: "Presenting secret doctrines mainly in the form of dialogues between teachers and students of sacred learning, the Upanisads contributed substantially to the development of philosophical ideas in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism."

To make it a bit more clear to you, my dictionary says "quote" means: "Repeat a passage from". This does not include "moulding" or "reframing" the passage to suit one's own version.

4. That apart, the author to whom this page, (http://www.aasianst.org/book-prizes-ramanujan.htm)'from which you MISQUOTED' refers in the relevant part to a work of Prof. Olivelle for which he got a prize. He is a very learned professor on Indology, and he does not (I am sorry to say DOES NOT) believe that Jainism or Buddhism sprang from Hinduism. I say this on the basis of his reply to my email (feel free to seek a copy, or write to him for a clarification).

5. You tried to give your own whimsical meaning to legal concepts like "implied overruling" and implication of "name title" of a judgment. And without even checking the accuracy of your sweeping statements, you kept on insisting about how YOU think the concepts are to be defined, devoid of "common sense" or even "plain english" (I did show above, how). Only when you got to know that I am a student of law, you withdrew, that too, devoid of even the basic courtesy of accepting that you had made a mistake.

6. You keep quoting works from "degree holders in chinese medicine" and "geocities" pages, on Dharmic Religion, while I have put above several Professors and Scholars View (two of them are from the Yale University). You have not even replied to it yet.

7. You deleted the latest Supreme Court Judgment which is a crucial piece of information for this page on Dharmic Religion only to further your purpose of keeping this page in the way you want it to be, devoid of factual and material accuracy.

5. In name of being an editor of this page on Dharmic Religion, you have:

a.Used absolutely defamatory and unbefitting language for a Court of Law, and that too, for the Apex court of a country (to quote you, "Don't salvage the garbage of the Kanya Junior High School judgement again and again to chew." and I have already shown above (if it is not literally clear enough), how this statement of yours, which you now say does not, but actually does, refer only to the Supreme Court's Judgment and not to anyone's comment or statement) (You use the term "garbage" for the judgment)

b. Commited an illegal act, namely tried to incite religious disharmony by making a statement (unfortunately, to quote your abhorrent remark), "this might explain why Jains reject the Vedas. Some of what they claim as Tirthankars are depicted as demons in it.") which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, ... groups or castes or communities, (the portion in bold here is directly being quoted from Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code) Let me further inform you that even if you hold that you were merely trying to "quote" from a webpage, still, such act of yours, in as much as you made this abovenoted statement, suffices to accuse you under the relevant section of Indian Penal Code. That apart, I am in process of writing to this webpage's owner to remove the objectionable portions or amend appropriately.

In light of the above, I feel it is high time, that this page on Dharmic Religion should avoid you for atleast some time. Would you like to have a self imposed fetter, or do you want me to make a complaint. And next time, should you use such language for any religion or its icons, which goes totally against the spirit of Wiki, its etiquettes and ethics, and also is offensive, illegal, inciteful, showing hatred, and of all things, not civil...you would not receive a request, but probably a legal notice or summon. Legalese 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Legalese for exposing the lies and fraud committed on Upanishad page by misquoting the scholar. It takes a sick mind to twist the facts. Please reproduce the mail from professor so that these people are exposed.--

Besides, I have not violated the spirit of copyright laws in that I have always provided the reference (in the form of a URL), name(s) of the authors to which ever source I refered to or even copied from. I have never claimed original authorship for any reference that was given to me. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Legalese 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)The introductory para of this article quotes from Encarta encyclopedia published by Microsoft Corporation:[reply]

   Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism share with Hinduism the concept of dharma along with other key concepts, and the four religions may be said to belong to the dharmic tradition. At one level Hinduism can refer to the beliefs or practices of followers of any of the dharmic traditions. The word Hinduism retains this sense in some usages in the Indian Constitution of 1950.Italic text In the field of religious studies, however, Hinduism is used in a narrower sense to distinguish it from the other religions of Indian origin

The relevant portion of Article 25 reads

“ (2)(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. ”

In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

Thus, the statement that " The word Hinduism retains this sense in some usages in the Indian Constitution of 1950." is not correct.It would be devoid of logic, to deduce from this explanation in the Constitution(“the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion”) that Jainism or Buddhism is, according to the Constitution, a part of Hinduism. There are many laws which state that a reference to a "male" would include a reference to a "female". (Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code states: "8.Gender—The pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female.")

This explanation merely facilitates the purpose of the conciseness of law. To illustrate, in absence of “Explanation II” the Article would have read:

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-

(b)providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu, or Jain or Sikh or Buddhist religious institutions or of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus or or Jains or Sikhs or Buddhists.

However, with the presence of the said Explanation II, the said Article now stands concise. This is the mere purpose of the Explanation in question and to stretch it any far would be an atrocity on the basic principles of logic.Legalese 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right Legalese !!! Take the case of this misstatement - At one level Hinduism can refer to the beliefs or practices of followers of any of the dharmic traditions.

Pray at which level? By what stretch of imagination can the Jaina concept of Sallekhana, complete fasting, Concepts of Dharmastikaya, adharmastikaya, lokansha, Navatattva be even be remotely similar to that of Hindus. Similarly how can Hindu Beliefs of Sraddh, Pitruloka, Purity of Brahamanas be remotely similar to that of Jaina concepts. Even those beliefs that look similar to Hindu concepts - Moksha, Nirvana, Karma, Ahimsa etc are radically different and precisely defined in Jainism. That they have influenced each other cannot be denied. They have common culture and country, but totally independent existence.Hence there are some similarities. It is like saying that the three Abharamic religions can be called as Judaism because of similarity in beliefs.--

On the same lines I do not think that the adherents of the Dharmic faiths should be given the status of a religious minority (only populous minority) anywhere in India. That leaves only Christians and Muslims in a minority status. Indian_Air_Force

A Fraud on Upnishads? Legalese 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor IAF had tried to MISLEAD using a quote regarding the upnishads. The page (s)he was trying to quote from, referred to a work of Prof. Patrick Olivelle, a noted scholar on theology and Indian religions. Here is what Prof. Olivelle had to say, when requested by email to comment on this quote:

"The citation is taken not form any work of mine but the citation given by the Association for Asian Studies whey they gave my translation of the Upanisads the Ramanujan Prize. The meaning of that passage is that the Upanisads are foundational texts that influenced the development of religious and philosophical thought in India -- irrespective of the labels we today may give these traditions. To identify "Hinduism" in ancient India is simply anachronistic -- even the word did not exist then. There were many competing traditions led by elite; the most influential of these were the Brahmanical and the Buddhist, along with the Jain. But there certainly were other traditions during this period. To say that Buddhism or Jainism is an offshoot of Hinduism is simply projecting back thousands of year categories that were formed only in the last couple of centuries. Most religious traditions of ancient India were in dialogue and competition with each other."

So, this makes it quite clear that the whole reliance placed by IAF was misconceived, and the very source of the information, which in this case indeed is scholarly, goes quite against IAF's "own view".

Dear IAF, as an editor at Wiki, we expect you to have a threshold of ethics and basic logic, which you seem to be devoid of, when you quote from pages at "geocities" and mark them as "scholarly references", purportedly showing them as "neutral" while the same pages may have "disclaimers" that they confirm only to the ISKON or ARYA SAMAJ POV. You use any information you get from google, without even, at times reading the whole webtext available, without seeing the disclaimers, without even checking the authenticity of the source. And if that is not enough, you twist the words and language in the form that may suit you. You quote from pages, which expressly require a prior permission for quoting them. You use any words you may, including those which may offend and are deplorable, for subjects including the Supreme Court. Please...what would take you to be fair? Legalese 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Legalese, dude you are MISLEADING by misquoting me (probably deliberately) and conveniently ignoring my earlier clarification that I quoted from the Upanishads article AS IS. I don't know who originally wrote that article. This is the first time I'm reading Mr. Ollivelle's name.

Coming to Olivelle's "e-mail" which you claim to have recieved after having communicated with him. He says, and I quote, "The meaning of that passage is that the Upanisads are foundational texts that influenced the development of religious and philosophical thought in India -- irrespective of the labels we today may give these traditions." And that is perfectly true and what I stated.

I have discussed the etymology of the word 'Hindu' numerous times on wikipedia and shall do so again, because the discussion so demands. The word 'Hindu' was originally a Persian innovation to give a geographic parameter to categorize and identify the people living on the lands which lay on the other side of Sindhu river (now in Pakistan). The etymology is thus -->>Sindhu (river)-->>Hindu (i.e people living on the other sides of that river). The British corrupted Sindhu to Indus and the people became Indians.

So, the fact that the word 'Hindu' doesn't appear in the Vedas, Gita, Upanishads or Puranas in no way implies that they are not Hindu texts. In fact this argument has even been used by people to proclaim that the Vedas, Bhagawad-Gita, Ramayana, the Upanishads are not 'Hindu' texts simply because they do not contain the word 'Hindu' in them in any version. This has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

I'll give you a nugget of info. Swami Vivekananda avoided or even abhorred the usage of the word 'Hindu'. According to him, Hindus are actually technically 'Vedantins' or 'Vedantists', because they are the followers of the Vedas. He was aware that 'Hindu' was a foreign nomenclature, whose advent was much later and in very different circumstances. Go google if you don't believe it.

Mr. Orivelle definitely does not dispute the citation of the platform (of which he was part of) that Upanishads does lay a foundation for much of the ideas of subsequent faith systems. This is what I stated and I repeat once again that this statement implies that Jainism and Buddhism have loaned important ideas from the Vedantic literature i.e Upanishads.

Although earlier I have used the term Vedic tradition or Vedic religion or Vedic faith, I can use it interchangeably with the term 'Hindu religion' because of the technical veracity, correctness and accuracy of the reason that I gave above. This is also called the "Brahmanical tradition", because the Brahmin clergy at the time was the most dominant and which conducted rituals, rites and all such religious practices by reading/consulting from Vedic and Vedantic literature only. By referring to Hindu, Mr. Orivelle is probably referring to the modern sense of the term where there are many temples, festivals, umpteen rituals, and horrendous associated practices like Sati, whereas I used it (though sparingly) to mean the Vedic faith system only.

Even if you and mr. Orivelle have an objection to the usage of the term 'Hindu', then the term Vedic faith or Vedic system can be used. In the main article, I had already edited it as , "....Dharmic religions encompass the Vedic religion (now Hinduism) and the three other faiths that have spawned from it......."

Coming to the one geocities reference that I used, which is being trumpeted as an error of unimaginable proportions. Legalese, you should have by now read the exact verse of the Yajur-Veda where Arishtanemi finds mention (I gave the ref earlier). The geocities url I gave says that non-dieties are usually Yakshasic beings. I have found a new reference that is above all other modern references---The Bhagavad Gita. It specifically refers Aristameni as a demon.

Verse 8.10.19.24 Bhagavad Gita : Surrounding Maharaja Bali on all sides were the commanders and captains of the demons, sitting on their respective chariots. Among them were the following demons: Namuci, Sambara, Bana, Vipracitti, Ayomukha, ............. Arishta, Arishtanemi, Tripuradhipa, Maya, the sons of Puloma, the Kaleyas and Nivatakavaca. All of these demons had been deprived of their share of the nectar and had shared merely in the labor of churning the ocean. Now, they fought against the demigods, and to encourage their armies, they made a tumultuous sound like the roaring of lions and blew loudly on conchshells. Bhagavad Gita reference

I hope that absolves any dispute about the addressal of Arishtameni in Hindu literature. I did not read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page of the geo article which anyway says that the ideas may be like ISCKON or Arya Samaj and that the material cannot be used for commercial purposes. If I'm not mistaken, this talk-page isn't commercial.

Before being ecstatic of having proven a supposed "wrongdoing" on my part, you should have verified whether the idea that the author gives is true or not. That is an elementary prerequisite of a debate. For God's sake you should have seen that the author goes so far as to give his mailing address in New Zealand and provides a list of references (all verifiable). Geocities or Geotowns does not matter (its a cheap alternative to expensive hosting), but the idea does. And the idea stands vindicated.

Legalese, it is abundantly clear that your thinking has been swamped and mired by a fervent desire to trounce my arguments, and this desire manifests itself in such churlish attempts to make this simple talk:page into your court room---what with addressing me like (s)he. But I won't stoop to your pitiable, pathetic and uncivil level to address you as "(s)he or neutral". I'll go by arguments only. Indian_Air_Force

IAF, as usual you are selectively reading what you like and wnat to understand. It is amply clear from Legalese post that Prof Orville disputes and disclaims the resposibility of the citation as his own. Please read carefully and completely.

Simply ranting that these are loan words from Vedas will not cahnge the fact. Unfortunately you are in a denial and only fooling ourself.

You comment - "But I won't stoop to your pitiable, pathetic and uncivil level to address you as "(s)he or neutral"" is a Big Joke. You have stooped much much lower by calling me Anishben and saying that you are free to make assumptions of Gender. --

• Orivelle does not dispute what I wrote earlier about the Upanishads, which was the main point. He had an objection to the word Hindu, and I clarified that also. I don't think any other contention or ambiguity with respect to Upanishads remains. AnishShah19, "AnishBen" was a response to your attempt to insult me by deriling my user-name and my contribs relating to the IAF, if you forgot so soon. Like I said in your own talk:page, that if you badmouth me, then you can expect back the same. Indian_Air_Force

Well Someone has fraudulently used his name to quote on Upanishads for which he has clarified. That is good enough for me. That some one would resort to such fraud in wikipedia is surprising. And you admit that you stooped low. As usual you stoop low always in "response".....that has been your standard response.--

Legalese 16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC) To quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica Article on Hinduism,[1]"...With Jainism which always remained an Indian religion, Hinduism has so much in common, especially in social institutions and ritual life, that nowadays Hindus tend to consider it a Hindu sect. Many Jains also are inclined to fraternization..." "...Along with Hinduism and Buddhism, it is one of the three most ancient Indian religious traditions still in existence. ...While often employing concepts shared with Hinduism and Buddhism, the result of a common cultural and linguistic background, the Jain tradition must be regarded as an independent phenomenon. It is an integral part of South Asian religious belief and practice, but it is not a Hindu sect or Buddhist heresy, as earlier scholars believed."[2][reply]

Legalese, you are not the first person with whom I've disputed using another encyclopedia for writing articles on wikipedia. Wikipedia for your info is an independent encyclopedia which does not have benchmarks upon other previously established encyclopedeae. I've talked about this matter in length over here in the Sanskrit talk:page. Go through the section patiently, look at my first comment there. The edit that was finally agreed upon is fundamentally different from what Brittanica says. Also, from now on please refrain from touting material from other encyclopediae to edit articles here. I repeat : wikipedia is independent from others.Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

From the USA Library of Congress article on Jainism :- The Jain laity engage in a number of ritual activities that resemble those of the Hindus around them (see The Ceremonies of Hinduism, this ch.). Special shrines in residences or in public temples include images of the Tirthankaras, who are not worshiped but remembered and revered; other shrines house the gods who are more properly invoked to intercede with worldly problems. Daily rituals may include meditation and bathing; bathing the images; offering food, flowers, and lighted lamps for the images;.............Many Jain laity engage in sacramental ceremonies during life-cycle rituals, such as the first taking of solid food, marriage, and death, resembling those enacted by Hindus. Jains may also worship local gods and participate in local Hindu or Muslim celebrations without compromising their fundamental devotion to the path of the Jinas.

On the last part, most Jains (like the ones I've interacted with), do not hesitate worshipping and participating in "Hindu" deities and festivals. I've yet to hear of Jains going to mosques even occaisionally . This is the reason why I had added the edit (now deleted) that, ".....the Dharmic faiths are coherent, culturally cohesive and very tolerant of each other.source This is absolutely right.

I remember a recent Hindustan Times survey which was conducted in response to Gujarat CM Narendra Modi's proposed bill which legally sought to group Jains and Buddhists under Hinduism. The survey questioned Jains and Buddhists whether they considered themselves Hindus. 44% said yes. Although a minority, the newspaper expressed "surprise" over the results.

But I wasn't surprised. If one repeatedly rakes up the issue of identity and wantonly questions the so-called "unjust clubbing" with Hindus, then I'm sure that when the next time the survey is taken, the percentage of respondents saying 'Yes' will be further reduced. Keep this question alive actively for the next decade and all Jains would have alienated themselves from a cultural bonding that they shared with not just Hindus, but other Dharmic faiths also. I hope that this doesn't happen and unlike the Abrahamic followers who can't see eye to eye, we remain the same way as we have been since the past 2.5 millenia. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

I agree that culturally Hindus and Jains are quite similar, but not same, having influenced each other. A Jain being in extreme minority and surrounded by Hindu neighbours has celebrated and adopted many Hindu customs while remaining true to his religion. Just has vedic religion learned of Ahimsa from Jainism. This shows broad mindedness of Indian culture. However, trying to impose Vedic origins on Jainism is not helping. What sort of culturing bonding are you trying to portray by making other dharmic faiths as subservient of Hinduism ? The onus is on likes of Narendra Modi and you to admit the antiquity of Jainism and give its due share in Indian History. Continuous attempt to portray it as an offshoot of Hinduism will result in destroying this “cultural bonding” --

Nobody has ever said or even implied that Jainism is subservient to Hinduism or that it is inferior. You have wrongly inferred all this. I have stated that Jainism heavily borrows from Vedantic theology and therefore it is not inaccurate to say that it has spawned from Vedic religion though as a protestant offshoot. And please don't get into the Arishtanemi debate again. Borrowing characters from mythology does not chang history that Jainism in its concrete form came about at the time of Mahavira.Indian_Air_Force

IAF, Like you I have never made any personal attacks, I have merely objected on your stand and not you personally. I have never tried to guess your intentions or your mentality. However you have chosen to personally attack me. As usual you have misinterpreted my view on facts as chronic seige mentality. No wonder you are continiously mis interpreting History to suit your view point. And who are you to tell me to get out of the country. Better stay within your limits. As for your strong feeling that I am an NRI....it is totally wrong as your other strong feelings. You have not been able to prove your statament "Jainism heavily borrows from Vedantic theology" and yet go on repeating it. Such delusions seem to flatter you. Scholars view it other way round. But your are not concerned about that. With such personal attacks it has become useless to debate with you.--

• Good that you've decided to end this debate, and take your tapestry of lies and fundamentalist Jain propaganda out with you. A free advice : Don't make statements like the one you made before (Jain minority surrounded by Hindu neighbours). It has somewhat slightly communal connotations. Otherwise prepare to face Legalese, who would be rushing toward you with a legal notice ! Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Why is Greenland black on the map? Most of them are Lutheran according to Wikipedia. --irrevenant [ talk ] 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)?[reply]

IMHO the article needs to be reorganised to follow a similar pattern to the

1. Intro
2. Commonalities
3. Shared Themes
4. History and development
5. Links to the articles on each religion

Cosnahang 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be any explicit need of points 2 and 3, because all the 4 Dharmic faiths are concentrated in India, and are culturally, socially and belief-wise almost indistinguishable (except for the Sikh males' attire). Nowadays there has been a resurgent backlash against association with the broader Hindu faith (any version) by the 3 other faiths. Indian_Air_Force.

At

I added a

Wikipedia:request for comments because I do not agree with removal of the {{fact}} template for a statement that I do not think is obvious. Andries 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The close relationship of those religions is widely written about, and such information is easily found with a minimal effort. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism (ISBN 0028642279) explicitly mentions on pg 206 that Hinduism is the directly related to Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism, for example. It's such a well-established fact that mass market books take the claim for granted. From the River of Heaven: Hindu and Vedic Knowledge for the Modern Age on pp 26-27 mentions explicitly that these religions are covered by the umbrella term "dharmic traditions". Deep Religious Pluralism (ISBN 066422914X) on pg 139 not only mentions that Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism were born from Hinduism, but that they are often view as branches of Hinduism or as nastika (heterodox Hindu sects). That was from a couple minute search. I'm sure there are many more reliable sources available online about this matter, considering the brevity of my search. I knowThere that a decent library search will net a huge volume of texts dealing with the relationship of these religions. Regardless, please stop demanding a citation for the claim the religions are related. It's widely accepted and undisputed. Vassyana 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An

dispute resolution. Vassyana 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is highly unusual in Wikipedia to remove request for citations without adding soures. Add a citation if it is so easy to find it. Andries 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that both of the sources that u mention including Frawley's 'From the River of Heaven: Hindu and Vedic Knowledge for the Modern Age is susicious. I was unable to find any source on the subject today in a very large library (not a university libarary though). Andries 17:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more

unusual to ask for a citation for a widely-accepted fact known by anyone with a passing familiarity of the topic. Even more so when the second sentence of the lede has two citations supporting the claim these religions are grouped together. Even more so when this topic is easily researched in a very short period of time. I find your claim about the library suspicious, to say the least. If necessary, ask a librarian for assistance in finding some books on the general topic of Indian religion. They are at least a few, even in small libraries with reasonable non-fiction sections. Vassyana 17:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked it up in the Britannica and I coulkd not find it, neither under Indic relgions or Dharmic religions. Both are highly unusual terms. And as always if ur want to retain the statement then please find good citations. Otherwise it should go as per Wikipedia:verifiability. Andries 18:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask a librarian to help u to find the citation. I will do so too. Andries 18:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there is a similarity in some concepts for most movements originating in India (e.g. dharma), but very closely interrelated, no, I do not believe that. 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andries (talk • contribs).

"Very closely interrelated" is far too strong worded and falsely suggests that there is much exchange of ideas etc. between all the different sects of these religions. Andries 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sources have been provided. Please

I think that you do not stay close to the sources. Andries 18:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about replacing the disputed sentence without citation with the following two cited sentences

Some sources state that Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism were born from Hinduism and even that they are often viewed as branches of Hinduism or as [[nastika]] (heterodox Hindu sects). <ref>Long, Jeffrey Anekantanta Veda Toward a Deep Hindu Pluralism pp. 139 Deep Religious Pluralism David Ray Grifin ISBN 066422914X</ref>Cross fertilization between Hinduism and Buddhism, Jainism contined for many centuries,<ref>Weightman, Simon 1998 The new Penguin handbook of living religions Hinnells, John (Ed.), publisher= [[Penguin books]] Chapter "Hinduism" isbn=0-140-51480-5 pp. 267</ref>

Andries 19:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries what I wrote is true. Vassyana has already given many citations for that. However, every line in wikipedia does NOT have to have a citation. Citations are needed for figures, statistics and comparitive measures like oldest, fastest, biggest etc. I will give you an example from the

Eiffel tower article. The very first line says, "The Eiffel Tower is an iron tower built on the Champ de Mars beside the River Seine in Paris, France. The tower has become an global icon of France." It does not have ANY citation, because it is so very true, that a citation is unnecessary and needless. The same is the case in this article.Indian_Air_Force(IAF). —The preceding signed but undated

comment was added at 19:42:27, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

A statement that is likely to be disputed should have a citation. It is completely inappropriate to remove a request for citation without providing sources. I cannot reasonable doubt what is written about the The Eiffel Tower, so I will not ask for a citation. I only asked for citations for statements that I doubted or found exagerated. Andries 19:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a source provided by Vassyana that states that these religions are very closely interrelated. I Vassyana made inaccurate summaries. Andries 19:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read again what Wikipedia:verifiability states

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Andries 19:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are mistaken. There are abundant sources that describe Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism in the context of dahrmic faith, religion, system, etc., which is quite obvious. The closing statement in the lead is simply asserting an obvious fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the fact is so obvious then provide a citation. Andries 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that relationship is a word to avoid

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Relationship. Andries 20:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please list these abundant sources. I was unable to find them. Andries 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally hundreds of sources. Where did you look? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed three example sources from a short search. Additionally, the article is

cited regarding the grouping of the religions. You yourself provide an additional source illustrating the interrelationship between the faiths. I'm truly baffled as to why this is even an issue. On a final note, "words to avoid" notes that relationship is "sometimes" a problem in the context of individual human relationships. Hardly a condemnation of noting that religions are closely related. Vassyana 02:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I really do not understand the reason for this dispute. Much of a do about nothing? Is there are any doubt that these religions are closely related? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a closely related discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board#Dharmic Religions. I fully expect this article to go to AfD any time now. Hornplease 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! You posted a message there on August 13, and only now you inform involved editors? Not very nice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the thread started on July 13th, which I agree is a bit disturbing, since it was only just now raised here. Regardless, perhaps we need a well-referenced terminology section,

much like Taoic religion has, to address the issue that the religions are grouped, but that there is no single term used or preferred by scholars for the grouping. Thoughts? Vassyana 03:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As I mentioned there, that is a general noticeboard for those involved in editing articles related to Hinduism. It is not particularly surprising that I did not post here at the time, as it is assumed that those reading this board is a superset of those reading that talkpage. I personally have not read this talkpage recently.

That board is a useful centralisation of the discussion because many of the articles on subcontinental religions use the phrase Dharmic religion - as far as I can see, most introduced by a now-banned editor, actually - and so I wished to have the broadest possible input into the problem.

Clearly, the title of this article is problematic as its clearly a neologism; and I certainly don't think that grouping these religions can be done without clear citations of their interrelationship. Note that articles already exist comparing each individual religion with another; note also that "Taoic religions" also problematic, if slightly less so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornplease (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are the main means for airing content disputes. Most users do not frequent the various noticeboards. The broadest possible input would be acheived by airing the issue on the appropriate article talk page and then seeking additional input from an

Taoic religions, there is little consistent terminology for the group. If you have another preferrable name for the group, please share it and your reasons. Vassyana 08:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

At the time the discussion began, the concern was not that the phrase was non-notable but that it was perhaps being overused given marginal notability.A discussion on the applicability of the phrase led to the concern that it is clearly a politically-fraught neologism of the type we don't want.

Further, at the time the discussion started, the talkpage of this article[3] appeared a little unmanageable, and limited to largely three editors. Be that as it may, I think that we have discussed this aspect of the matter enough.

About the 'grouping' of the religions, the citations provided are inappropriate and ruled out per

WP:Fringe. (Frawley and a neo-Paganist are insufficient support for an article.) The discussion on the noticeboard, and my own sporadic research over the past month have not provided a single major publication that studies the grouping of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism except as religions that share a common geographical origin. I see no such references on this talkpage either. Hornplease 12:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So, is this a political issue? Why is Chauvinism introduced in this discussion? Or is it that there are other dynamics at play in the discussion at the Wikiproject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Jossi, the issue has been politicised in India. Since you have raised the question, let me provide with the necessary links to give you an indication of the issue -

*Religious freedom Bill returned

*Once behind Modi, Jains question Bill

*Minority panel slams Gujarat conversion Act

--

Anish Shah 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If that is the case, we can have a section that describes the political context, providing that the context is notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a summary of

Status_of_religious_freedom_in_India and a link to that article will work? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Jossi, perhaps a look at the copied emails from various academics of religious studies a few sections above would clarify why this might have political significance. In any case, I still see no mainstream references.Hornplease 21:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an article

Eastern religion which is a far more common experession. This article should be deleted because of lack of reliable sources describing the subject when there are closely relatated subjects (e.g. Hinduism , Sikhism) that have an abundance of sources. Unnecessary redundancy creates unnecessary maintenance problems. Andries 18:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

How can these religions be "closely interrelated in beliefs" when the Hinduism is already very diverse in beliefs? I think a citation is need for this statement. Andries 19:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this section? It just seems to mirror information found in Dharma - which is linked to extensively in this article. Sfacets 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a short summary and a wikilink. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Exhibition on Hindu Culture and Dharmic Traditions of India [4]
• Narayanan, Vasudha, Water, Wood, and Wisdom: Ecological Perspectives from the Hindu Traditions (speaks of "dharmic traditions"), Daedalus, September 22, 2001
• Prabhu, Joseph, Some challenges facing multiculturalism in a globalized world, ReVision, June 22, 2001, Prabhu, Joseph
• The Hindu, Different takes on the faith, available online

I will provide additional sources and summaries in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient. The first is a temple exhibition. The second speaks of "Dharmic traditions" specifically with reference to Shankara and Ramanuja; hence, within Hinduism. Further, it says "traditions of Dharma" before using "Dharmic traditions" in the next line; I fail to see evidence of a phrase with an understood meaning within academia. Similar objections underlie the ReVision article. (Is it wrong of me, incidentally, to feel some doubt in any case about a journal the latest article of which is "Dreams and Visions in Healing" ?)

Finally, Tharoor's article merely quotes a young Georgian woman that uses the phrase, and the phrase "traditional religions" in the same line.

These references add nothing. Hornplease 23:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the term Dharmic religion may be in common usage[5](also [6]) but we do need better than that to have a WP article, and moreover, to treat it as an established classification. (Brittannica has a classification of religions article which might point to useful sources.) we need more than sources asserting that the four religions are closely associated with one another, we need sources that say the associations mean that the four can be grouped together in a meaningful way, based on a shared concept of Dharma. that, i suspect, is not a trivial statement and needs to be well sourced to be the subject of a WP article. i don't think we should be clubbing together well sourced information about the four religions with only a Frawley and a "throwaway" Encarta reference holding them together. if we don't get decent references, one possibility is to redirect this to Dharma (which, incidentally, has the same Frawley and Young references making the same point in the lead). Doldrums 12:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the phrase "Dharmic religion" is a neologism not widely used in academic literature. The phrase "Dharmic religions" does not appear in the indexes of several standard overview books where it perhaps would have been found had it been in widepread use. Failure to appear in an index or glossary of a particular work is not proof that the term is not used at all, but its absence from a sampling of well-known works suggests to me that it is not widely used. I did not find it in the indexes of:

• Kulki and Rothermund, A History of India
• Keay, India
• Thapar, Early India
• Basham, The Wonder That Was India
• Zimmer, Philosophies of India
• Chatterjee and Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy
• Radhakrishnan and Moore, A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy
• Flood, The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism
• Conze, Buddhist Thought In India

Perhaps the term is in one of those books but not indexed, I really cannot say. I do not support its use, and I think that we should consider removing it from articles where it is currently used. Buddhipriya 07:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhipriya, even the term "Hindu" NEVER appears in the 4 vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas. Does that mean we are not Hindus ? Similarly, just because some western unemployed bozos did not think about the term Dharmic Religions, does not mean that it is an invalid term.

Just like Abrahamic Religions is a class of religions, so too are the religions that began in India a logical class of religions. This classification is but natural, and occurred to many scholars independently. The similarity and common origins of these religions merits a separate article on Dharmic Religions. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 15:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not many scholars, very, very few, though the subject is not obscure. This indicates that the phrase is not mainstream. You can have doubts whether this article deserves to be on Wikipedia (I personally do not), but I do not think that there can be any doubt about not using the phrase in article like Hinduism from which I removed the phrase. Andries 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May be a list of religions originating in South Asia would be a good alternative for this lemma/article. Andries 14:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, then bring the phrase in mainstream. Because Dharmic religions have similarities in belief-set, faith system and overall culture owing to their common origin in place (India), and a common religion (Vedic religion), a logical classification is due automatically. These religions have been recognized as a cluster anyway.

The kinds of similarities that are shared by Abrahamic religions are the same ones that are shared by the Dharmic faiths. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 14:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the function of wikipedia to bring something into mainstream. Wikipedia follows reputable sources. It does not promote neologisms. Andries 14:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you suggested the name, "Religions that originated in South Asia". And I suggest that it be named as Dharmic religions, because the concept of Dharma is central to all of them. That's all. It's so natural.

I had predicted the existence of the field of study of 'Abrahamic religions' and lo and behold ! An article by the very same name existed in wikipedia, besides being a vast field of study. I then thought that a similar article must exist for Indian religions and it did. This was the article.Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

FYI, "Abrahamic" is neither a commonly used term (more notable than Dharmic). The more noted term used to group Judaism =, Christianity and Islam together is Semitic, except Semitic for some strange reason isn't used at Wikipedia. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google indicates that the phrase Abrahamic religions is far more common and notable than dharmic religions. Andries 09:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I said that. Hornplease on

Taoic religion faces similar issues to Dharmic. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Abrahamic religions is a class of religions clustered by the commonality of region (west Asia), belief in Abraham and his tales, and also commonality in literature (for example, a lot of loan words in Quran are from Aramaic and shared with Judaism and Bible). The same is the case with the Dharmic religions. Dharma, Karma, Rebirth cycles, penance/meditation, etc. are the basis on which these religions originated from the same country. Hence, the classification. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 11:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A classification that you or whoever made this page appears to have invented! And in wikiland you/page creator ain't nobody without good sources! :)

I have looked over the two citations given in the intro to this article (to be polite- they are weak beyond words!) and the above discussion and wondering if this whole page is flat out OR- creating the term "dharmic religions" and imbueing it with a meaning that the sources don't have.

Some of this page could be salvaged by renaming to "Dharma in Religions" and having an article which deals with what Dharma means in the different traditions- but "Dharmic Religon" sounds to me like a whole brand new made up yesterday concept. Sethie 09:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was made up yesterday or thereabouts. For ideological reasons. rudra 03:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Edit Rudra !!!... You have summuarised the actual ground reality as to Dharmic religion in your last edit to

• http://www.ulcseminary.org/buddhismsample.php, *http://www.ucc.ie/en/hr/HealthWelfare/MentalHealth/Religion/Buddhism/, *http://www.911-tribute.com/religion.html,
• http://globalcit.newport.ac.uk/fandfPage.htm,
• http://torahveda.org/ and
• http://www.haryana-online.com/Culture/hinduism.htm just to name a few. Except for the govt. of Haryana website, all are nice juicy western sources that are very valid and acceptable. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 09:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://torahveda.org/ at the bottom says that it used Wikipedia as a reference. I haven't examined all the links so far but from the ones that I have seen, they barely seem reliable. Globalcit is a site about

globalisation while 911-tribute is precise that, a site that tributes September 11. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

IAF, in case it's not clear to you, here's

What a reliable source is. Doldrums 09:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• The issue here is whether Dharmic religions an accepted and recognized term. The answer :- Yes. From 9/11 families that discuss religions to the ULC Church of USA all acknowledge this term. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 10:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the term as a useful umbrella term, mirroring "Abrahamic". Hell, I have even drawn a map based on it. But now it transpires that the term is not in use at all, except by Hindu ideologists (as IAF beautifully illustrates). Fwiiw, the EB has a page titled "Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism", where they state:

Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism share many key concepts derived from the Sanskrit language and dialects that have enabled them to hone their religious debates. For example, all three traditions share a notion of karman as the actions of individuals that determine their future births; yet each has attached unique connotations to the concept. This is also true with terms such as dharma (often translated “duty,” “righteousness,” or “religious path”), yoga (“ascetic discipline”), and yajna (“sacrifice,” or “worship”). This Sanskritic discourse has shaped the religious and philosophical speculations, as well as the polemics, of each of these traditions. The same circumstance occurs in the ritual and literature of each religion.

we can move the discussion to an article aptly titled

And again, your argument does not justify the senseless intro edit that you wish to make repeatedly. The current edit is just fine. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 10:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Regards to IAF cited sources -

• http://www.ucc.ie/en/hr/HealthWelfare/MentalHealth/Religion/Buddhism/ is sourced from Wikipedia.

• http://torahveda.org/ is also sourced from Wikipedia

These both are sourced from Wikipedia Dharmic religions

• http://globalcit.newport.ac.uk/fandfPage.htm - discusses the BJP and Hindutva view and in this context mentions the word Dharmic religion.

Other sources that IAF has quoted can hardly be considered verifiable scholarly sources.--

• IAF, we all know how to use google. Please don't clutter this talkpage with meaningless links to random websites.
  dab (𒁳) 14:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I don't want to hear specious arguments like "this term is not in wide-spread usage", or discrediting-the-source kind of tactics employed by AnishShah. Subjective debates about the quantum of usage or political disputes about the sources are not being discussed here. What IS being discussed is, a) the recognition of this term by institutions of repute or scholars or popular sites, and b) the subsequent validity of the classification of 'Dharmic religions'. All of you keep the discussion limited to that. The sources that I gave meet both these criteria. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 17:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Jainism and Buddhism are not non-aryan. That is a fabricated lie by bias scholars working around odd race theories.

Also, you would have to answer why the word Aryan is mentioned much more in Buddhism and Jainism then in Hinduism. Odd considering they are supposed to be of so called non aryan origin. Don't refute me on this, read yourself, it's all public knowledge. Anyway, I don't think the word Aryan ever applied to a race in the spiritual sense, but many here do.

Jainism and Buddhism do not solely reject caste. Many of their scriptures work around caste although they don't normally propagate it with their teachings. All Jain Thirtankaras have been Kshathriya. So was Buddha. All of the Boddhisatvas have been Brahmin or Kshathriya. Brahmins have also played a large role within Jainism, just as much as in Hinduism (Vedic). So this is all modern poltical propaganda on behalf of Jains (and some Buddhists) who have all jumped on the band wagon to seperate themselves from Brahmins (see anti-Brahminism). Equally as odd considering that Brahmins have played such a crucial role in the development of both religions (Jainism and Buddhism)since the time of their origins.

Also, i'm not a Brahmin so think twice before you come back and accuse me of bieng pro "Aryan" or Brahmin or something of that sort..

Vedanta is a part of the Vedas but a move away from the ritual aspect and more into the philosophical aspect. Jainism and Buddhism are also a movement away from the Vedic rituals and animal sacrifice. Jainism is extreme ascetism, which Buddha and Hindus never believed in.

Ahimsa may have came from Jainism but had a lot of influence on both Hinduism and Buddhism.

Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism are all a mixture of the Aryan, Tribal and Animist beliefs and traditions that the so called "native" and "aryans" formed together. Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism share many concepts, symbols and dieties such as Brahma and Nagas (especially Buddhism and Hinduism).

So what really seperates Hinduism from Buddhism and Jainism? Hinduism always accepted the Vedas and a higher eternal creator while Buddhism and Jainism rejected both.

Hinduism clerly evolved along Vedic thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is there any point to this comment, and why is it in boldface? Fwiiw, most of what you say is correct, except for the part on "fabricated lies" of course. --

dab (𒁳) 14:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I like to hear some voice of reasonableness. You are right, out of Hinduism and Jainism which came first we never know, scholars can only speculate and come to either conclusions. I think this topic should be left to scholars. The word Karmas, Moksha, Ahimsa etc were neither strictly vedic nor shramanic and each developed the concepts differently albeit influencing each other. I have given sources from scholars that "Jainism pre-dates Vedas" to prove to certain people here who are repeating the hackneyed misconceptions that Hinduism is the oldest religion, and others are an offshoot of it. There is nothing farther than truth. Hinduism is a continuation of Vedic tradition and Jainism a continuation of Shramanic tradition. Period. However there were a lot of influences on each other. However anyone who claims that Jainism was "offshoot of Vedic religion" I have shown dozens of proof that it wasnt.--

Anish Shah 06:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes Anish you are correct. Also, you have to remember that in ancient times sources prove that Hindus, Buddhists and Jains had close relationship despite their differences. I will always gave respect for Jainism. Bhagwan Lord Krishna was the cousin brother of Lord Neminatha. Believe it or not, tt was not actually un common to find Vedic, Jain or Buddhist in one family in ancient time.Also, Jainas recognizes Rama and Mahabharata and Ramayana stories as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk •19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny. The article has been deleted but the discussion continues. May be you can continue to discuss somewhere else e.g. on user talk page. Andries 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]