spikereinhard
Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 16
|
| | 06/02/07 at 02:23 PM | Reply with quote | #1 |
|
Salutations to you fellow Journeymen. I have been doing some research on Jainism recently, and I am extremely impressed with the logic and the boldness of this ancient tradition. Indeed, the ideal is release from the body through uncompromising nonviolence and renunciation. One thing strikes me as rather paradoxical, however, and that is its doctrine of Anekantavada, or "No-one-endedness". This doctrine, although thoroughly logical and affirmative of the relative nature of "truth", seems to be inevitably self-refuting. The philosophical conundrum, as I see it, is that by categorically denying any absolute position on truth whatsoever, the Anekantavada throws into question the necessity for all of the other Jain doctrines and practices that define Jainism as a distinct religion. Once one asserts that all is relative, he undermines his very assertion; for how does one account for the truth of the statement itself? Where is the "fact of the matter", so to speak. Clearly, the reason for the doctrine is to foster compassion for the views of others, and clearly, the doctrine adheres to strict logical analysis. But in the FINAL analysis, the doctrine simultaneously dissolves Jainism and all other religious sects into ONE. Namaste. |
| Loading... | |
JayaramV
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 35
|
| | 06/07/07 at 04:46 PM | Reply with quote | #2 |
|
Anekantavada asserts that there is no one particular argument for any truth and that an argument may appear acceptable from one perspective and unacceptable from another. It is based on another concept of Jainism known as Syadvad. Properly understood anektantavada should promote tolerance for all points of view rather than their negation or refutation. Anekantavada does not attempt to disapprove opinions or points of view but only expose their limitations and calls for a comprehensive approach to understand truth. It suggests that if we want to know about a truth correctly we need to examine it from different standpoints and take the best from each of them to arrive at the truth.
This is what the modern Gestalt theory attempts to do in resolving deep psychological issues. Perhaps if we take Jainism seriously, we should believe that no one particular religion is good, but each has something to contribute. Jainism in a way calls for collective wisdom rather than absolute wisdom and to some extent the same principle is followed in science. Every major scientific discovery and invention is the outcome of the work of several individual researchers. Jainism is a beautiful religion. Because of its commitment its extreme tolerance of other religions, it gradually lost ground to more aggressive religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. When Alexander came to India, he met Jain monks and was greatly impressed by their knowledge and wisdom. Chandragupta Maurya died as Jain monk. And Ashoka had such a tough time fighting the Jain king of Orissa. In south and in the eastern belt of India Jainism was patronized by many kings and queens till the devotional Hinduism gained ground through the efforts of Alvars and Nayanars. |
| Loading... | |
mdejess
Registered: 07/28/07
Posts: 1
|
| | 07/28/07 at 08:46 AM | Reply with quote | #3 |
|
I am curious why Buddhism has become popular among Westerners today but not Jainism.
Please enlighten me.
mdejess |
| Loading... | |
JayaramV
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 35
|
| | 08/06/07 at 01:25 AM | Reply with quote | #4 |
|
| Very good question. Jainism is a very austere religion and demands extreme kind of ascetic practices. Practice of Jainism is not easy even for those who want to be lay Jains. Because of their belief in karma and existence of souls even in inanimate objects, they cannot practice all kinds of professions, especially those that require alteration and cutting of objects like wood cutting, carpentary etc. The Buddha suggested a middle path in which there was no place for extreme austerities. The lay Buddhists were even excluded from the monastic discipline applicable to the monks. So comparitively it is a milder religion and easier to practice. Secondly Buddhism is perhaps the world's first missionary religion. The Buddhist monks travelled far and wide in the ancient world to spread the message of the Buddha. They however did it out of compassion for the world and to deliver the people from the inexorable law of suffering. |
| Loading... | |
spikereinhard
Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 16
|
| | 10/17/07 at 07:04 PM | Reply with quote | #5 |
|
| Hello everybody. Regrettably, I have not visited this site for a while; it is good to return and see that discussions are taking place. Truly, Jayaram continues to do a stellar job at supplying relevant and detailed information. I would simply like to comment briefly on a major difference between the Buddhist and Jain traditions, and that difference lies specifically in the way the traditions conceive of karma. It is important to understand that nonviolence (ahimsa) is the tantamount aim of religion for the Jain. Because ALL action--even that of breathing and digestion--entails violence to atoms, molecules, and microorganisms, it must cease completely before liberation (kavalya--integration, isolation) can be obtained. Hence, the Jains view ALL karma in a negative light: it is strictly binding because it necessarily entails violence. (It should also be mentioned that Jains believe that karma is actually a kind of "matter" that weighs upon the jiva, or individual soul.) Buddhists, on the other hand, view karma more positively, emphasizing that it serves as an instructional force and a basis for moral behavior and compassion. Moreover, the nature of karma (whether "positive" or "negative") is determined by one's intentions, and not necessarily by one's physical actions. Buddhists do not tend to examine the final logical implications of a presiding virtue of ahimsa. (Ultimately, their doctrine of emptiness (shunyata) makes it unnecessary to do so.) It is of interest to note that many scholars believe that Siddhartha Gautama was actually practicing as a Jain prior to his enlightenment. Ematiated and starving physically and mentally, he eventually renounced the path of extreme asceticism and became the leading exponent for the "Middle Path". |
| Loading... | |
JayaramV
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 35
|
| | 10/23/07 at 01:09 AM | Reply with quote | #6 |
|
Gautama Buddha and Mahavira were contemporaries and both spent sometime together with Gosala of the Ajivika sect. They were dissatisfied with the fatalism of the Ajiviaka sect and left. Gautama was never a jain. He did practice self-mortification for sometime before he was convinced that extreme asceticism was not helpful in achieving nirvana. In ancient India extreme asceticism was not confined to Jainism. There were several sectarian movements outside the Vedic fold and they practiced different methods of self torture and self denial. In one of his discourses the Buddha mentioned 22 types of self-mortification and 13 different dressing styles used by the monks in his time. Some of these sects were atheistic and some materialistic and they were extremely disturbing to the orthodox people. In the early days the Buddhist and Jains held heated debates and we have some evidence that the Buddha himself often held discussions to clear a point or two about his new path.
|
| Loading... | |
spikereinhard
Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 16
|
| | 10/23/07 at 06:36 PM | Reply with quote | #7 |
|
Hello Jayaram and other viewers. This is a nice discussion. From my understanding, Jainism was well ingrained in the Indian culture well before the time of Mahavira, Siddhartha Gautama, and Gosala. I have read that Mahavira and Gosala had initially shared a common view until Gosala began devaluating the role of human effort in the process of liberation. In short, Gosala claimed that asceticism was not the cause of liberation but rather a sympton of how far along the jiva was on the path. Ultimately, liberation, just like everything else, "just happens". Of course, this was repulsive to both Siddhartha and Mahavira, and they both denounced Gosala's stance as dangerous. Anyway, I digress here. My real point was to ask if you know of any Indian religion/sect that is believed to have existed prior to Jainism? I have kind of been viewing Jainism as the "primordial" pre-Aryan Indian religion. Perhaps this is misguided? I'll look forward to your reply. In the meantime, all the best to you and yours. Namaste.
Todd R. |
| Loading... | |
JayaramV
Registered: 06/07/07
Posts: 35
|
| | 11/10/08 at 02:14 AM | Reply with quote | #8 |
|
Hello Todd,
There are claims and counter claims regarding the antiquity of Jainism. Jains also claim that it was Rishabanath, the first Thirthankara, who brought agriculture, caste system, art forms, education and civilization to the mankind. There are also claims that the Indus people practiced some form of Jainism and that the seated yogi depicted in the indus seals was indeed Rishabhanath, not Siva as claimed by the Hindus. It appears to me that Jainism was one of the most ancient religious sects of India which continued for a longtime as an ascetic tradition before it became a full fledged religion. This development took place in the sixth century BC with the arrival of Mahavira, who just like the Buddha enjoyed considerable popularity amongh the princely families of his time.. I am also not sure which aspects of Jainism entered Hinduism and vice versa. It is possible both religions derived their concepts from a general pool of religious beliefs and practices that prevailed in ancient India. This makes sense when we consider the fact that in ancient India as today individual sampradayas or various religious traditions headed by inspirational gurus or religious heads exerted more influence upon the religious behavior of people rather than organized religions or religious institutions. Having said that I must admit that I came across some references in the Puranas against Jainism that were not particularly adulatory. They suggest that by the early Christian era, Jainims was viewed with antipathy by various Hindu groups, especially so in the east and the south, where Jainism was significantly popular. |
| Loading... | |
