Talk:Dharmic religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge proposal 2 Supreme Court of India 3 Plurality 4 Ayyavazhi 5 Formatting 6 Jainism/ Buddhism are not off shoots of Hinduism 7 Some Scholarly Opinion 8 Objections to IAF's methodology and approach 9 Not Fair 10 On IAF's response of 10 times clarifying 11 Be Civil IAF 12 Game Rules 13 Inviting Discussion on MSN Encarta's Entry

[edit] Merge proposal

I do not think this article, "dharmic religion", should be merged with dharma. After all, we have articles like Abrahamic religion. —Lowellian (talk) 06:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would support such a merge, because it seems that the term is an uncommon one or even a Wikipedia invention. Andries 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that not one of the sources used for the entry dharmic religions uses the term! I would be convinced to a great extent of the merit of this article if somebody showed multiple scholarly articles, encyclopedia entries, or books about the term "dharmic religion". This term is hardly used in scholarly sources. I did notice that the term is used on forums, but they are not suitable sources for Wikipedia. I checked the following sources that do not mention the terms "dharmic religion" or "dharmic tradition".

1. "Dictionary of religions" by Hinnels published by Penguin 1997  ::2. "Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion" by Schumacher and Woerner Shambala Boston 1994

Andries 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

From the River of Heaven: Hindu and Vedic Knowledge for the Modern Age (the first source listed in the article) states "we can put [all religions in India] under the greater umbrella of 'Dharmic traditions'", on page 27. Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion (the second source listed for the article) states that "most of the world's population subscribes to one of four broad religious positions, namely, the Abrahamic, Dharmic, secular, and pagan". This can be found on page 166. You haven't bothered to check the sources for this article very well because I didn't look very hard and easily found a reference in the first sources used. There are additionally usages in that same sources as well. Vassyana 13:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I overlooked the book by David Frawley, but he is one of the very few who uses the term and he is a bit of a fringe voice. In addition the book was published by Lotus press which is not a reputable publisher. Andries 13:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I also overlooked another book. Andries 13:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone should at least expand the article then. It looks useless compared to the abrahamic one. There's also vedic religion which is almost the same exact thing because it incorprates dharma. If this should not be merge with dharma then it should be merged with vedic religion --Dangerous-Boy

"true form"?? Seems POV --ppm 19:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Arey bus karo yaar. If you have an article on Abrahamic religions, then an article on Dharmic religions deserves a space on wikipedia. Vedic religion, although being the root of the Dharmic religion should be another article. Please don't mis-match, hodge-podge or fudge things any further.

As a final clarification, Vedic religion came first from which 3 protestant offshoots were formed namely, Buddhism, Jainism and much later Sikhism. Vedic religion itself continued its direct lineage under modern Hinduism because the Vedas, the Vedanta i.e. Upanishads are still revered and held sacred by all Hindus today. I do not think that there should be any further ambiguity.

From the River of Heaven : Vedic knowledge is the ancient and universal root, not only of Hinduism, but of many of the world's religions and mystical traditions. Hindu and Vedic knowledge presents a complete system of spiritual science, including all the practices of yoga as part of a rich field of spiritual culture. From the River of Heaven may be the most accessible and relevent overview of the spiritual tradition of India and its clearest presentation to the modern mind. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court of India

Legalese 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)IAF, the River of Heaven doesnt stand even a bit, against the authority of the Indian Supreme Court, and the plausibility of giving more credible value to a "judgment" of a court of law. Thus, the UP Shiksha Parishad Judgment is more credible than "river of Heaven"....if you have any further doubts, please see Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. Beacause it was the Supreme Court of India, that 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) your mention over here is neither authoritative, nor as a matter of fact, correct. I request you again, to undo it, considering the evidence I submitted here.

[edit] Plurality

Please change the article on Abrahamic religionS and let the Dharmic religionS article be as it was. There is no one single Dharmic religion, just as there is no one single Abrahamic religion.IAF

What is it with the singular Dharmic religion ? Its childish like Polymer, Animal, Monument, and whatever else. Just because somebody in all his wisdom changed Abrahamic religions to Abe religion, it doesn't mean you change the article of Dharmic religions also.IAF

It's simply Wikipedia official policy: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). —Lowellian (reply) 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ayyavazhi

I am removing this from the list till a consensus has been reached on whether or not it can be considered as a religion. One or two unverified books does not mean much. The way this article is being promoted on wikipedia by Paul, one would think it is a widespread religion across the world and not something that is considered as a sect of Hinduism by most people. --Blacksun 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See the long discussions made in Talk:Dharmic religions before removing Ayyavazhi. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

All I see in that talk page is everyone disagreeing with you. --Blacksun 01:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blacksun, I have grown tired replying against Ayyavazhi's inclusion in the article.

The only premise that Paul has on calling Ayyavazhi as a full-fledged religion is one doctoral thesis written by some British guy in 1932. A few years back, Madras University published that book.

We all know that it is just a cult,not a religion. It is not even recognized officially by the Indian constitution or even by the Tamil Nadu government. IAF

Iam not willing to conduct a war here. But I want to ask User:IAF that in what basis he is telling that that doctoral theisis is made in 1932? And User:Blacksun, "no boddy willing" doesn't mean that it isn't true. - _Д=|Θ|=_{Д Paul}| 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I read your own sources User:Paul. The book was published by Madras University in 2001 (or whatever), but Shri Patrick wrote the book in 1932 ostensibly to get a doctorate. IAF

[edit] Formatting

Formatting here is pretty atrocious. Can someone please help address this?

--1000Faces 04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jainism/ Buddhism are not off shoots of Hinduism

It seems that the author of this article was pretty biased against the Sharamanic religions i.e. Jainism and Buddhism.

I have changed the weasel statements like "They encompass Hinduism and three other religions that have spawned from it—namely Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism." "Perhaps the smallest, Jainism is also the second-oldest Dharmic religion". "Followers of the Jain and Sikh faiths are considered broader Hindus according to the social-fabric of India. This is due to the coherence in ideologies, interworship and social intermingling of the followers of these faiths."

Unfortunately such statements are not based on facts and do not reflect the beliefs of Jainists and Buddhists.--Anishshah19 05:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if Jainists and Buddhists view themselves in this fashion, if scholar sources view them as such. If their beliefs contradict the claim that they are offshoots of Hinduism/Vedism, please provide counterclaims, but do not remove well-established scholarly views from the article. Vassyana 15:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes and then reinserted most of the material in the proper sections. I also reworded some of the material to comply with NPOV. Vassyana 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reverted all your nonsense back to the original. It's not PoV. First check the constitution and double-check NPOV.IAF

• I have discussed all this previously in the earlier version of this page before it was ricocheted off to "Dharmic Religion", then to "Dharmic Religions" and now back to "Dharmic Religion".

Jains are regarded as a POPULOUS minority in India and NOT as a religious minority. All Hindu laws of social contracts like Marriage, Inheritance, etc. are fully and wholly applicable on Jains also (and also on Sikhs and Buddhists).

I reproduce a few lines from the VERY SAME judgement that Vassyana has quoted :

"Thus, "Hinduism" can be called a general religion and common faith of India whereas "Jainism" is a special religion formed on the basis of quintessence of Hindu religion."

This and in conjunction with the earlier Supreme Court judgement that Jains & Hindus are part of the Wider Hindu community, dated late 2005 is confirmatory about the sub-religion status of Jainism that it has with Hinduism. IAF

First, please avoid personal attacks such as calling the edits of another contributor "nonsense". The acrimony is most unwelcome. Second, if you follow the decision, what you quote is a quote of a previous decision. You will also note that the Court decides that Jainism is a protected minority and quotes as support the following:

• "It is clear therefore, there is no reason for thinking that Jains are considered as Hindus. It is true that Jains in some ways closely linked to Hindus and have many customs in common, but there can be no doubt that they are a distinct religious community and constitution does not in any way affect this well recognized position."
• "In conclusion let me assert my conviction that Jainism is an original system, quite distinct and independent from all others and that therefore it is of great importance for the study of philosophical thought and religious life in ancient India."
• "Buddhism and Jainism were certainly not Hinduism or even the Vedic Dharma. Yet they arose in India and were integral parts of Indian life, culture and philosophy. A Buddhist or Jain, in India, is a hundred per cent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a Hindu by faith."

Note further that they discuss case law regarding the minority status of Jains (emphesis added):

• "The Court recognized that Jainism and Buddhism are equally two distinct religions professed in India in contrast with Vedic religion."
• "A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court ... held that Jains have an independent religious entity and are different from Hindus.
• "[I]t must be held that any community, religious or linguistic, which is less than fifty per cent of the population of the State is entitled to the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution."
• "Not only the Constitution but also the Hindu Code and the Census Reports have recognized Jains to belong to a separate religion."
• "[T]he Court observed that it is also an admitted fact that the Jain community in Madras, Tamil Nadu is a religious and linguistic minority."

The decision revolved around whether the Jains were a distinct religious and linguistic minority protected by Article 30 of the Indian Constitution and affirmed that they indeed are such a minority. You may disagree with that, but the decision runs counter to your claims. Vassyana 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please read my comments again. The judgement that I quoted was an earlier Supreme Court judgement itself. The judgements that you have quoted are as follows :-

Point no. 1 is from a speech of the PPS to the then PM Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru. Point no. 2 appears to be a 1951 judgement of the Bombay High Court. Point no. 3 is from a 1956 judgement of the Kerala High Court. Point no. 4 is from a 1993 judgement of the Madras High Court.

Finally, the judgement acknowledges that the UP High Court itself recognizes Jains as a minority community and overturns its judgement.

What I wrote were Supreme Court's statements itself in the Bal Patil judgement.

----The Court does not for your information quote them in the end to upturn those judgements (it does not say so; it only says it was "interesting to note").----***

Again, individual states may or may not grant minority status to Jains. Granting minority status at the state level is a prerogative of the state. The constitution of India, at the National level DOES NOT regard Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists as RELIGIOUS minorities, but only as populous minorities. They are governed by Hindu laws. Read about what the Court says about the framers of the constitution.

I repeat that the Supreme court only upholds that the UP court recognizes that the Jains are a minority in UP only. This judgement does not pertain to the All-India level and the status of Jains in the constitution at the national level stands as before i.e. NOT a religious minority.

So, your assertion that the judgement was upturned is factually incorrect as proven because of the facts presented above. It is merely an anomaly or a circumstantial observation presented by the court at the instant case. Thus, this is a matter of subjective debate.

However, that the Jains are not regarded as a religious minority by the constitution at the national level, that they are indeed governed by Hindu Laws of marriage and inheritance is an overwhelming regardless of that one comment that you quote (which anyway is not over-riding on previous judgements), is proof that the earlier edit that stood before your rendition was fatually correct and wholly absolute. Your edit therefore exaggerative and absolutely incorrect.

I am therefore reverting the latest edit back to the previous one. IAF

I will not revert again, as I do not wish to violate 3RR. The court does not state that its decision applies solely to the state in question. However, it extensively quotes material, both scholarly writings and case law that clearly state Jains are a religious minority. For example it cites: "Not only the Constitution but also the Hindu Code and the Census Reports have recognized Jains to belong to a separate religion." That clearly indicates the national status of the Jains, by discussing the Constitution, national law and national reports. It also decides that the Jains are a protected party under Article 30 of the Indian Constititution. Since the Court discusses the Jains on a national level, cites works about Jains on the national level and decides Jains have a certain status under the national constitution, how does that become a state matter, particularly when they do not make that distinction in their decision? Vassyana 19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Vassyana, without meaning to be rude, I ask you to please re-read what I wrote earlier. The citation that you just gave that, "Not only does the Constitution, but ...etc..." was identified by me as a 1993 judgement of the Madras High Court, pertaining to a case of the State. This judgement is also pertaining to a case of the State, and thus the SC quotes various STATE Court verdicts (which I have pointed out earlier; some of them date back to the 1940s and 1950s).

The verdict that the SC gives in the end also pertains to the status of Jains in a STATE.

Now the only sentence where your entire argument rests is that one, which I quote, "The Jain religion is indisputably not a part of he Hindu religion". The very next line states, "However whether Jains are Hindus is a matter open to debate".

Now you are assuming that because this statement succeeds the earlier SC verdict that, "Jains and Sikhs are part of the wider Hindu community...", and "Jainism is a sub-religion of the Hindu religion", so it means that the earlier SC verdict stands reverted or Null and void.

This is NOT at all so, because :

• Nowehere in the judgement is it mentioned that the earlier statements stand corrected or anything. The SC merely "as a matter of interest" quotes the earlier statement. It is only an extra-judicial observation.

• Anyway, an extra-judicial observation which is somewhat contrary to the

one, "Jain religion is indisputably not a part of the...." does not mean that the earlier observation, opinion, view, verdict or decree stands upturned and/or null & void. It still stands.

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.

Hence, to say in the article that, this was challenged by the Jains who got it overturned is not whooly accurate, because they only got it overturned in the State of UP and not in the Union of India.

To AnishShah19 : Jainism did not predate the Vedic/Hindu religion. The Sanskrit language's liturgy first centered around only the Vedas, then the Upanishads and then it was used by the offshoots like Buddhism, Jainism et al. Besides, many concepts like Moksha, Nirvana, rebirth etc. predate the Buddhist/Jaina scriptures in Vedic or post Vedic literature. IndianAirForce (IAF) 09:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Scholarly Opinion

Legalese 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC) this probably would help. see the judgments and the analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Status_of_Jainism_as_a_Distinct_Religion 1. Doctrine of "Implied overruling" is applicable. 2. It is WRONG to say that the various HINDU personal laws, because they also apply to Jains, make Jainism a part of hinduism. Such conclusion would be based on superficial observation, because reading the text of the Law makes it crystal clear that Jainism is not a part of Hinduism. Of all things, this has been recognised in the Constitution of India, at Art. 25.See the discussion in this article and the explanations.

17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Legalese So, we talk about scholars. I personally corresponded with a few "Professors" of Religion, Theology, etc. I had made these queries, right after the Bal Patil judgment came sending these professors, the text of the judgment and seeking their response. Any comments are welcome- Rishabh Sancheti (LL.M. Erasmus, European Master in Law and Economics) rsanchetiATgmailDOTcom

John A. Grim, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Center for Bioethics, Yale University Dear Rishabh Sancheti,

My own view would be that Jainism is a religion with its own standing in its history, institutions, scriptures, and rituals. I imagine this is a political move by Hindutva organizations. If Jainism is artifically reduced to a reform movement, then, Christianity can be erased as simply a reform movement within Judaism and Islam similarly erased before the claims of Christianity and Judaism. This type of reductive move has been tried in the historical past and traditiona such as Christianity and Islam have appealed to the uniqueness of their revelations, their scriptures, their inspired personalities, and their history to argue their place among the religions.

       All the best in your work, John Grim

--

John A. Grim Institution for Social and Policy Studies Center for Bioethics Yale University

Koichi Shinohara, Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University Mr. Sancheti, The scholarly opinion has long been that Jainism is a distinctive religious tradition, and not a reform movement within Hinduism. This certainly is the way we teach it in our programs. However, I do not specialize in Indian religions. I suggest that you contact two of my colleagues who are highly regarded scholars of Jainism: Phyllis Granoff at phyllis.granoff@yale.edu and Paul Dundas at pdundas@staffmail.ed.ac.uk.

Sincerely, Koichi Shinohara (Professor of Religious Studies, Yale University)

Christopher Key Chapple, Professor, Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount University

Dear Rishabh Sancheti:

Thank you for sending the judgment of the court.  This is quite fascinating.  Fro the perspective of the history of religions, Jainism was not a reform movement but an independent faith akin to Buddhism.  The Hindu tradition, which originated in the northwest of India and migrated southward and eastward, was referred to by the early Greek geographer Megasthenes as "Brahmanical" and Jainism and Buddhism, which originated in the northeast of India were referred to as "Sramanical."  Hinduism believes in the authority of the Vedas and the efficacy of ritual; Jainism and Buddhism do not believe in the Vedas and only their laypeople practice ritual.  Hinduism allows for monastic life generally only after one has lived a full family existence; Jainism and Buddhism advocate earlier renunciation of the world.  Hinduism does not have a fully developed monastic tradition for women; Jainism has the world's oldest order of nuns.  
I understand for a variety of reasons why the Court took its particular position.  
Leading scholars of Jainism include John Cort of Denison University in Ohio, Paul Dundas of the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, Lawrence Alan Babb of Amherst College in Massachusetts, Anne Vallely of the University of Ottawa in Canada, and various others. 

With best wishes, Chris Chapple Christopher Key Chapple, Ph.D. Professor, Theological Studies Associate Academic Vice President Loyola Marymount University

Phyllis Granoff, Dept. of Religious Studies, Yale University Thank you for your note. I know that this discussion has a long history. As a scholar of Indian religions I would not hesitate to say that Jainism is a distinctive religious tradition and not a “reform movement” from within Hinduism. It is closer in fact to Buddhism than it is to what we call Hinduism. Indeed Jainism emphatically rejected the authority of the Vedas and vedic ritual as a means to salvation. Phyllis Granoff Dept. of Religious Studies

Yale University 

Professor Cromwell Crawford,Department of Religion, University of Hawaii.

Dear Rishabh, The new academic year begins on Monday, so my response to your inquiry will be general. Jainism is not a sect within Hinduism, and it is not a reformist faction within the general faith. Historically, the sramanic movement, of which Jainism and Buddhism are representatives, have ancient roots which precede Hinduism. Doctrinally, Jainism and Hinduism are distinct on fundamental concepts, such as the doctrine of God, the nature of the soul, the meaning of karma, the purpose of worship, the authority and constitution of scriptures, the nature of human destiny, etc. Mahavir did not consider his religion as reformist, but as an extension of an ancient tradition. Jain ascetics who are the prime bearers of the tradition consider themselvesx a people apart. Major texts on Jainism treat it as a distinct religion. Leading universities in which Jain research is done do not view Jainism as a part of Hinduism. The confusion arises because the basic values of Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are similar, a phenomenon which is understandable because of the common culture; but cultural commonality should not belie fundamental religious differences between the three religions. Hope this information is helpful.

Professor Cromwell Crawford, Department of Religion,

University of Hawaii.

John Koller, Professor of Asian & Comparative Philosophy,Dept. of Cognitive Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Risabh, There is no doubt that Jainism is a separate and independent religion, not a form of Hinduism, or any other religion. It is probably considerably older than Hinduism. I know of no scholars who consider Jainism to be a form or sect of Hinduism. My own studies, some of which is included in my books, The Indian Way, and Asian Philosophies, shows Jainism to be a separate and independent religion. I am extremely busy at the moment, but you are right, and I wish you well. Perhaps at a later time I can be of more help. It is an extremely important issue, and I think that the Court is wrong in its judgment. You may cite me, including any of my publications, in your efforts to correct the Court's judgement. Sincerely, John Koller - Professor of Asian & Comparative Philosophy Dept. of Cognitive Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute NY

[edit] Objections to IAF's methodology and approach

Legalese 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)I have certain objections to your recent edit, IAF.

Please consider the consistent views of several professors on religion and theology, mentioned on the talk page and evaluate yourself, the credibility qua the sources you mention.

1. As against the writing, The Dharmic religions, especially Hinduism, have their foundation in the Vedic religion of the Indo-Aryans, who founded the Vedic civilization--one of the earliest in the ancient India and the world

Jainism and Buddhism, which reject the vedas and caste system, have their foundations in the shramanic tradition propogated by 24 Jaina Tirthankars and Gutama Buddha.

You wrote,

Dharmic religions are a family of religions that have originated from the Indian subcontinent. They encompass the Vedic religion (now Hinduism) and three other religions that have spawned from it—-namely Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism

The founders of all Dharmic religions have been influential Hindus who explored and concentrated on specific aspects of Hinduism to form a distinctive and relatively limited set of beliefs.

This is not correct.

2. Your edit modifies, and states,.,.,, Perhaps the smallest, Jainism is also the second-oldest Dharmic religion. It is a religious system that does not recognize a Godhead, and that reveres liberated souls known as Siddhas. The followers of Jainism firmly reject the Vedas, but strongly adhere to dharma, moksha and nirvana. The concepts of karma, bhagwan, moksha, avtara, dharma, tattvas and devas, although occurring in both Hinduism and Jainism are viewed by Jains as distinct in meaning and connotation between the two faiths.

Where do you gather, that Jainism is the "second oldest", would you please reveal?

3. The following added by me, was not there in any of the earlier versions. How could you delete it, in name of "reversion". This information, you may confirm from the main article on Jainism. If you want, I may personally render you on your email scanned pages of the Aagams which state this.

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. 

4. And of all things, ....You deleted this information, may I ask WHY? This is totally not befitting the wiki standards. Only because this information goes against what you want the article to contain and depict (namely, Jainism is a part of Hinduism), you would delete it? And of all things, a Supreme Court judgment is the strongest of evidence, isnt it. and you delete it !

However, 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)

5. and please change the name IAF, you do not want to represent the Indian Air Force here, do you?....while i was writing the sub-heading, i myself felt a bit squeamish. let IAF remain in its glory, and PEACE.

• Anish-ben, I have replied to each and every one of your arguments---you only have to make the effort of searching them on this talk-page. DO learn to scroll up and down the talk-page will you ?

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. Same goes with, "Jains believe it is the oldest religion..." Reply to that first in the appropriate section, and then we can start talking.

You may squirm or squeak, squeal or feel squeamish, you first reply to my arguments properly where I have replied to Vassyana; until then don't bother to communicate with me, and wake up daily to find your edits reverted.

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--Anishshah19 11:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Fair

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.

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)

[edit] On IAF's response of 10 times clarifying

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.

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?

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)

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.--Anishshah19 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• >>Thanks Legalese for carrying out the debate rationally and in a polite and cultured manner that reflects the principles of Jainism.

Well, the first claimant to this accolade would definitely be me. Any latter word-sparring has only been reactionary.

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.

Legalese, your other arguments have the propensity to shoot themselves in the foot, and thereby strengthening my own.

a) Rishabh Dev : There is NO mention of the name "Rishabh Dev" in the RigVed. What is mentioned is Vrishabh i.e. a Bull or a Buffalo which Indra kills or is slated to kill, in the RigVeda X.27.2 and X.28.3. How does this point towards or even tangentially hint at Rishabh Dev ?

Ridiculous did I hear ? Talk about nonsense on your part.

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.

"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)

Dear Legalese I can understand your frustration.--Anishshah19 06:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear IAF, I am not interested in sledging and hence will come straight to Point.

A) Rishabhdeva From the following quotes of Scholars, it is evident that Rishabhdeva was known and worshipped by inhabitants of Indus valley Civilization which is the earliest recorded historical civilization, even before the Aryans and Vedas. 1) Prof. Ram Prasad Chanda, who supervised Indus Valley excavations, states in his article Mohen-jo-Daro (Sindh, Five Thousand years ago) in Modern Review August, 1932: ”Not only the seated deities on some of the Indus seals are in Yoga posture and bear witness to the prevalence of Yoga in the Indus Valley in that remote age, the standing deities on the seals also show Kayotsarga (abandonment of the body, a standing or sitting posture of meditation) of Yoga .The Kayotsarga posture is peculiarly Jain. It is a posture not of sitting but of standing. In the Adi Purana Book XV III, Kayotsarga posture is described in connection with the penance of Rishabha or Vrashabha,” 2) In his Indus Civilization and Hindu Culture, the eminent scholar, P. R. Deshmukh says: ”The first Jain Tirthankara belonged to Indus civilization. The Indus Valley deities were nude. The Jains sustained that culture and worshipped nude Tirthankaras”. 3) Dr. S. Radhakrishnan affirms that “The Bhagavata Purana endorses the view that Rishabha was the founder of Jainism. There is evidence to show that so far back as the first century B.C. there were people who were worshipping Rishabhadeva, the first Tirthankara. There is no doubt that Jainism prevailed even before Vardhamana Mahavira, or Parsvanatha. The Yajurveda mentions the names of three Tirthankaras, Rishabha, Ajitnatha and Aristanemi” (Indian Philosophy, P.287) 4) Another scholar P. C. Roy Choudhury states in his Jainism in Bihar; ”Not much research is possible in the pre-historical age as to the role Bihar played in the story of Jainism. But some of the ancient Jain scriptures mention that Jainism had been preached in Magadha (Bihar) by Lord Rishabha at the end of stone age and the beginning of the agricultural age. At the remote period Magadha was separated from the rest of India by Ganga-sagar. The ancient history of Nepal bears this out”.(P.7)

Hence it is amply clear that Jainism was predates Hinduism as well as Vedas. I am not interesting in proving that Hinduism is an offshoot of Jainism. I am satisfied as long as the antiquity and originality of Jainism preached by Omniscient Jinas is not tampered with.

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 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Legalese, you say that you leave this article to its fate and I should smile. I'm crying, because its me who has let it go to the dogs already (I haven't reverted your and Anishshah's edits since the past few days).

So I guess its you who should be smiling, coz your edits stand.

You do have the tendency to veer away from the actual discussion to discussing me---dissecting each and every sentence, line and punctuation when I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to say. Anyway, I give up on the legalese.

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 Ikshvaku dynasty dates its lineage to Manu who was an eccentric king who lived around 1 A.D., who wrote 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.

You said, "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. "

Can't I turn the tables and say likewise for Jainism, that since the RV questions the omnipresence and omnipotence of God, so it must be that Jainism borrows these concepts from Hinduism ?

Besides, please do note that there are various godS in the RV. In the last verse of the Creation there is an allude to the surveyor of the highest heaven or the Supreme Being. The Creation verses are tremendously profound thoughts, because they are probably the first recorded ideas about the origins of space and time.

• Pray tell me how my arguments are thrashed by Scholars. You interpret the statements of scholars from your own prism; like Ram Prasad Chanda's statement which nowhere even slightly suggests that the Indus Valley seal depicts Rishabha (just the posture is a Yogic one).

And I remind you about Sanskrit's exclusivity to the Vedic literature and that it is the oldest language known to the sub-con. You can refer to the articles on Prakritic languages in wikipedia itself which say that they got created around the time of Buddha to record his teachings. They are more recent than Sanskrit. These are not empty comments, but historical facts. You know what this means for Jaina literature.

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. --Anishshah19 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that its you who are presenting distorted history with mere pie-in-the-sky references to validate your grossly inaccurate prejudices.

I don't have to adhere to scholarly references to prove that Taj Mahal is in Agra. Similarly, I thought that you would know that the Indus Valley Script is NOT deciphered. It means that we don't know properly as to what their prevalent names, their exact religious practices, and their godheads were, although Pasupathi, Yogic postures, and nature worship are all strong evidence pointing to a continuity with the Aryan/Vedic civilization. Similar i the case, when I say that the Ikshvaku clan, Magadha, Prakritic languages, Puranas are all much latter creations than the dawn of the Vedic civilization. I think that I gave links to the wikipedia articles to all of them.

Whenever external references were necessary, I did provide them : like Vrishabs' context in the RigVed with the verse numbers, the URL of Jain Agama literature (which says that the Purvas are subsequent to lord Mahavira who lived around 500 A.D.), and the scholarly comment from Ramanujan Book Prizes that the Jain religion owes its ideas to the Upanishads.

I was so engrossed in replying to you, that I missed some obvious trump-cards which can strengthen my point of view. Firstly, Jains summarily reject the Vedas. So why are you taking refuge in the Vedas for oblique references to Rishabh Dev, Arishtemi huh ? Secondly, even if we hypothetically assume that they had indeed been Jain tirthankars, don't you think that Jains have second claim to them with Hindus being the first claimants ?

Now coming to your references >> MOST of them spring from jainworld.com---an orthodox Jain website, whose proclamations I doubt would be acceptable on wikipedia.

• This is all what Mr. Chanda said : Not only the seated deities on some of the Indus seals are in Yoga posture and bear witness to the prevalence of Yoga in the Indus Valley in that remote age, the standing deities on the seals also show Kayotsarga. The Kayotsarga posture is peculiarly Jain. It is a posture not of sitting but of standing. In the Adi Purana Book XV III, Kayotsarga posture is described in connection with the penance of Rishabha or Vrashabha. Where does this say that the person shown on the seal is Vrishabh ? Chanda's book tries to find broken links between the Indus Vally and Vedic civilizations. The person on the seal was depicted in the Kayotsarga posture. But you cannot jump at the conclusion that he is Rishabh Deva.

• About Purvas, as I've pointed out twice now, they were subsequent to Mahavira who lived around 500 A.D. They themselves were the 12th in the series of Jain books, many of which are in existence today. Purvas clearly don't predate Hinduism.

• 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.

• 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. --Anishshah19 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AnishShah19, merely bleeting repeatedly that it has been conclusively proven that Jainism is a .....doesn't make it true ?

• Have you replied to my last comment and the second last comment where I have proven ALL your assertions wrong ? That means that as of now my assertions are one-up and the onus of replying is on YOU otherwise I'll assume you don't have nothing to reply to or refute my latest comments.

• All your so-called "relevant" points are answered too, provided you take the trouble of scrolling up and reading what I wrote.

• 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)

[edit] Be Civil IAF

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.

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.

) Peace !

[edit] Game Rules

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.

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)

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.--Anishshah19 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Without much ado, I'll be brief.

• First please read my reply in the previous section where I've replied to the "fraud" charges on the Upanishads.

• I do not have the tiniest idea about what ISKON and Arya Samaj have gotta do with this article. When did I ever talk about ISCKON and Arya Samaj ?? What does ISKON and Arya Samaj have to do with Jainism ??? Yeh dono kidhar se tapak padey ?

Just because I said that jainworld.com is an orthodox site (which it is) which relegates importance to mythology more than history, whay am I being accused of Iskon and Arya-Samaj ?

• Talking about copyright violations, instead of hurling its charge on me alone, do spare some for AnishShah19 too coz he too has copy-pasted lots of stuff from presumably jainworld and other websites having traditional leanings.

Again, quoting from a wikipedia article in a wikipedia talk:page is NOT a copy-right violation. I am referring to the Upanishads page (read my comment on the previous section for details). Legalese, you need to do the reading of the legalese of wikipedia before appying constitutional decorum over here.

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)

[edit] Inviting Discussion on MSN Encarta's Entry

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

   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)