jainism -not derived from hindu

Systemic bias against Jainism

The question of survival of Jainism

Jainism is one of the oldest religion of ancient India. Unfortunately, it is wrongly considered as an offshoot of Hinduism or vedic religion. This knol tries to analyse this bias and its politcial implications on Jainism

Systemic bias against Jainism

The question of survival of Jainism

Jainism is one of the oldest religion of ancient India. Unfortunately, it is wrongly considered as an offshoot of Hinduism or vedic religion. This knol tries to analyse this bias and its politcial implications on Jainism

The systemic bias regarding Jainism in particular and non-vedic Indic religions in general, in India and world, pertains typically to the origins and historicity of these religions and their contributions and influence to the Indian philosophy. It is often believed by the majority that all the non-vedic Indic religions are offshoots of Hinduism. This bias is reflected in the world view and paradigm of the average Indian. Typically, the average Indian:-

1. reflects a Hindu or a vedic world view;
2. is a devout and god fearing person, but basically a tolerant person willing to absorb different philosophies; and
3. is caught in the stranglehold of the astrologers/ godmen/ gurus/ babas and is more likely to cultivate the Hindu orthodox views on eternality of Vedas and Sanatan Dharma.

This profile of the average Indian, forming an overwhelming majority, engenders a cultural bias and misconceptions about Jainism (not necessarily with mal-intentions) placing it in a disadvantageous position. This all-pervasive bias manifests itself in many ways and in different media: history text books, newspaper articles, Indian personal laws, religious discourses, encyclopedias, internet etc. As a result, this bias is accepted as conventional wisdom through incessant communal reinforcement.

The Bias: Argumentum Ad Populum

The world at large also views India and Indian religions from this filter of typically Hindu world view. Thus the belief of the majority, though flawed and not backed by scholarly research, becomes the gospel truth for everyone; a fodder for texts books, media and other public discussions.

This has resulted in the following religious and cultural stereotyping of Jainism:-

Jainism as an offshoot of Hinduism

Jainism is often considered as an offshoot of Hinduism. Most people consider or rather accept, Jainism simply as a part of Hinduism. The ancient Indian scenario had many competing traditions led by the elite, of which, brahmanas and sramanas were most influential of the lot. Within, themselves, they had many sub-traditions. They were never considered as offshoots of each other. They not only competed with each other vying for royal patronages; they influenced each other, assimilating rival ideas and practices that they found congruent with their beliefs. The common man was essentially unaffected by elite discourses. To identify India with "Hinduism" is simply a gross etymological misattribution, not withstanding the fact that the word “Hinduism” did not even exist a few centuries back. To say that Buddhism or Jainism are offshoots of Hinduism is simply projecting back thousands of year, socio-political paradigm that were formed only in the last couple of centuries. When the word "offshoot" is used, one implicitly privileges one tradition over the other. As shown below, current scholarship is clear in its opinion that Jainism is a separate religion having non-vedic roots and is as old as the vedic religion, if not older.

• “Now it is generally accepted that Jainism is a distinct religion and that it is as old as, if not older than, the Vedic religion of the Hindus”^[1] – Dr. Vilas Sangave.
• “Originating on the Indian sub-continent, Jainism is one of the oldest religion of its homeland and indeed the world having pre-historic origins before 3000 BCE, and before the propagation of Indo-Aryan culture.”^[2] – Joel Diederik Beversluis.
• “Jainism is a very old non-Vedic religion and some of its features go back to the times of Indus Valley Civilization. Like the Upanishads and Buddhism, Jainism was a kshatriya movement. It had its locus in a religion which was not yet touched by Brahmin cult.”^[3] – Y. Masih
• “The Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times, that is, to the second millenium before the Common Era (2000–1500 BCE), although the precise origins of the tradition are not yet fully known.”^[4] – Indiana University

While the common man is still wallowing in this Hindu-centric world view, this mis-categorisation of Jainism is now in disfavour in the academic and scholarly circles, although not followed in Indian political circles.

Jainism as heterodox protestant sect

Jainism is a heterodox sect of Vedic religion and was essentially a protestant sect. This myth stems due the certain quintessential characteristics and practices of Jainism :-

§ Jainism rejects the divinity and efficacy of Vedas. It also rejects the God as the creator of this universe. This had led the rival Vedic traditions to label the Sramana traditions as “nastika darsana” or heterodox traditions. In the same vein, Jainism held the vedic views, especially the animal sacrifices, as false beliefs.

§ Through ages, Jainism protested against the vedic rituals, sacrifices and slaughters of the animals. This led to the belief that Jainism separated from Vedic religion on account of Ahimsa after Mahavira purged the non-violent and other shamanic practices.

§ The Jain philosophical concepts of Karma, Samsara, Moksa, Ahimsa, Yoga etc. resembles the similar Hindu philosophicals concepts in some ways. This leads many people in presuming that Jains borrowed these concepts from vedas, which is far from truth, as shown below.

§ Jainism shares many mythological characters with Hinduism, leading to misconceptions that Jains adopted Hindu deities.

§ Certain endogamous groups are common between Jains and Hindus, especially in Gujarat and Rajasthan. As such, there was no restriction on inter-marriages between Jains and Hindus.

§ It is difficult to physically distinguish the Jains from their Hindu neighbours, as Jains have never outwardly displayed or advertised their religious symbols or different clothing that may distinguish themselves as Jains.

Over the time, these have added to the so-called conventional wisdom, reinforcing the heretical and protestant genesis of Jainism. However, the scholars now have come to view Jainism as an independent phenomenon having non-Vedic origins. J. L. Jaini sums up this view:^[5]

“As to Jainas being Hindu dissenters, and, therefore governable by Hindu law, we are not told this date of secession [...] Jainism certainly has a longer history than is consistent with its being a creed of dissenters from Hinduism.”

Dr. Prof. Padmanabh Jaini further states that the Jainas themselves have no memory of a time when they fell within the Vedic fold. Any theory that attempts to link the two traditions, moreover fails to appreciate rather distinctive and very non-Vedic character of Jaina cosmology, soul theory, karmic doctrine and atheism.^[6]

Mahavira as the Founder of Jainism

Another misconception that is propagated often in history text books: Mahavira is the founder of Jainism. However, as Gerald Larson puts it, Mahavira rather than being a “founder” per se, was rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition.^[7] This is further attested by the fact that Parsva (877–777 BCE), the 23^rd Tirthankara is now considered as a historical person flourishing 250 years before Mahavira.

Vedas as the sole originator of Indian philisophical concepts

It is believed that karma, ahimsa, samsara, reincarnation, moksa and other philosophical concepts were developed in the vedic and upanishadic period and then assimilated by the Jains and Buddhists into their beliefs. Hindutva revisionists claim Vedas to be eternal and seek to revitalise the Hindutva movement by propaganda of the supposedly pristine vedic-hindu roots of the Indian culture. Hinduism is thus equated with Indian nationalism. Commenting on such tendencies Jeffery Long says:^[8]

“Identification of Hinduism (with Indian nationalism) essentially amounts to a nationalistic assertion that India is the fountain of all primordial wisdom. Such an identification issues in a closed inclusivism, a restrictive understanding of truth, for fairly clear reason that it can, like all forms of nationalism, slide easily into an assertion that no other culture as ever done anything worthwhile, that India has much to teach the rest of the world but nothing to learn.”

According to Zydenbos, philiosophical concepts like – karma, moksa, ahimsa, samsara, ascetism, yoga and like – that are considered typically Indian find their origins in the Sramana school of thought. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, an eminent Indian leader and Vedic scholar has credited Jainism with introducing ahimsa in Hindu thought^[9]:

“In ancient times, innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifices. Evidence in support of this is found in various poetic compositions such as the Meghaduta. But the credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the Brahminical religion goes to Jainism.”

With one or two minor exceptions there is little or no emphasis in the Vedas, on the notion of karma, re-birth and samsara, except for concepts of re-death, that is, death in afterlife after death.

Sect of Buddhism

Certain people used to hold the view that it is a sect of Buddhism, especially in 19^th century and early 20^th century. This was a period when the western world discovered Hinduism, Buddhism, Sanskrit language and Indian philosophical concepts, but Jainism largely remained an obscure and exotic philosophy. It was first proved by noted Indologist, Prof. Hermann Jacobi, that Jainism was not only a different religion, but, much older than Buddhism.

Political implications

The political damage to Jainism is much more severe. Here we have a case of history serving a chauvinistic and political ends. This tendency of communal reinforcement of the outdated paradigms, as well as penchant for historical revisionism amongst the Indian political class has often resulted in fallacy of misclassification of Jainism under Hinduism for the legal or political purposes.

In 2005, the Supreme Court of India declined to issue a writ of Mandamus towards granting Jains the status of a religious minority throughout India.^[10] The Court however left it to the respective states to decide on the minority status of Jain religion. In one of the extra-judicial observations of the Supreme Court, not forming part of the judgment, the Judges said:

“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. [..] In philosophical sense, Jainism is a reformist movement amongst Hindus like Brahamsamajis, Aryasamajis and Lingayats.”

These observations evoked strong protests and criticism from the Jains. Syed Shahabuddin ridiculed these observations as personal versions of Justice Dharmadikari without regard for the historical facts:^[11]

“His historiography is full of flaws. It confuses the sequence of event.... But the real purpose of his travel into uncharted territories without a compass becomes apparent when in the next paragraph he identifies Jainism with what he calls Hindu Vedic religion though the Jains reject the Vedas and Brahmanical philosophy, for the Tirthankaras and especially Mahavir have charted their own spiritual course, much like Buddhism....‘Hinduism can be called a general religion and common faith of India’. He thus elevates Hinduism above other religions of India and equates Hinduism with Indianness..... But Justice Dharmadhikari sees assimilation in Hinduism as the alternative and desirable goal of all religious groups in India, while the international community recognises multi-religiosity as the natural state of things.”

The political damage to the Jains was again recently demonstrated by the political misadventure of the Right-wing Gujarat BJP Government. The Gujarat government was forced to withdraw the controversial “Freedom of Religion Bill”, which classified Jains as Hindus, after the wide spread protests by the Jains. The introduction of “Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill” categorizing the Jains as Hindus is a classic example of pejorative historical revisionism, illegitimately manipulating the legal and political system to nurture a particular ideology at the cost of truth. The National commission for minorities also criticised the Gujarat Assembly's decision to club Jainism and Buddhism with Hinduism terming it to be in contravention of its October 23, 1993, notification that classified Buddhists as a “minority community”.^[12]

The truth is, the traditional Hindu-centric historical curriculum enshrines a particular world view that considers the Vedic Hindu contribution, culture and achievements to be central and fundamental to understanding the Indian history while only nominally acknowledging the role of Sramanas and other traditions to the Indian philosophy. That late 20^th Century saw the correction of the errors and misconceptions on Jainism demonstrated the mixed blessings of scholarship. However the damage was already done and it will take some time to undo the damage. It is up to the Jains as to how they protect their unique identity and heritage for the posterity



Here is the slightly modified version of an email I sent out on 06/08/2007

Dear friends,
Jay Jinendra

JAINS ARE NOT HINDUS

1. Jains do not follow untouchability.

2. When the Harijan Temple Entry Act was mooted by the Government of India, Digambara Jain temples in Bundelkhand were opened to everyone. They still are. Anyone can go and worship there.

3. Top Bundelkhandi Digambara scholars came in the forefront and championed the cause of allowing everyone to enter Digambara Jain temples irrespective of their caste or religion. Pt Nathuram Premi, Pt Phulchandra Siddhantashastri and many others came out strongly in favour of Harijan entry in Jain temples.

4. Digambara Jains from Bundelkhand do not keep idols or photos of Hindu gods and goddesses in their houses. Actually, this is true of all Terapanthi Digambara Jains.

5. All Digambara Jains get married strictly according to Digambara Jain rituals. The Digambara deva-shashtra-guru puja is read and many other impeccably Jain pujas are performed as part of the marriage rites.

6. I was at Shravana Belagola for the Mahamastakabhiseka. I did not see any casteism practised in there. What was obvious was that the people who took the largest bolis were allowed to go in first. But there was no casteism practised.

7. Digambara Jains from Bundelkhand do not write Jain - Hindu or Hindu - Jain in their school leaving certificate. They clearly write JAIN or DIGAMBAR JAIN. There is no question of writing Hindu since we are not Hindus.

8. In the Census, since the 1880s, there has been a seperate column for Jains. It would not have come in existence had all Jains been writing Hindu the column for religion!

9. There is no casteism in Jainism. There are endogamous groups, like
Paravāra
Khandelwāl
Gola Purva
Gola Lare
Humar
Agrawāl, etc. in the Digambaras.

And in the Shvetāmbaras, there are:
Osvāl
Porvāl
Shrimāl, etc.

But these are endogamous groups. Not castes. There is no concept of upper caste - lower caste in Jainism. At least not in Bundelkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat.

Yes, it is true that a large number of Jains marry in their own endogamous groups. But this has changed in the past two or three decades. I am a Paravāra, married to a Padmāvati Porval, many others in my family are married to non-Digambaras and non-Paravāras. Two of my didis are married in Agravāl Digambara Jain families from Haryana, one brother in a Gola Purva Digambara Jain family from Bundelkhand and some cousins in Shvetāmbara Jain families from Punjab and Gujarat. Paravāra - Khandelwāl marriages are commonplace since the 1980s.

In any case, there has never been a caste issue amongst the Jains of North India at least.

yours,
Manish Modi