கால பைரவன்;187790 said:
My post #303 was addressed to Kunjuppu, please. Perhaps you did not notice it. He was the one who talked about "approaching relationships with other faiths". I asked how harping on the anti-brahmanical theme of these religions helps this cause.
It is clear to some of us why few members refer to buddhism and jainism in this forum - to only touch upon the "anti-brahminical" theme of these religions. It is not uncommon for the brabas to quote buddha, or a bharathi or a Vivekananda to lend support to their views. Therefore, a guy like JK coming here and saying that jainism and buddhism are not anti-brahminical is intolerable to them.
So, according to your logic, those who claim jains and buddhists are hindus (and this includes RSS), are pro-brahmanism? If this discussion were about comparing philosophies of various religions, we wud be discussing them. However, it is about erroneous claims
(1) that mahavira and buddha were brahmins or kshatriyas,
(2) that jainism and buddhism are vedic; or offshoots of vedic religion; or they accept the vedic religion
(3) that jainism and buddhism are branches of whatever is 'hinduism'
To top it (according to you), jain varna and hindu varna were the same.
Such misleading claims are not just plain falsity; but do not help jains and buddists at all. It is plain mischievous to discredit great leaders, (who were not just teachers), like Mahavira and Buddha; as though their teachings were vedic, accepted brahmin dharmashastra varna model, etc.
கால பைரவன்;187792 said:
This appears to be circular logic again. Majority of the laws viz-a-viz varna were/are societal laws. That is my point. As far as social laws are concerned, the jains followed very similar set of laws. That is the reason why varna classification was added to their philosophical system. Even in the religious sphere, there were some priveleges conferred on only the first three classes and shudras of the jain society were kept out of these priveleges. For example, according to Jinasena, the "shudras" were not permitted to receive mendicant initiation (called "diksa"). There were times when "shudras" were not allowed to enter jain temples.
Kindly give me an example where a so-called jain shudra was not allowed to enter jain temples.
As a class, majority jains were a class of traders. Since brahmin dharmashastra model has 4 varnas, the jains too used all 4 varna terms; and copied the model of brahmin dharmashastras on near equal footing; with all sorts of rules and regulations (an outcome of competition with brahmins or an attempt to dominate versus brahmins).
An important distinctive feature in Jain varnas is flexibility and mobility across varnas, based on vocation not birth. Your issue with jinasena has been addressed by a gentleman
in this yahoo post. With due credit to the author (anishshah), i reproduce the post verbatim here (since it explains so well precisely to the point):
1. Prof Jaini mentions the story of Harikesi to show that Jains admitted the lower castes and pariahs in its order and that salvation was possible for them. It does not matter whether its a Digambara or a Svetambara story, as it represents the Jain view.
2. Rushabhdev Swami is credited as starting the castes of Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. But Jaini points out two things: One, Shudra refers to as craftsman and it is not hereditary. Secondly this classification by Rushabhdev was when he was a king, when he had not achieved perfection or Kevala Jnana. He mentions on the mundane and socio-political nature of this action. This classification has neither spiritual nor religious significance. We often loosely mention that Rishabhadev swami did this and that without realising whether it was as a Jina or before. What he did before his Kevala Jnana is not really relevant. Furthermore, the only hierarchy that Jains accepted was that of King and Subject, where a birth in king or the warrior family were considered as a noble or higher birth. Brahmins, Vaishyas and Shudras were equals but under the king.
3. Now the main part as how the denial of Salvation to Shudras became part of certain Digambara belief. The genesis of this belief according to Jaini and most Jain scholars lies in Adipurana of Jinasena in 10th Century CE. Jinasena denied possibility of full renunciation to Shudras. Most Jain texts were spiritual and practically gave no guidance to laymen on social, cultural and political sphere. Jinasena was probably the first Jain acharya to codify certain Jain social practices that had little religious significance but helped to “Jainify” the pan-Indian cultural practices. However in his enthusiasm, he incorporated some brahmanical prejudices. He denied full renunciation to shudras, but untouchability was never a part of his teachings. In fact he gave a better status to Shudras than the vedics, he allowed them to reach a stage of Ailaka or partial renunciation. However Jaini lays stress that it has no sanction of earlier Digambara or even Svetambara scriptures and it was solely his introduction.
Therefore, Manishbhai is correct in saying that no Digambara texts ever denied liberation to Shudras. Jinasena’s assertion is an aberration and not sanctioned by the earlier original tradition. Pt. Todarmal probably never had benefit of original Digambara agamas and relied on Jinasena and hence this view. Had he got his hands on Dhavala and Shatkhandagama he would have probably revised his view. Currently there are Digambara monk from lower castes and Jains as a rule do not follow untouchability.
Shudra is a slave in the hindu 'brahmin' dharmashastras. One who is kept suppressed violently in the brahmin dharmashastra model. Although jainism and buddhism adopted the term 'shudra', there is no evidence whatsoever that Mahavira and Buddha supported the brahmin version of it. On the contrary, there are enough evidences that Mahavira and Buddha sought to improve the position of slaves to whatever extent they could (and this was at a time when slavery was common in society).
Even "
The Indian decisions (new series): Bombay, Volume 23, by Great Britain Privy Council, Judicial Committee, Lawyer's Companion Office" (a book which i strongly recommend to understand colonial period confusions with jains) says this:
"
As the Jains are mostly Vaishyas, it is plain that the exceptional rules laid down for Shudras can have no place in matters relating to Jains".
During muslim onslaughts, various native religions united. How dharmashastras worked then, am not so sure. However, necessity presumably brought unity amongst people of native religions. Vijayanagar and post-vijayanagar periods strongly supported hindu temples, and brahmins gained dominance. Converting into 'hindu' must have started then; or perhaps during those times it did not matter at all.
All confusion can however be tracked back to the colonial period. Converting into hindu in colonial period was difficult. One had to trace the earlier caste of descent and 'return' to it (Ref:
this book, p.175). But now, (as colonial courts required it) caste (jati) had to be tagged with a varna. And it was not easy for jains. A common example i have given earlier is of Komatis. Former jains such as komatis had hard luck being recognized as vaishyas. Brahmin smarta niyogis gave them much trouble. Komatis did everything in their capacity (producing puranic literature, tagging their gotras with brahmin rishis, etc) to be recognized as vaishyas. This was how much it took. All this because, the brahmin dharmashastra model dominated in colonial period.
There are enough papers on buddhism which conclusively prove that Buddha himself not only did anything to remove caste system but actually accepted it. He emphasizes varna dharma for all sections. "The ksatriyas, brahmanas, vaisyas, Sudras, candalas and pukkusas, by practising the dharma in this world, will become equal in heaven". There is no question of varna movement in buddhism, as you opine, because it is one's purva janma karma that determines one's current caste status.
Again you have superimposed varna (of brahmin dharmashastra system) on castes. Caste and Varna are two different social systems, already elaborated enuf on it.
Of course, Jains and Buddhists had castes. No evidence Mahavira and Buddha had doctrines prohibiting movement between castes. Notably, Jainism and Buddhism did not follow varna model of brahmin dharmashastras. Kindly produce proof from buddist literature or pali canon endorsing slavery, endorsing violent subjugation of people into shudra slaves (just as the brahmin dharmashastras do).
Again, please do not misrepresent purvajanma karma of buddhism. Already explained, how it works in buddhism. Again, i repeat, anyone born anywhere could inherit certain inclinations, abilities, proclivities, due to his purvajanma karma. Anyone could become a monk, anyone could join the sangha and study. Buddhism does not clamp down a rigid birth-based hierarchy.
The phrase you quote (in blue) refers to buddhist dharma (pali: dhamma). Not to dharma rules of brahmin dharmashastra books. Buddhist dharma is an antithesis of brahmin dharma rules. Buddhist dharma is to follow Buddha's teachings (which includes His philosophy).
Please prove there was no varna movement in buddhism.
I am just writing this to point out that these religions, buddhism/jainism, did not reject the varna/ class system but merely accepted them. Rather they reasoned that an individual's poorva janma karma is responsible for this varna/class system and one should do his allocated duty to attain liberation or gain ascendancy in the varna hierarchy. That is why I mentioned even if they are anti-brahmin, they are not anti-varna. If their brahmana, kshatriya, and vaisya are different - so be it. But they discriminated their "Shudra" all the same!
Buddha and Mahavira rejected the vedas, brahmanical fire sacrifices and brahmin dharmashastra rule books (and the brahmin varna model). If Buddha had accepted brahmin varna rules, He would not say that phrase in blue welcoming all to practice buddha's dharma.
Please prove buddha accepted the brahmin dharmashastra model.
Buddha asked rulers themselves to oversee equal distribution of wealth among labourers and slaves and consider all of their citizens as sons and daughters (see
Arya bodhisatvachaya gocharopaaya vishaya vikurana nirdesha nama or
this book). At a time when slaves were common, and in a society which functioned due to slaves, Buddhism was the first religion to introduce a doctrine prohibiting trafficking of slaves. Buddha's dharma could not wholly liberate folks from slavery, however, it helped to greatly improve their position. Now a slave too could shed their identity, enter a sangha, and follow a mainstream (here, buddhist) philosophy.
Buddhist sangha and universities admitted students of all castes. Buddha accepted untouchable women into the Buddhist dharma fold. They got opportunities to study. Sanskrit was taught in Buddhist universities, though Pali was used for transmitting teachings. Admission was open to everyone, including non-buddhists (Ref: Educational Theories and Practices from the Majority World, by Dasen & Akkari (Eds)).
Buddhism is a very antithesis of the brahmin varna system.
கால பைரவன்;187794 said:
First, you are not the only one stating historical facts. Second, in general, not only facts are quoted here but opinions are formed, discussed, and propagated. Your accusation of caste prejudice is not different from my observation of prejudice.
So be it. That applies to everyone discussing here. My job is to provide info. Readers are free to form whatever opinions they please.
. let us respect differences, and we will all be the better for it.
