<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Dec 27 2008, 08:03 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Dec 27 2008, 08:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->It is "said" that a Pandayan King put 8000 Jaina monks to death - by impaling them. The King was a Jain. But his wife and his ministers were Hindus. The Queen and her Ministere invites Jannasambandar (a Hindu) to the Kingdom. After some "miracles" and debates he converts the King back to Hinduism. After this the King is "supposed" to have impaled the Jaina monks.
KAN considers this as a legend and does not admit this as History. Another tamil writer considers that people have mistook the word "ennayaram" to be eigth thousand, whereas it is actually a place.
But several folks do not consider this to be a legend.
What is the ruling of the members here? Would you say since there is a painting on this subject, it can be assumed there is some truth to the story. Or would you say the entire thing is a fiction? Or there is some truth, but the number 8000 is hugely exaggerated?
The north west wall: http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/No..._Wall.html
The actual picture in discussion: http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/Digi...ace_Part_6.html
[right][snapback]92294[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Swamy G, can't you tell the whole thing. In fact, I won't do it - being a Tamizh non-Jaina Hindu myself people will think I am biased. I will let Koenraad Elst do it.
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The most important and well-known case of �persecution of Jains� is mentioned by Romila Thapar: �The Shaivite saint Jnana Sambandar is attributed with having converted the Pandya ruler from Jainism to Shaivism, whereupon it is said that 8,000Jainas were impaled by the king.�43 To this, Sita Ram Goel points out that she omits crucial details: that this king, Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman, is also described as having first persecuted Shaivas, when he himself was a Jain; that Sambandar vanquished the Jainas not in battle but in debate, which was the occasion for the king to convert from Jainism to Shaivism (wagers in which the second or a third party promises to convert if you win the debate are not uncommon in India�s religious literature); and that Sambandar had escaped Jain attempts to kill him.44 This Shaiva-Jaina conflict was clearly not a one-way affair, and as per the very tradition invoked by Prof. Thapar, Jains themselves had been the aggressors.
It is even a matter of debate whether this persecution has occurred at all. Nilakanth Shastri, in his unchallenged History of South India, writes about it: "This, however, is little more than an unpleasant legend and cannot be treated as history.�45 Admittedly, this sounds like Percival Spear�s statement that Aurangzeb�s persecutions are �little more than a hostile legend�46: a sweeping denial of a well-attested persecution. However, Mr. Spear�s contention is amply disproves by contemporary documents including firmans (royal decrees) and eye-witness accounts, and by the archaeological record, e.g. the destruction of the Kashi Vishvanath temple in Varanasi by Aurangzeb is attested by the temple remains incorporated in the Gyanvapi mosque built on its site. Such evidence has not been offered in the case of Jnana Sambandar at all. On the contrary: �Interestingly, the persecution of Jains in the Pandya country finds mention only in Shaiva literature, and is not corroborated by Jain literature of the same or subsequent period.�47
On the other hand, the historicity of the Jain-Shaiva conflict in general is confirmed by Shaiva references to more cases of Jain aggression, none of which is mentioned by Romila Thapar. Dr. Usha Sivapriya, before duly quoting classical Tamil sources, argues that the literatures posterior to Manikkavasaghar (an ancient Tamil sage, author of Thiruvasagham) �had plenty of reference to the nature, torture and terrorism of Jaina missionaries and rulers in Tamil kingdom�.48 It all started with the invasion by Kharavela, king of Kalinga, at the turn of the Christian era: �Kharavela defeated the Tamil kings headed by Pandiyans and captured Madhurai. The Kalinga or Vadugha king enforced Jaina rule in Tamil kingdom. People were forcibly converted at knifepoint, temples were demolished or locked down, devotees were tortured and killed.�49
And it continued intermittently for centuries under Pandya and Pallava rule: �When the Digambara Jaina missionaries had failed in converting the masses, they tried to torture and kill them. (�) After failing in the attempt of converting Pandiyans the Digambara Jains tried to kill the Pandiyan Kings through various means, by sending a dangerous snake, wild bull and mad elephant.�50
Dr. Sivapriya links the advent of Jainism in Tamil Nadu with an episode of conquest by non-Tamils. Goel adds: �The persecution of Jains in the Pandya country by some Shaivas had nothing to do with Shaivism as such, but was an expression of a nationalist conflict which I will relate shortly. What 1 want to point out first is that most of the royal dynasties which ruled in India after the breakdown of the Gupta Empire and before the advent of Islamic invaders, were Shaiva (�). The Jains are known to have flourished everywhere; not a single instance of the Jains being persecuted under any of these dynasties is known. (�) M. Arunachalam, in a monograph published eight years before Professor Thapar delivered the lectures which comprise her pamphlet (�) has proved conclusively, with the help of epigraphic and literary evidence, that the Kalabhara invaders from Karnataka had occupied Tamil Nadu for 300 years (between AD 250 and 550), and that they subscribed to the Digambara sect of Jainism.�51
So, this is where �nationalist� resentment against the conquerors came to coincide with resentment against Jainism: �It so happened that some of the Kalabhara princes were guided by a few narrow-minded Jain ascetics, and inflicted injuries on some Shaiva and Vaishnava saints and places of worship. They also took away the agrahâras which Brahmanas had enjoyed in earlier times. And a reaction set in when the Kalabharas were overthrown. The new rulers who rose subscribed to Shaivism. It was then that the Jains were persecuted in some places, and some Jain places of worship were taken over by the Shaivas under the plea that these were Shaiva places in the earlier period.�52
In such cases, �Professor Thapar does not mention the Jain high-handedness which had preceded. (... ) Professor Thapar should have mentioned the persecution of Shaivas practised earlier by the Pandya king who was a Jain to start with, and who later on converted to Shaivism and persecuted the Jains. This is another case of suppressio verb suggestio falsi practised very often by her school.�53
To clinch the issue and confirm that the Pandya incident of persecution of Jains is atypical and disconnected from Hindu doctrines, Goel adds: �But the reaction was confined to the Pandya country. Jainism continued to flourish in northern Tamil Nadu which also had been invaded by the Kalabharas, where also the Shaivas and Vaishnavas had been molested by the Jains, and where also the Shaivas had come to power once again. It is significant that though Buddhists also invite invectives in the same Shaiva literature, no instance of Buddhists being persecuted is recorded. That was because Buddhists had never harmed the Shaivas. It is also significant that the Vaishnavas of Tamil Nadu show no bitterness against the Jains though they had also suffered under Kalabhara rule.�54 <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After going over other cases/allegations/narratives of Hindus and/or Jains bullying each other, Elst writes with reference to Goel:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not much is left of the allegation of �Hindu persecution of Jains�, and in that light, Goel�s conclusion must be considered relatively modest: �It is nobody�s case that there was never any conflict between the sects and sub-sects of Sanatana Dharma. Some instances of persecution were indeed there. Our plea is that they should be seen in a proper perspective, and not exaggerated in order to whitewash or counterbalance the record of Islamic intolerance. Firstly, the instances are few and far between when compared to those listed in Muslim annals. Secondly, those instances are spread over several millennia (�) Thirdly, none of those instances were inspired by a theology (�) Fourthly, Jains were not always the victims of persecution; they were persecutors as well once in a while. Lastly, no king or commander or saint who showed intolerance has been a Hindu hero, while Islam has hailed as heroes only those characters who excelled in intolerance.�63
And even if all the claims of a Hindu persecution of Jains had been true, they would still not prove the non-Hindu character of Jainism. From the history of Christianity, Islam and Communism, great persecutors of outsiders to their own doctrines, we know numerous instances where the worst invective and the choicest tortures were reserved for alleged heretics within their own fold. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
KAN considers this as a legend and does not admit this as History. Another tamil writer considers that people have mistook the word "ennayaram" to be eigth thousand, whereas it is actually a place.
But several folks do not consider this to be a legend.
What is the ruling of the members here? Would you say since there is a painting on this subject, it can be assumed there is some truth to the story. Or would you say the entire thing is a fiction? Or there is some truth, but the number 8000 is hugely exaggerated?
The north west wall: http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/No..._Wall.html
The actual picture in discussion: http://web.mac.com/mvbhaskar/Naayakaa/Digi...ace_Part_6.html
[right][snapback]92294[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Swamy G, can't you tell the whole thing. In fact, I won't do it - being a Tamizh non-Jaina Hindu myself people will think I am biased. I will let Koenraad Elst do it.
http://koenraadelst.voi.org/books/wiah/ch7.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The most important and well-known case of �persecution of Jains� is mentioned by Romila Thapar: �The Shaivite saint Jnana Sambandar is attributed with having converted the Pandya ruler from Jainism to Shaivism, whereupon it is said that 8,000Jainas were impaled by the king.�43 To this, Sita Ram Goel points out that she omits crucial details: that this king, Arikesari Parankusa Maravarman, is also described as having first persecuted Shaivas, when he himself was a Jain; that Sambandar vanquished the Jainas not in battle but in debate, which was the occasion for the king to convert from Jainism to Shaivism (wagers in which the second or a third party promises to convert if you win the debate are not uncommon in India�s religious literature); and that Sambandar had escaped Jain attempts to kill him.44 This Shaiva-Jaina conflict was clearly not a one-way affair, and as per the very tradition invoked by Prof. Thapar, Jains themselves had been the aggressors.
It is even a matter of debate whether this persecution has occurred at all. Nilakanth Shastri, in his unchallenged History of South India, writes about it: "This, however, is little more than an unpleasant legend and cannot be treated as history.�45 Admittedly, this sounds like Percival Spear�s statement that Aurangzeb�s persecutions are �little more than a hostile legend�46: a sweeping denial of a well-attested persecution. However, Mr. Spear�s contention is amply disproves by contemporary documents including firmans (royal decrees) and eye-witness accounts, and by the archaeological record, e.g. the destruction of the Kashi Vishvanath temple in Varanasi by Aurangzeb is attested by the temple remains incorporated in the Gyanvapi mosque built on its site. Such evidence has not been offered in the case of Jnana Sambandar at all. On the contrary: �Interestingly, the persecution of Jains in the Pandya country finds mention only in Shaiva literature, and is not corroborated by Jain literature of the same or subsequent period.�47
On the other hand, the historicity of the Jain-Shaiva conflict in general is confirmed by Shaiva references to more cases of Jain aggression, none of which is mentioned by Romila Thapar. Dr. Usha Sivapriya, before duly quoting classical Tamil sources, argues that the literatures posterior to Manikkavasaghar (an ancient Tamil sage, author of Thiruvasagham) �had plenty of reference to the nature, torture and terrorism of Jaina missionaries and rulers in Tamil kingdom�.48 It all started with the invasion by Kharavela, king of Kalinga, at the turn of the Christian era: �Kharavela defeated the Tamil kings headed by Pandiyans and captured Madhurai. The Kalinga or Vadugha king enforced Jaina rule in Tamil kingdom. People were forcibly converted at knifepoint, temples were demolished or locked down, devotees were tortured and killed.�49
And it continued intermittently for centuries under Pandya and Pallava rule: �When the Digambara Jaina missionaries had failed in converting the masses, they tried to torture and kill them. (�) After failing in the attempt of converting Pandiyans the Digambara Jains tried to kill the Pandiyan Kings through various means, by sending a dangerous snake, wild bull and mad elephant.�50
Dr. Sivapriya links the advent of Jainism in Tamil Nadu with an episode of conquest by non-Tamils. Goel adds: �The persecution of Jains in the Pandya country by some Shaivas had nothing to do with Shaivism as such, but was an expression of a nationalist conflict which I will relate shortly. What 1 want to point out first is that most of the royal dynasties which ruled in India after the breakdown of the Gupta Empire and before the advent of Islamic invaders, were Shaiva (�). The Jains are known to have flourished everywhere; not a single instance of the Jains being persecuted under any of these dynasties is known. (�) M. Arunachalam, in a monograph published eight years before Professor Thapar delivered the lectures which comprise her pamphlet (�) has proved conclusively, with the help of epigraphic and literary evidence, that the Kalabhara invaders from Karnataka had occupied Tamil Nadu for 300 years (between AD 250 and 550), and that they subscribed to the Digambara sect of Jainism.�51
So, this is where �nationalist� resentment against the conquerors came to coincide with resentment against Jainism: �It so happened that some of the Kalabhara princes were guided by a few narrow-minded Jain ascetics, and inflicted injuries on some Shaiva and Vaishnava saints and places of worship. They also took away the agrahâras which Brahmanas had enjoyed in earlier times. And a reaction set in when the Kalabharas were overthrown. The new rulers who rose subscribed to Shaivism. It was then that the Jains were persecuted in some places, and some Jain places of worship were taken over by the Shaivas under the plea that these were Shaiva places in the earlier period.�52
In such cases, �Professor Thapar does not mention the Jain high-handedness which had preceded. (... ) Professor Thapar should have mentioned the persecution of Shaivas practised earlier by the Pandya king who was a Jain to start with, and who later on converted to Shaivism and persecuted the Jains. This is another case of suppressio verb suggestio falsi practised very often by her school.�53
To clinch the issue and confirm that the Pandya incident of persecution of Jains is atypical and disconnected from Hindu doctrines, Goel adds: �But the reaction was confined to the Pandya country. Jainism continued to flourish in northern Tamil Nadu which also had been invaded by the Kalabharas, where also the Shaivas and Vaishnavas had been molested by the Jains, and where also the Shaivas had come to power once again. It is significant that though Buddhists also invite invectives in the same Shaiva literature, no instance of Buddhists being persecuted is recorded. That was because Buddhists had never harmed the Shaivas. It is also significant that the Vaishnavas of Tamil Nadu show no bitterness against the Jains though they had also suffered under Kalabhara rule.�54 <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After going over other cases/allegations/narratives of Hindus and/or Jains bullying each other, Elst writes with reference to Goel:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Not much is left of the allegation of �Hindu persecution of Jains�, and in that light, Goel�s conclusion must be considered relatively modest: �It is nobody�s case that there was never any conflict between the sects and sub-sects of Sanatana Dharma. Some instances of persecution were indeed there. Our plea is that they should be seen in a proper perspective, and not exaggerated in order to whitewash or counterbalance the record of Islamic intolerance. Firstly, the instances are few and far between when compared to those listed in Muslim annals. Secondly, those instances are spread over several millennia (�) Thirdly, none of those instances were inspired by a theology (�) Fourthly, Jains were not always the victims of persecution; they were persecutors as well once in a while. Lastly, no king or commander or saint who showed intolerance has been a Hindu hero, while Islam has hailed as heroes only those characters who excelled in intolerance.�63
And even if all the claims of a Hindu persecution of Jains had been true, they would still not prove the non-Hindu character of Jainism. From the history of Christianity, Islam and Communism, great persecutors of outsiders to their own doctrines, we know numerous instances where the worst invective and the choicest tortures were reserved for alleged heretics within their own fold. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->