Another stream of posts.
[color="#0000FF"](The only relevant thing to read is the linked article in 1/6 - or the excerpts posted in 1/6 to 6/6 - and then can draw conclusions for oneself.)[/color]
Post 1/6
A lot of the assertions seen on the wacky pages for Neminath/Rishabha discussed above were apparently seen earlier - as early as 2001*, as per when internet archives stored it - in the following article.
*From memory, 2001 is before wackypedia got started or, at least, before it would have become popular enough for niche opportunists to descend.
[color="#0000FF"]fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/article/antiquity.htm[/color]
The article is a long list of assertions and suppositions by one by "Kailasha Chandra Jain, M. A. Jaipur" about the "antiquity of Jainism". The suppositions contained in it (e.g. "probably", "possible", a peculiar use of "it seems" etc) form further assumptions which are treated as fact by the time additional claims are launched based on them.
No comment on the URL structure, but there are several things noteworthy even on a cursory glance over the piece:
1. This article already contained entire paragraphs - practically verbatim - that are now in the wacky pages. E.g. the entire Ghora Angirasa section, the whole section which supposes that "Andhakavrishni, granddad of Neminatha" gave rise to a republic or dynasty by that name etc, and the whole bit on "Neminatha is mentioned in the Vedas, but the meaning is doubtful" stuff followed by some unreferenced aka alleged quote from the Yajurveda (though the digitised YV TaittirIya Samhita mentions only the AriShTanemi associated with Tarkshya and then only once, and I even looked in the TaittirIya BrAhmaNa which doesn't mention the word at all).
BTW, as I have only eyeballed the article, there may be further sections that wacky lifted from it. <- And all this without crediting the article in wacky's references section, I note. (Can we say plagiarism?)
2. The article claims most things also claimed by the looney fringe Jain Minority Forum. The difference is that it sounds less angry, but is no less fantastical or antagonistic.
Ur-Shramanism is therefore not peddled as such, since - unlike Buddhism - Jainism tends to declare that ur-Shramanism *is* Jainism. And so almost every other usual major claim seen peddled by the JMF is accounted for too: that Jainism is pre-Vedic, that it is the 'ancient, native religion of the native inhabitants of the subcontinent' - tentatively equated with dravoodians in one subsection at the link - who were then 'oppressed and marginalised and persecuted/converted by the invading Vedic oryans'. <= [color="#0000FF"]It's important to bear in mind that this spiel is a *very new, very recent* and very consciously-manufactured Jain self-perception that is becoming popular/being popularised among adherents: it is clearly predicated on the AIT and hence can not be older than AIT[/color] - and is in fact far younger. (And every little while they keep developing the fiction to even greater heights of melodrama.)
It can't fail to become evident that they have most opportunistically latched on to the AIT in their own favour: to expel the majority religion as "alien" and project their own as the "original native religion" and themselves/their religion as the subsequent victims of the "Vedic Oryan invaders" (by which only Brahmanas are always identified - for exactly the same reason that Buddhism historically targeted the same group in Buddhist propaganda literature: because everyone else is meant for conversion).
It is certainly a very calculated move on their part: the AIT is actually an eviction notice that targets Jains and Buddhists in equal measure (theirs is an inevitable ethnic inclusion), but by pretending that Jainism else ur-Shramanism/Shramanas (capital S) are the "indigenous religion of the IVC", they seek to direct the threat of eviction exclusively at Vedic religion and set the matter up so they themselves even come out as *winners* in the sordid deal: i.e. as the supposedly legitimate inheritors of not only the landscape but with a supposed and more legitimate claim on the majority population.
3. Imperative to note is also that this article is by what appears to be a mainstream Jain. (The article is further hosted under Jainism pages at harvard that are/were maintained by more mainstream Jains.)
Wacky's page on the Jaina Teerthankara "Rishabh" contains among its references the following:
I suspect the two names - the author of the article under discussion and the author of the book published by Motilala Banarsidass - refer to the same person. If correct, that means the matter becomes even more mainstream: the Jain publishers Motilal Banarsidass IIRC were presented as "nationalist" or something by Hindus. Not the looney fringe.
4. If any *correctly* reads the various assertions made these days by Buddhists and Jains concerning Hindus' ancient religion - many of these assertions are outright hostile (e.g. claims on demonstrably Hindu temples, and pretences at this group and that group of Hindus having "originally" been Buddhist else Jain else anything else non-Hindu, or that thus-and-so Hindu religious scripture/section must instead be read as allegory for Vedic oppression of the poor put-upon Jains - or Buddhists too, via ur-Shramanism - backwards in time of course)
- again: if any correctly reads these various Buddhist/Jain assertions made against Vedic religion, it becomes clear that the propaganda is meant for missionising the population. But Hindus either don't notice it, or choose to ignore it or pretend that it's only a danger when anyone else does the same (e.g. christianism or dravoodianism=cryptochristianism).
There are two paragraphs and some other bits here and there that caught my eye in the article as I gave it a once-over, and which I therefore think is worth bringing up (next posts). I'm sure the entire piece would contain even more of the same, but then, it's not hard for Hindus to look up for themselves the actual Hindu texts and contexts on which Jains (and elsewhere Buddhists) stake their claims. And one can certainly come to definite conclusions about whether the claimants are telling the truth or sucking it all out of their thumb - as the NL phrase for spinning fictions AKA lying goes.
And Hindus clearly don't even need to know Skt in order to run searches in already-digitised and publicly available Hindu texts, nor to type out/copy and paste stuff. <- Note that I'm not saying that it is somehow okay for Hindus to be illiterate in Skt. I'm saying that even those utterly ignorant in Skt like myself have enough resources at hand and enough common-sense to look up stuff *sufficiently* to make reasoned decisions on the veracity of practically all the claims made. (And it would be that much more handy for refuting allegations if people were knowledgeable in the necessary languages and texts/materials.)
[color="#0000FF"](The only relevant thing to read is the linked article in 1/6 - or the excerpts posted in 1/6 to 6/6 - and then can draw conclusions for oneself.)[/color]
Post 1/6
A lot of the assertions seen on the wacky pages for Neminath/Rishabha discussed above were apparently seen earlier - as early as 2001*, as per when internet archives stored it - in the following article.
*From memory, 2001 is before wackypedia got started or, at least, before it would have become popular enough for niche opportunists to descend.
[color="#0000FF"]fas.harvard.edu/~pluralsm/affiliates/jainism/article/antiquity.htm[/color]
The article is a long list of assertions and suppositions by one by "Kailasha Chandra Jain, M. A. Jaipur" about the "antiquity of Jainism". The suppositions contained in it (e.g. "probably", "possible", a peculiar use of "it seems" etc) form further assumptions which are treated as fact by the time additional claims are launched based on them.
No comment on the URL structure, but there are several things noteworthy even on a cursory glance over the piece:
1. This article already contained entire paragraphs - practically verbatim - that are now in the wacky pages. E.g. the entire Ghora Angirasa section, the whole section which supposes that "Andhakavrishni, granddad of Neminatha" gave rise to a republic or dynasty by that name etc, and the whole bit on "Neminatha is mentioned in the Vedas, but the meaning is doubtful" stuff followed by some unreferenced aka alleged quote from the Yajurveda (though the digitised YV TaittirIya Samhita mentions only the AriShTanemi associated with Tarkshya and then only once, and I even looked in the TaittirIya BrAhmaNa which doesn't mention the word at all).
BTW, as I have only eyeballed the article, there may be further sections that wacky lifted from it. <- And all this without crediting the article in wacky's references section, I note. (Can we say plagiarism?)
2. The article claims most things also claimed by the looney fringe Jain Minority Forum. The difference is that it sounds less angry, but is no less fantastical or antagonistic.
Ur-Shramanism is therefore not peddled as such, since - unlike Buddhism - Jainism tends to declare that ur-Shramanism *is* Jainism. And so almost every other usual major claim seen peddled by the JMF is accounted for too: that Jainism is pre-Vedic, that it is the 'ancient, native religion of the native inhabitants of the subcontinent' - tentatively equated with dravoodians in one subsection at the link - who were then 'oppressed and marginalised and persecuted/converted by the invading Vedic oryans'. <= [color="#0000FF"]It's important to bear in mind that this spiel is a *very new, very recent* and very consciously-manufactured Jain self-perception that is becoming popular/being popularised among adherents: it is clearly predicated on the AIT and hence can not be older than AIT[/color] - and is in fact far younger. (And every little while they keep developing the fiction to even greater heights of melodrama.)
It can't fail to become evident that they have most opportunistically latched on to the AIT in their own favour: to expel the majority religion as "alien" and project their own as the "original native religion" and themselves/their religion as the subsequent victims of the "Vedic Oryan invaders" (by which only Brahmanas are always identified - for exactly the same reason that Buddhism historically targeted the same group in Buddhist propaganda literature: because everyone else is meant for conversion).
It is certainly a very calculated move on their part: the AIT is actually an eviction notice that targets Jains and Buddhists in equal measure (theirs is an inevitable ethnic inclusion), but by pretending that Jainism else ur-Shramanism/Shramanas (capital S) are the "indigenous religion of the IVC", they seek to direct the threat of eviction exclusively at Vedic religion and set the matter up so they themselves even come out as *winners* in the sordid deal: i.e. as the supposedly legitimate inheritors of not only the landscape but with a supposed and more legitimate claim on the majority population.
3. Imperative to note is also that this article is by what appears to be a mainstream Jain. (The article is further hosted under Jainism pages at harvard that are/were maintained by more mainstream Jains.)
Wacky's page on the Jaina Teerthankara "Rishabh" contains among its references the following:
Quote:Jain, Kailash Chand (1991). Lord Mahavira and his times. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 9788120808058.
I suspect the two names - the author of the article under discussion and the author of the book published by Motilala Banarsidass - refer to the same person. If correct, that means the matter becomes even more mainstream: the Jain publishers Motilal Banarsidass IIRC were presented as "nationalist" or something by Hindus. Not the looney fringe.
4. If any *correctly* reads the various assertions made these days by Buddhists and Jains concerning Hindus' ancient religion - many of these assertions are outright hostile (e.g. claims on demonstrably Hindu temples, and pretences at this group and that group of Hindus having "originally" been Buddhist else Jain else anything else non-Hindu, or that thus-and-so Hindu religious scripture/section must instead be read as allegory for Vedic oppression of the poor put-upon Jains - or Buddhists too, via ur-Shramanism - backwards in time of course)
- again: if any correctly reads these various Buddhist/Jain assertions made against Vedic religion, it becomes clear that the propaganda is meant for missionising the population. But Hindus either don't notice it, or choose to ignore it or pretend that it's only a danger when anyone else does the same (e.g. christianism or dravoodianism=cryptochristianism).
There are two paragraphs and some other bits here and there that caught my eye in the article as I gave it a once-over, and which I therefore think is worth bringing up (next posts). I'm sure the entire piece would contain even more of the same, but then, it's not hard for Hindus to look up for themselves the actual Hindu texts and contexts on which Jains (and elsewhere Buddhists) stake their claims. And one can certainly come to definite conclusions about whether the claimants are telling the truth or sucking it all out of their thumb - as the NL phrase for spinning fictions AKA lying goes.
And Hindus clearly don't even need to know Skt in order to run searches in already-digitised and publicly available Hindu texts, nor to type out/copy and paste stuff. <- Note that I'm not saying that it is somehow okay for Hindus to be illiterate in Skt. I'm saying that even those utterly ignorant in Skt like myself have enough resources at hand and enough common-sense to look up stuff *sufficiently* to make reasoned decisions on the veracity of practically all the claims made. (And it would be that much more handy for refuting allegations if people were knowledgeable in the necessary languages and texts/materials.)