The following excerpt is from a page that was linked to from the Rajeev2004 blog.
esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Gospels-of-Mahavir-1.aspx
The above is way too obvious, but will still observe:
1. Mahavira is the only Jaina teerthankara acknowledged by history. History makes him out to be the founder of Jainism.
2. He's talking of Homa-s
3. He's parroting the Hindus' Upanishads (that predate Mahavira) on the matter of the esoteric meaning of yagnya/homa: he acknowledges that this was a view on sacrifice (homa) "extolled by the great sages". This is clearly a reference to Vedic *Hindus* who famously described the esoteric meaning of homas before him (as only they can).
Even were Jains to argue that the reference to "the great sages" refers to the multiple teerthankaras of Jain theology who are to have predated Mahavira, Mahavira's own statement referring to sages "extolling" the esoteric meaning of yagnya *before* him implies that any such persons - be they Jain teerthankaras - clearly always knew yagnyas pre-existed and that the Upanishadic view on yagnyas (their esoteric meaning) pre-existed AND that their very mention of yagnya before Mahavira is a confirmation that their views as much as his own were predicated on the Vedic religion's views. Even though it ended up as an entirely independent spin-off that afterwards blasted the Vedic religion and competed with it directly (common pattern in replacement religion.)
4. The reference to "supreme sacrifice" in the first verse - which Mahavira brings up in the context of the "5 vows" allegedly originally unique to Jainism - should be read in context with the its following verse in the above: the entire section is called "True Sacrifice" and clearly speaks of the relation between physical homam (sacrifice) to esoteric sacrifice. Meaning: the Chandogya Upanishad of the Hindus [and every other ancient Upanishad on the subject] - which Jains had been alleging as having taken its ideas from Jainism - predates the 5 vows in Jainism and is the source for drawing the comparison between the exoteric and esoteric version of yagnya.
5. To be clear: the description of an esoteric yagnya cannot predate the exoteric yagnya. The physical rite to be performed necessarily comes before any descriptions of internal versions of the same. That means that the Vedic rites certainly predated the Jain description of the esoteric version above. But furthermore, it also means the Upanishadic exoteric-to-esoteric enumeration of the meaning of Vedic rites also needs predates the Jain descriptions of the same: needs Hindus who actually carried out Vedic yagnyas and knew it in detail to explicate the 1-to-1 relationships (as the Vedic Hindus did in the Upanishads) before such ideas become common enough to descend into allegory/be used by other religions.
In Mahavira's case, all that can be determined is that he only knows the allegory for the esoteric version and not the actual rites on which such knowledge is contingent.*
6. Jaina definition of Brahmanas is clearly again taken from pre-existing Hindu materials: Upanishads, MBh, Gita.
In short, not only does Mahavira's own statements prove that the Vedas predate Mahavira/Jainism, but also that Jainism is based off of pre-existing ideas. Indeed, dependent on them for its very existence.
* Wonder what Mahavira's ancestral varna was? Was he originally supposed to be a brahmana or kshatriya? Because that would easily explain his latching onto specifics of Vedic Hindu religion and homas in particular.
That Jainism like Buddhism started as a spin-off of Hindus' religion is only questioned and contested by Jains.
But I suspect Jainism further started with the same idea that marked Buddhism: Mahavira like Buddha seems to me to be offering the Hindu Sannyasa state - which in Hindu religion tends to be exclusively for Veda brahmanas in the "4th stage" of their life (i.e. Sannyasa) - to "everybody". Upanishads/its lifestyle are the main focus of Sannyasins anyway.
This fits both the reference to yagnya and brahmana in Mahavira's (both based off clearly Hindu definitions, plus the very fact that he mentions homas and the ghee and cow dung and oblation just underlines that their views - the very existence of their views - were originally predicated on Vedic religion). Which also explains why - like Buddhism - Jainism is purely a "philosophy" and not a complete religion (underscored by the reverting tendency seen in laity converted to the nouveau religions, as laity does not subsist on philosophy alone). Whereas Vedic religion already contained philosophy (even in its founding body of sacred literature) as a part of it: the same philosophy that was initially regurgitated - with immediate else eventual deviations - by Buddhism/Jainism).
One can further - and very easily - surmise the origin of vegetarianism and all ahimsa in Jainism: it is also from the pre-existent vegetarianism and ahimsa objectives prescribed for the Hindu sannyasins. Which is why all the ancient Hindu literature that speaks of Hindu vegetarianism has never heard of Jainism: because it predates Jainism.
[I didn't start the claim-game, but I can play it too.]
Now, the Jain Minority Forum types clearly don't know/want to know about such references in Mahavira's literature. And ur-Shramanism may next choose to peddle that the entire Vedas (Upanishadic/Gnyaana Kandam explanations on yagnyas are needs contingent on the Karma Kandam portions - i.e. the literal physical rituals - that preceded them)... Ur-Shramanism peddlers may next choose to claim that the entire Vedas "originally belonged to the native dravoodian=ur-Shramanist/Jain inhabitants of the IVC, before the oryans invaded and stole the Vedic ritual tradition from the poor oppressed ur-Shramanists/Jains/what-have-you, and then Oryans got credited for the Vedas instead." Ridiculous, absurd, but follows logically from all the claims that has gradually been made for the concocted ur-shramanism. Which is why it fits the initial prediction that eventually Jains/Buddhists/etc peddling their prototypes in ur-Shramanism would eventually have to claim all the Vedam, since the entire Hindu religion is really related and a single thread. They could never have tried to poach on just Yoga or just Sankhya or just Tantra or just Upanishads and Vedanta or even the Aranyaka portions of the Vedam. Eventually, the absurdity of their greed to pretend they predated the Vedam, the Vedic religion and Vedic society would lead them to claim an identity with this.
But they're not identical. They deviated. Long ago. And fought bitterly about this. Which is why they remain antagonistic today and want to eject ethnic Hindus of the Vedic religion (including the Vedic religion itself) from the Hindu homeland, to replace this with themselves/ur-Shramanism as the "true, original natives" instead. So sorry that absurd fable (of ur-Shramanism) fell through, as per the statements of Mahavira above itself.
The above verses by Mahavira are hardly necessary to underline what was already known: Vedic religion is the ancestral religion of the natives of the subcontinents. Buddhism, Jainism and other late comers are spin-offs that deviated and established themsevles as spin-offs and direct competitors (and which are further regarded by knowledgeable Hindus, both ancient and extant, as having twisted - subverted - Vedic religion).
The origination and existence of Jainism as also Buddhism are contingent on Vedic religion, but not vice-versa. That is, Vedic religion needed to have pre-existed in order for Jainism/Buddhism/etc ... to eventually appear. But Buddhism and Jainism having never appeared would be quite irrelevant to Hindus' religion. Vedic religion already had its "philosophy" - its philosophical core - alongside its Vedic rituals, unseparable, intimately related. And unmangled what's more - but only in Hindus' religion. Everyone else has distorted echoes. [Not fair? Then shouldn't have missionised and poached.]
And a typical comment by a Hindu at the link:
The statement admits that the Jaina Mahavira is merely repeating what traditional (i.e. Hindu) teachers of the Sanatana Dharma had already stated before - since these were features of their own religion - before lauding Mahavira/Jainism for repeating the same.
The usual tendency of peddlers at this point (Hindu peddlers of Jainism/Buddhism included) is to declare
- that all these religions are therefore the "same" (No they're actually not. They differ in details - and they all bickered odiously on the subject.)
- look how beautiful Jainism/Buddhism/whatever is. But the beauty you recognised was already there in Hindu religion and indeed derives from there. (At which point it just looks like you're patting yourself on the back.) Can stop peddling therefore.
However, as these things pre-existed and still exist in Hindu religion, do Hindus need Mahavira etc to have re-stated them. No.
*Hindus* don't need Mahavira. Jains do. *Hindus* don't need Buddha. Buddhists do. And again: Hindu religion is not dependent on the religions founded by either of these, whereas the reverse does not hold, because Hindu religion does not need Jainism/Buddhism/etc, whereas the foundations/origin of the latter did depend on Hindu religion.
And there's the main difference already.
It would be great - though incredibly unlikely - if Hindus were in future to tell all beliebers/peddlers of the ur-Shramanism theory (or peddlers of Shramanisms as replacement theologies) to stop peddling this already. Because all that ever results is missionaries of other Indic religions trying to score some of the Hindu laity for their own religion by "subtle" methods like "Jainism taught Hindus ahimsa and vegetarianism and Buddhism taught Hindus compassion and egalitarianism" and not-so-subtle methods like the ur-Shramanism concoction itself as well as the Aliens=Vedic-Hindus-Persecuted-Us-The-Original-Natives ("please convert already") fiction/syndrome. Hindus can at least stop encouraging that. Not asking people to peddle their own religion (since peddling is understandably tacky). Oh, and it would also be great if Hindus stopped rolling over everytime some subtle/unsubtle Jain/Buddhist peddler declared that ahimsa/vegetarianism/<insert Hindu author/literature> was originally/actually Jain/Buddhist.
esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Gospels-of-Mahavir-1.aspx
Quote:Gospels Of Mahavir
By Sanjeev Nayyar, February 2003 [esamskriti@suryaconsulting.net]
1Chapter :
From the book Jaina Darsana by Munisri Nyayavijayaji translated into English as Jaina Dharma & Philosophy by Shri Nagin Shah. Courtesy and Copyright Bhogilal Lehar Chand Institute of Technology.
True [color="#0000FF"]Sacrifice[/color]
Susamvuda pamcahim samvarehim iha jiviam anavakamkhamana /
Vosatthakaya suicattadeha mahajayam jayai jannasittham //
-Uttaradhyayanasutra, 12.42
Those who are well protected by the five vows and are not attached to the life of sensual pleasures, who dedicate their body to the performance of good actions, who are pure-hearted and righteous are indeed continuously engaged in the performance of supreme [color="#0000FF"]sacrifice[/color] which brings them victory in the field of good conduct.
Tavo joi jivo joithanam joga suya sariram karisamgam /
Kamme eha samjamajogasamti [color="#0000FF"]homam[/color] hunami isinam pasattham //
-Uttaradhyayanasutra, 12.44
[color="#0000FF"]Austerity is my fire; soul my fireplace; threefold activity of mind, speech and body is my sacrificial ladle; the body the dried cow dung; karman is my fuel; self-control, good activity and tranquility are the oblations, praised by the sages, which I offer. As this sacrifice is of the form of pure self-restraint, it brings peace and happiness to the sacrifice. It is this sacrifice that is extolled by the great sages.[/color]
True Brahmana
Jaha paumam jale novalippai varina /
Evam alittam kamehim tam vayam buma mahanam //
-Uttaradhyayanasutra, 25.26
He who is not defiled by cravings for sensual pleasures as a lotus growing in the water is not wetted by it, him we call a [color="#0000FF"]brahmana[/color].
Jayaruvam jahamattam niddhamtamalapavagam /
Raga-dosa-bhayaiam tam vayam buma mahanam //
-Uttaradhyayanasutra, 25.21
He who is free from attachment, aversion and fear, and as a result who shines forth like burnished gold, purified in fire, him we call a [color="#0000FF"]brahmana[/color].
[...]
The above is way too obvious, but will still observe:
1. Mahavira is the only Jaina teerthankara acknowledged by history. History makes him out to be the founder of Jainism.
2. He's talking of Homa-s
3. He's parroting the Hindus' Upanishads (that predate Mahavira) on the matter of the esoteric meaning of yagnya/homa: he acknowledges that this was a view on sacrifice (homa) "extolled by the great sages". This is clearly a reference to Vedic *Hindus* who famously described the esoteric meaning of homas before him (as only they can).
Even were Jains to argue that the reference to "the great sages" refers to the multiple teerthankaras of Jain theology who are to have predated Mahavira, Mahavira's own statement referring to sages "extolling" the esoteric meaning of yagnya *before* him implies that any such persons - be they Jain teerthankaras - clearly always knew yagnyas pre-existed and that the Upanishadic view on yagnyas (their esoteric meaning) pre-existed AND that their very mention of yagnya before Mahavira is a confirmation that their views as much as his own were predicated on the Vedic religion's views. Even though it ended up as an entirely independent spin-off that afterwards blasted the Vedic religion and competed with it directly (common pattern in replacement religion.)
4. The reference to "supreme sacrifice" in the first verse - which Mahavira brings up in the context of the "5 vows" allegedly originally unique to Jainism - should be read in context with the its following verse in the above: the entire section is called "True Sacrifice" and clearly speaks of the relation between physical homam (sacrifice) to esoteric sacrifice. Meaning: the Chandogya Upanishad of the Hindus [and every other ancient Upanishad on the subject] - which Jains had been alleging as having taken its ideas from Jainism - predates the 5 vows in Jainism and is the source for drawing the comparison between the exoteric and esoteric version of yagnya.
5. To be clear: the description of an esoteric yagnya cannot predate the exoteric yagnya. The physical rite to be performed necessarily comes before any descriptions of internal versions of the same. That means that the Vedic rites certainly predated the Jain description of the esoteric version above. But furthermore, it also means the Upanishadic exoteric-to-esoteric enumeration of the meaning of Vedic rites also needs predates the Jain descriptions of the same: needs Hindus who actually carried out Vedic yagnyas and knew it in detail to explicate the 1-to-1 relationships (as the Vedic Hindus did in the Upanishads) before such ideas become common enough to descend into allegory/be used by other religions.
In Mahavira's case, all that can be determined is that he only knows the allegory for the esoteric version and not the actual rites on which such knowledge is contingent.*
6. Jaina definition of Brahmanas is clearly again taken from pre-existing Hindu materials: Upanishads, MBh, Gita.
In short, not only does Mahavira's own statements prove that the Vedas predate Mahavira/Jainism, but also that Jainism is based off of pre-existing ideas. Indeed, dependent on them for its very existence.
* Wonder what Mahavira's ancestral varna was? Was he originally supposed to be a brahmana or kshatriya? Because that would easily explain his latching onto specifics of Vedic Hindu religion and homas in particular.
That Jainism like Buddhism started as a spin-off of Hindus' religion is only questioned and contested by Jains.
But I suspect Jainism further started with the same idea that marked Buddhism: Mahavira like Buddha seems to me to be offering the Hindu Sannyasa state - which in Hindu religion tends to be exclusively for Veda brahmanas in the "4th stage" of their life (i.e. Sannyasa) - to "everybody". Upanishads/its lifestyle are the main focus of Sannyasins anyway.
This fits both the reference to yagnya and brahmana in Mahavira's (both based off clearly Hindu definitions, plus the very fact that he mentions homas and the ghee and cow dung and oblation just underlines that their views - the very existence of their views - were originally predicated on Vedic religion). Which also explains why - like Buddhism - Jainism is purely a "philosophy" and not a complete religion (underscored by the reverting tendency seen in laity converted to the nouveau religions, as laity does not subsist on philosophy alone). Whereas Vedic religion already contained philosophy (even in its founding body of sacred literature) as a part of it: the same philosophy that was initially regurgitated - with immediate else eventual deviations - by Buddhism/Jainism).
One can further - and very easily - surmise the origin of vegetarianism and all ahimsa in Jainism: it is also from the pre-existent vegetarianism and ahimsa objectives prescribed for the Hindu sannyasins. Which is why all the ancient Hindu literature that speaks of Hindu vegetarianism has never heard of Jainism: because it predates Jainism.
[I didn't start the claim-game, but I can play it too.]
Now, the Jain Minority Forum types clearly don't know/want to know about such references in Mahavira's literature. And ur-Shramanism may next choose to peddle that the entire Vedas (Upanishadic/Gnyaana Kandam explanations on yagnyas are needs contingent on the Karma Kandam portions - i.e. the literal physical rituals - that preceded them)... Ur-Shramanism peddlers may next choose to claim that the entire Vedas "originally belonged to the native dravoodian=ur-Shramanist/Jain inhabitants of the IVC, before the oryans invaded and stole the Vedic ritual tradition from the poor oppressed ur-Shramanists/Jains/what-have-you, and then Oryans got credited for the Vedas instead." Ridiculous, absurd, but follows logically from all the claims that has gradually been made for the concocted ur-shramanism. Which is why it fits the initial prediction that eventually Jains/Buddhists/etc peddling their prototypes in ur-Shramanism would eventually have to claim all the Vedam, since the entire Hindu religion is really related and a single thread. They could never have tried to poach on just Yoga or just Sankhya or just Tantra or just Upanishads and Vedanta or even the Aranyaka portions of the Vedam. Eventually, the absurdity of their greed to pretend they predated the Vedam, the Vedic religion and Vedic society would lead them to claim an identity with this.
But they're not identical. They deviated. Long ago. And fought bitterly about this. Which is why they remain antagonistic today and want to eject ethnic Hindus of the Vedic religion (including the Vedic religion itself) from the Hindu homeland, to replace this with themselves/ur-Shramanism as the "true, original natives" instead. So sorry that absurd fable (of ur-Shramanism) fell through, as per the statements of Mahavira above itself.
The above verses by Mahavira are hardly necessary to underline what was already known: Vedic religion is the ancestral religion of the natives of the subcontinents. Buddhism, Jainism and other late comers are spin-offs that deviated and established themsevles as spin-offs and direct competitors (and which are further regarded by knowledgeable Hindus, both ancient and extant, as having twisted - subverted - Vedic religion).
The origination and existence of Jainism as also Buddhism are contingent on Vedic religion, but not vice-versa. That is, Vedic religion needed to have pre-existed in order for Jainism/Buddhism/etc ... to eventually appear. But Buddhism and Jainism having never appeared would be quite irrelevant to Hindus' religion. Vedic religion already had its "philosophy" - its philosophical core - alongside its Vedic rituals, unseparable, intimately related. And unmangled what's more - but only in Hindus' religion. Everyone else has distorted echoes. [Not fair? Then shouldn't have missionised and poached.]
And a typical comment by a Hindu at the link:
Quote:Comment By - shivaramg Thrissur Date - 12 Nov 2012 Time - 5:55PM
Extremely beautiful and inspiring -there is no difference at between these saying and those attributed to more traditional saints, sages and teachers of Sanaatana Dharma. If only the translation is shown I would not guess these Jaina ideals the least bit different from Hindu sages.
The statement admits that the Jaina Mahavira is merely repeating what traditional (i.e. Hindu) teachers of the Sanatana Dharma had already stated before - since these were features of their own religion - before lauding Mahavira/Jainism for repeating the same.
The usual tendency of peddlers at this point (Hindu peddlers of Jainism/Buddhism included) is to declare
- that all these religions are therefore the "same" (No they're actually not. They differ in details - and they all bickered odiously on the subject.)
- look how beautiful Jainism/Buddhism/whatever is. But the beauty you recognised was already there in Hindu religion and indeed derives from there. (At which point it just looks like you're patting yourself on the back.) Can stop peddling therefore.
However, as these things pre-existed and still exist in Hindu religion, do Hindus need Mahavira etc to have re-stated them. No.
*Hindus* don't need Mahavira. Jains do. *Hindus* don't need Buddha. Buddhists do. And again: Hindu religion is not dependent on the religions founded by either of these, whereas the reverse does not hold, because Hindu religion does not need Jainism/Buddhism/etc, whereas the foundations/origin of the latter did depend on Hindu religion.
And there's the main difference already.
It would be great - though incredibly unlikely - if Hindus were in future to tell all beliebers/peddlers of the ur-Shramanism theory (or peddlers of Shramanisms as replacement theologies) to stop peddling this already. Because all that ever results is missionaries of other Indic religions trying to score some of the Hindu laity for their own religion by "subtle" methods like "Jainism taught Hindus ahimsa and vegetarianism and Buddhism taught Hindus compassion and egalitarianism" and not-so-subtle methods like the ur-Shramanism concoction itself as well as the Aliens=Vedic-Hindus-Persecuted-Us-The-Original-Natives ("please convert already") fiction/syndrome. Hindus can at least stop encouraging that. Not asking people to peddle their own religion (since peddling is understandably tacky). Oh, and it would also be great if Hindus stopped rolling over everytime some subtle/unsubtle Jain/Buddhist peddler declared that ahimsa/vegetarianism/<insert Hindu author/literature> was originally/actually Jain/Buddhist.