7/n
Ahimsa encroached on too (also in one of the page's references):
Intriguing, they've now invented Vedic religion, Shramana and *Bhakti* traditions side-by-side. Bhakti severed (as separate "traditions" no less) from Hindus' Vedic religion in order to pounce on that next too, I shouldn't wonder. Vedic religion specifically defined as non-ascetic and no-renunciation, since that is claimed for the invented ur-Shramanism religion onlee.
Moreover, Vedic religion is defined as "nature-worship" in specific contrast to Bhakti traditions being defined as worship of Gods. Apparently Vedic religion does not worship Gods <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />/> Who is writing this stuff? They are SO debile.
Use of "Vedics" is also interesting.
It's *all* interesting.
Ahimsa's often claimed to be Buddhism's (else Jainism's) invention that then influenced Hindus' Vedic religion (rather as is claimed with vegetarianism). Yet the concept of Ahimsa was long-established in Vedic religion and was therefore also treated in length by the Mahabharata which, though it stresses ahimsa's ideal in the general case, also stresses at what times recourse to violence is necessitated: war that is justified *because* the villainy that will ensue - when left unchallenged - will be greater for all concerned. IIRC, the MBh says that both ahimsa and himsa are part of Dharma - the right action in the right context - with ahimsa being the state of the general case, and himsa the special case.
Wait. Did they really just claim Satya and Gnyana too, next to Samsara, Mukti, Karma (and vrata)? All Sanskrit words, I note. Forget that Satya (plus its root) has a high place in the Vedam. Karma is a very Vedic Sanskrit word (as is Dharma): these words were merely taken over and given different meanings in Jainism and Buddhism. (Which is why Hindu dharma is not the same as Jain and Buddhist dhamma.)
The original Jain liturgy is said to be in some Magadha language variant - called not Arya Magadha as I'd earlier misremembered its name, but Ardha Magadhi it seems. "Partial" or "Half-Magadhi" (?) seems to indicate some sort of dialect origins - even mixed perhaps. Regardless, it clearly makes the language historical (that is, Ardha Magadhi can Not be eternal, having precursors), besides making the oldest Jain literary traditions necessarily contingent to time constraints: Jaina religious materials - including the words of religious practices - were never set down (and quite possibly never even formulated) into words until the Ardha Magadhi language was formed.
The antiquity of the language of the Vedas (Chandas) at least dates the Vedas to such an early time as cannot be approached by either Jain or Buddhist liturgy - full stop - besides indicating the direction of borrowing for words like satya, karma, gnyana, vrata, etc, which obviously pre-date Ardha Magadhi or any Magadhi or any known Prakrita. If people want to claim otherwise, they may Prove It.
I don't see how Buddhism of all things can pretend to claim ahimsa, when Buddhism wasn't even vegetarian originally - not counting backward projections. A bit hypocritical too, to boo at generally-vegetarian* Vedabrahmanas merely for partaking of sacrificed animals (since sacrifices are *prescribed* and hence any which involved animal sacrifices would have been found unavoidable/prescribed/required by such Hindus, whereas the Buddhist monks could always have *chosen* to control their diet rather than partake of killings - no sacrifice was expected of them. It's a cop-out to say that they *had* to beg for alms, and moreover shouldn't criticise the food they were given, when they could simply have asked for vegetarian food from their benefactors since they did not aim to acquire food by their own means.)
* The excerpts from the Mahabharata at IF about vegetarianism seemed to give well-reasoned Hindu arguments for vegetarianism in and from an entirely Hindu context: without booing and hissing at Vedic rites that involved animal sacrifice, since that is a separate matter. This indicates that vegetarianism as an ideal general practice among Hindus (but not all) reasonably existed in Vedic society since an ancient period. Such values could not have been inserts into the work by Buddhism/Jainism (or ur/"Shramanism" capital S), since in that case there would specifically have been condemnation of the Vedic animal sacrifice and subsequent consumption during rites.
This next bit from the MBh's Shanti Parva illustrates the exemption made for consuming animals of Vedic sacrifices when speaking of vegetarianism - showing that the reasoning for vegetarianism among Hindus was entirely Hindu in origin:
mahabharataonline.com/translation/mahabharata_12b048.php
Moreover, Bhishma here looks to be describing a sort of ideal of ascetic behaviour among Vedabrahmanas. <- Sounds quite like it fits that gradual renunciation that goes with self-purification.
Of course traditional Hindus who were influential in such things have over time reformed the matter of animals in Vedic sacrifices also (at least, where I come from), so that Vedabrahmanas no longer offered nor consumed animals in Vedic rites either.
Ahimsa encroached on too (also in one of the page's references):
Quote:à šramaá¹â¡a philosophy
Indian philosophy is a confluence of à šramaá¹â¡ic (self-reliant) traditions, Bhakti traditions with worship of deities and Vedic ritualistic nature worship. These co-exist and influence each other.[27] à šramaá¹â¡as held a view of samsara as full of suffering (or dukkha). They practiced Ahimsa and rigorous ascetism. They believed in Karma and Moksa and viewed re-birth as undesirable.[28]
Vedics, on the contrary believe in the efficacy of rituals and sacrifices, performed by a privileged group of people, who could improve their life by pleasing certain Gods. The Sramanic ideal of mendicancy and renunciation, that the worldly life is full of suffering and that emancipation requires abandoning desires and withdrawal into a solitary contemplative life, is in stark contrast with the Brahminical ideal of an active and ritually punctuated life. Traditional Vedic belief holds that a man is born with an obligation to study the Vedas, to procreate and rear male offspring and to perform sacrifices. Only in later life may he meditate on the mysteries of life. The idea of devoting one's whole life to mendicancy seems to disparage the whole process of Vedic social life and obligations.[29] Because the Sramanas rejected the Vedas, the Vedics labelled their philosophy as "nastika darsana" (heterodox philosophy).
Intriguing, they've now invented Vedic religion, Shramana and *Bhakti* traditions side-by-side. Bhakti severed (as separate "traditions" no less) from Hindus' Vedic religion in order to pounce on that next too, I shouldn't wonder. Vedic religion specifically defined as non-ascetic and no-renunciation, since that is claimed for the invented ur-Shramanism religion onlee.
Moreover, Vedic religion is defined as "nature-worship" in specific contrast to Bhakti traditions being defined as worship of Gods. Apparently Vedic religion does not worship Gods <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />/> Who is writing this stuff? They are SO debile.Use of "Vedics" is also interesting.
It's *all* interesting.
Quote:Beliefs and concepts of à šramaá¹â¡a philosophies:-
Denial of creator and omnipotent Gods (except that they forgot to mention that IIRC Gods were reasonably central to the theistic among Ajivikas - these were Hindus' Vedic Gods btw - which puts theistic Ajivikas closer to Hindus than to other Indic religions)
Rejection of the Vedas as revealed texts (<- careful, people could easily construe such a "Shramanic philosophical belief" as admitting to the pre-existence of Vedas)
Affirmation of Karma and rebirth, Samsara and transmigration of Soul.
Affirmation of the attainment of moksa through Ahimsa, renunciation and austerities
Denial of the efficacy of sacrifices and rituals for purification.
Rejection of the caste system
Ultimately, the sramana philosophical concepts like ahimsa, karma, re-incarnation, renunciation, samsara and moksa were accepted and incorporated by the brahmins in their beliefs and practices, eg. by abandoning the sacrifice of animals.[30]
Ahimsa's often claimed to be Buddhism's (else Jainism's) invention that then influenced Hindus' Vedic religion (rather as is claimed with vegetarianism). Yet the concept of Ahimsa was long-established in Vedic religion and was therefore also treated in length by the Mahabharata which, though it stresses ahimsa's ideal in the general case, also stresses at what times recourse to violence is necessitated: war that is justified *because* the villainy that will ensue - when left unchallenged - will be greater for all concerned. IIRC, the MBh says that both ahimsa and himsa are part of Dharma - the right action in the right context - with ahimsa being the state of the general case, and himsa the special case.
Quote:"The four pillars of Jainism karma-samsara-jnana-mukti have been assimilated into Hinduism. The Pancamahavrata of Jainism (Satya, Ahimsaââ¬Â¦) have been fully adopted by Hinduism though not with the same rigour."
Wait. Did they really just claim Satya and Gnyana too, next to Samsara, Mukti, Karma (and vrata)? All Sanskrit words, I note. Forget that Satya (plus its root) has a high place in the Vedam. Karma is a very Vedic Sanskrit word (as is Dharma): these words were merely taken over and given different meanings in Jainism and Buddhism. (Which is why Hindu dharma is not the same as Jain and Buddhist dhamma.)
The original Jain liturgy is said to be in some Magadha language variant - called not Arya Magadha as I'd earlier misremembered its name, but Ardha Magadhi it seems. "Partial" or "Half-Magadhi" (?) seems to indicate some sort of dialect origins - even mixed perhaps. Regardless, it clearly makes the language historical (that is, Ardha Magadhi can Not be eternal, having precursors), besides making the oldest Jain literary traditions necessarily contingent to time constraints: Jaina religious materials - including the words of religious practices - were never set down (and quite possibly never even formulated) into words until the Ardha Magadhi language was formed.
The antiquity of the language of the Vedas (Chandas) at least dates the Vedas to such an early time as cannot be approached by either Jain or Buddhist liturgy - full stop - besides indicating the direction of borrowing for words like satya, karma, gnyana, vrata, etc, which obviously pre-date Ardha Magadhi or any Magadhi or any known Prakrita. If people want to claim otherwise, they may Prove It.
Quote:Buddhism was a challenge to the traditional brahmin practices, attacking its rituals and especially its sacrifices by the doctrine of ahimsa
I don't see how Buddhism of all things can pretend to claim ahimsa, when Buddhism wasn't even vegetarian originally - not counting backward projections. A bit hypocritical too, to boo at generally-vegetarian* Vedabrahmanas merely for partaking of sacrificed animals (since sacrifices are *prescribed* and hence any which involved animal sacrifices would have been found unavoidable/prescribed/required by such Hindus, whereas the Buddhist monks could always have *chosen* to control their diet rather than partake of killings - no sacrifice was expected of them. It's a cop-out to say that they *had* to beg for alms, and moreover shouldn't criticise the food they were given, when they could simply have asked for vegetarian food from their benefactors since they did not aim to acquire food by their own means.)
* The excerpts from the Mahabharata at IF about vegetarianism seemed to give well-reasoned Hindu arguments for vegetarianism in and from an entirely Hindu context: without booing and hissing at Vedic rites that involved animal sacrifice, since that is a separate matter. This indicates that vegetarianism as an ideal general practice among Hindus (but not all) reasonably existed in Vedic society since an ancient period. Such values could not have been inserts into the work by Buddhism/Jainism (or ur/"Shramanism" capital S), since in that case there would specifically have been condemnation of the Vedic animal sacrifice and subsequent consumption during rites.
This next bit from the MBh's Shanti Parva illustrates the exemption made for consuming animals of Vedic sacrifices when speaking of vegetarianism - showing that the reasoning for vegetarianism among Hindus was entirely Hindu in origin:
mahabharataonline.com/translation/mahabharata_12b048.php
Quote:"Bhishma said, 'He will be regarded as one that is always fasting if he eats once during the day and once during the night at the fixed hours without eating anything during the interval. Such a Brahmana, by always speaking the truth and by adhering always to wisdom, and by going to his wife only in her season and never at other times, becomes a Brahmancharin. By never eating meat of animals not killed for sacrifice, he will become a strict vegetarian.^ Oh and look ^ MBh mentions the ideal of adherence to Truth and Wisdom (without looking things up I'm going to suspect the words to be "satya" and "gnyana" in the original language) - alongside a vegetarianism that does not impinge on the requirements of Vedic rites.
Moreover, Bhishma here looks to be describing a sort of ideal of ascetic behaviour among Vedabrahmanas. <- Sounds quite like it fits that gradual renunciation that goes with self-purification.
Of course traditional Hindus who were influential in such things have over time reformed the matter of animals in Vedic sacrifices also (at least, where I come from), so that Vedabrahmanas no longer offered nor consumed animals in Vedic rites either.