Post 2/6
This post concerns the following excerpt from the article mentioned above (my own comment in purple):
Can count how often the writer uses "probably" to peddle the notion that the vedas must have known Jains under the term "Yati" (and "Vratya" etc) and that the Vedic Hindus persecuted these (allegedly the Jains) and replaced their religion and more typically back-projected sobstories. The pattern of their pseudo-logical structure is to first propose a theory using "probably/it seems", and then to usually follow it by one or two definite-sounding pseudo-"conclusions" that are based on that theory, before proceeding to the next "probably/it seems" to advance their story-telling further. (My favourite bit however is where they introduced the phrase "this proves" without it actually following on from anything verifiable.) A whole stream of claims and no actual proof.
But the real focus of this post is that all their claims in the above is actually based on their starting, foundational assumption that the Yati references in the Vedam are to Jains. It is from this assumption (and they admit it is an assumption with the very first "probably" they throw around in this section) that they build all their subsequent web of inane claims.
The fundamental problem exhibited above is one common to both Jains and Buddhists: after they eventually appeared, they in time latched onto ancient pre-existing Vedic Skt words and began using it as self-references, so that such words *gained* an *additional* meaning of something Jain and Buddhist. However, it was never the word's original meaning and certainly not its sole meaning. And it was not in that sense that it was used in the Vedas.
Yet, that has not stopped Buddhists or Jains from backprojecting such additional, later-acquired meaning of such words into earlier texts, in order to thereby *force-read* themselves into such texts as "proof" of external (in particular Hindu) validation of their own earlier existence.
While Buddhists tend to peddle that Muni (like Shaastaa etc) "must" refer to Buddhism, Jains apparently want to corner Yati. However, this particular word (Yati) turns out to be an interesting exception.
In the context of the additional meanings that Skt words acquired since Jainism/Buddhism: "Jina" can refer to both Buddists or Jains. "Shramana" can refer to any of Ajeevikas, Buddhists and Jains. "Arhats" (and similar) can also be a reference to Buddhists and Jains, etc. Though these are of course not the only (let alone original or plain) meanings of these older Skt words.
[Even one or more names are considered names of both Buddhas and Jain Teerthankaras and other personages. But historical plagiarism owing to competition between them - and among other such Indic religions that arose and existed at the time - worked in both directions.]
However, while Jina/Shramana/Arhat/Muni/etc were in time used as self-references by Buddhism/Jainism for Buddhist and Jain personages - though this still being only one of their meanings - it does not appear that Yati ever acquired an additional particularly-Buddhist/particularly-Jain meaning.
That is, even in post-Jain/Buddhist centuries, the Vedic Skt word Yati appears to be less a specific term for Buddhists or even Jains than even Muni is. Also, to pretend that the Vedas or the Vedic traditions like the Mahabharatam saw Yati as a negative is another typical deception, as even seen in the MW dictionary/lexicon entries for Yati and Muni:
In the above, can note how Yati has a basic meaning, with which it appears with in Vedic and Itihasa texts, and how it is therefore used as proper names of Vedic persons and Gods (e.g. MW entry above lists Yati as the name of Rishi Vishvamitra's son, as directly associated with the Brighus Rishis, and as Shiva's personal name too etc), all while "Yati" is not in any of its assigned meanings a peculiar synonym for Jain/Buddhist <- can then compare *that* with how one of the later and additional meanings of Muni is a reference to a Buddha/Arhat. (Though the original pre-Buddhist/pre-Jaina meaning of the Vedic Skt term Muni of course referred to Hindu persons alone.)
Can also look up the meanings that MW gives for shramaNa and see how in only an additional sense does "shramaNa" (later) acquire the meaning of something Buddhist/Jain, whereas the Hindu/plain meaning is the unambiguous sense in which it was used in the pre-Shramanic Hindu contexts such as Ramayanam and MBh:
Note that the first meaning of the word that's made blue follows the meaning of the last blue bit, which is described above as the sense it has in the Vedic [color="#0000FF"]shaa~Nkhaayana-shrauta-suutra ("S3a1n3khS3r").[/color]
And the 2nd meaning emphasised in blue references the way the word is used in the Vedic [color="#0000FF"]shatapatha-braahmaNa ("S3Br").[/color]
(Neither implying it's used as a reference to Jainism/Buddhism.)
Certainly, such pre-Buddhist/pre-Jain (and pre-Ajeevika) meanings is what the Skt word shramaNa ever had in the Ramayanam (and Mahabharatam and all earlier texts). It's a later-devised *additional* meaning that the word shramaNa can also stand as a synonym for (particular kinds of) Buddhists or Jains.
And the above MW entry further states about the word shramaNa that it's "also applied to a Jain ascetic now commonly called Yati". The use of the word "now" in MW concerning Yati seems to imply that, while Yati can be used as a descriptive (i.e. in the plain vanilla meaning it has) for Hindu and eventually non-Hindu ascetics, it appears not to actually have become a synonym for Jains [or Buddhists] until more recently (i.e. "recent" being relative to the time of the Monier-Williams lexicon). [color]<- If so, then that just put an even greater damper on the legions of claims that pivoted around the assumption that Yati is an equivalent for ancient Jains.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"]The subsequent claims the author had thereafter launched - *based* on their Mere Assumption that the "Yati" referred to in the Vedas was magically a reference to ancient Jains - now falls through:[/color] the whole sobstory of their theorised victimisation by the Hindus (mass slaughter of their kind and other stuff they read there), of the hypothesised replacement of their religion by the Vedic Hindus, and even the pretence (I mean assumption) of Jains having existed in the Vedic era by claiming that their alleged existence was acknowledged by the Vedas - all of it just falls down flat. <- But that's what happens when a base assumption - on which a massive web of further assumptions/insinuations are built around - turns out to be hollow: sort of like when you take the foundation layer away from a house of cards and it all comes crashing down.
When Yati has many meanings - and none of which originally referred to Jains or Buddhists - and when the Vedas uses the words in their *original* meanings in the Vedic context, what gives others the right to mangle the Vedas by force-reading themselves into it and then to further invent a whole edifice of slanderous fictions (propagandic lies) aka pseudo-history based on self-favouring conjecture, all in order to set themselves up as the beknighted victims and the Hindus as invading oppressors. (In reality, the Hindus are the victims - of presumptuous and calculated insinuations. Anyone can look over the pasted article excerpt again to see the extent of the motivated speculations/insinuations.)
Continued in next.
This post concerns the following excerpt from the article mentioned above (my own comment in purple):
Quote:Jainism in the Rig Vedic Age
In the Vedic period, there were two kinds of saints-Yati, the enemy of Indra, the Vedic God and Muni-the friend of Indra.2 It seems that the saints of the Aryans who honored them were called the Munis while persons corresponding to the saints among non-Vedic people were probably called the Yatis. In the Tai. S. VI. 2. 75, we read ââ¬ËIndra threw Yatis to the Salavrikas (wolves)3 , they devoured them to the south of the Uttaravedi. The same words and story occur in the Kathaka Samhita VIII 5, the Ait. Br. 35. 3 and the Kausitaki Up. III, 1; in the last, Indra said to Pratardana, " do know me only. I regard this as the most beneficial thing to man that he should know me. I killed the three headed Tvashtra, I gave to the Salavrikas, the arunmukh yatis" In the Kathaka Samhita 10 and the Tai. S. II 4, 9, 2, it is stated that the heads of the Yatis when they were being devoured, fell aside and they (the heads) became the Kharjuras (date palms). Atharvaveda II, 53 says ââ¬ËIndra who is quick in his attack, who is Mitra and who killed Vritra as he did the yatis. In the Tandya Mahabrahmana VIII 1, 4, Brihadgiri is said to be one of the three Yatis who escaped from slaughter and who were then taken under his protection by Indra. All these passages taken together suggest that the Yatis were the people who had incurred the hostility of Indra, the patron of the Aryas and their bodies were therefore thrown to the wolves. A few of them who escaped slaughter were subsequently won over and became the worshippers of Indra. They therefore, in Rg. VIII, 6, 18; are described as praising Indra. These Yatis may probably represent the Jain Saints. Some of the saints are described as naked which indicates that they were Jain saints.
(When in reality, several kinds of Hindu ascetics are digambara - like the Hindus' God Shiva whose name is Digambara because it's accurate. Jains assume that just because a class of Jains took the word digambara as a self-reference, that this constitutes "proof" that the only digambara ascetics - and even the original digambara ascetics- "must" be Jain and that this must "therefore" be copied into Hinduism rather than preexisting in Hindus' religion.)
It seems that at the coming of the Aryans in India, the austerity was practiced by the natives. This idea of renunciation did not appeal to the society of the Aryans who had the optimistic outlook on life which is clearly reflected in hymns. The Rig-Veda is full of prayers for long life, freedom from disease, heroic progeny, wealth, power, abundance of food, drink, the defeat of the rivals etc. The people who liked renunciation were few in society. It seems that the invasion of the Aryans brought the destruction of the native culture and religion. The natives were forced to give up their own religion and to accept the culture of the invaders.
The Aryan invasion which overwhelmed the North Western and North Central provinces of the Sub-continent in the second millennium B. c. did not extend beyond the middle of the Ganges valley. The possession of the Aryans at the Rig-Vedic time was probably confined to Sapta Sindhu. The pre-Aryan nobility of the north eastern states were therefore not all annihilated. Many of the old families survived. Probably, the people of Kasi, Magadha and other neighboring countries were the followers of a different culture on whom curses used to be showered and troubles used to be invoked. Jainism was probable popular in the east where the Tirthankaras were born. Even when the eastern part of India was aryanised, it preserved considerable differences from the midlands in the points of language, ethnic elements and culture. Probably, the Vratyas mentioned in Atharva Veda1 and Panchavimsa Brahmana of Samaveda lived there.2 The Panchavimsa Brahmana describes peculiarities of the Vratyas. They did not study the Vedas. They did not observe the rules regulating the Brahamanical order of life. They called an expression difficult to pronounce when it was no difficult to pronounce (?) and spoke the tongue of the consecrated through un-consecrated3 . This proves :hysteria: that they had some Prakritic form of speech.4 The Prakrit language is specially the language of the canonical works of the Jains. Jayaswal states that they had traditions of the Jinas and Buddhas amongst them even before the sixth century B.C. It seems that they were the followers of the Jainism which is known to have come into existence even before the sixth century B. C.
Can count how often the writer uses "probably" to peddle the notion that the vedas must have known Jains under the term "Yati" (and "Vratya" etc) and that the Vedic Hindus persecuted these (allegedly the Jains) and replaced their religion and more typically back-projected sobstories. The pattern of their pseudo-logical structure is to first propose a theory using "probably/it seems", and then to usually follow it by one or two definite-sounding pseudo-"conclusions" that are based on that theory, before proceeding to the next "probably/it seems" to advance their story-telling further. (My favourite bit however is where they introduced the phrase "this proves" without it actually following on from anything verifiable.) A whole stream of claims and no actual proof.
But the real focus of this post is that all their claims in the above is actually based on their starting, foundational assumption that the Yati references in the Vedam are to Jains. It is from this assumption (and they admit it is an assumption with the very first "probably" they throw around in this section) that they build all their subsequent web of inane claims.
The fundamental problem exhibited above is one common to both Jains and Buddhists: after they eventually appeared, they in time latched onto ancient pre-existing Vedic Skt words and began using it as self-references, so that such words *gained* an *additional* meaning of something Jain and Buddhist. However, it was never the word's original meaning and certainly not its sole meaning. And it was not in that sense that it was used in the Vedas.
Yet, that has not stopped Buddhists or Jains from backprojecting such additional, later-acquired meaning of such words into earlier texts, in order to thereby *force-read* themselves into such texts as "proof" of external (in particular Hindu) validation of their own earlier existence.
While Buddhists tend to peddle that Muni (like Shaastaa etc) "must" refer to Buddhism, Jains apparently want to corner Yati. However, this particular word (Yati) turns out to be an interesting exception.
In the context of the additional meanings that Skt words acquired since Jainism/Buddhism: "Jina" can refer to both Buddists or Jains. "Shramana" can refer to any of Ajeevikas, Buddhists and Jains. "Arhats" (and similar) can also be a reference to Buddhists and Jains, etc. Though these are of course not the only (let alone original or plain) meanings of these older Skt words.
[Even one or more names are considered names of both Buddhas and Jain Teerthankaras and other personages. But historical plagiarism owing to competition between them - and among other such Indic religions that arose and existed at the time - worked in both directions.]
However, while Jina/Shramana/Arhat/Muni/etc were in time used as self-references by Buddhism/Jainism for Buddhist and Jain personages - though this still being only one of their meanings - it does not appear that Yati ever acquired an additional particularly-Buddhist/particularly-Jain meaning.
That is, even in post-Jain/Buddhist centuries, the Vedic Skt word Yati appears to be less a specific term for Buddhists or even Jains than even Muni is. Also, to pretend that the Vedas or the Vedic traditions like the Mahabharatam saw Yati as a negative is another typical deception, as even seen in the MW dictionary/lexicon entries for Yati and Muni:
Quote:1 yati 1 m. (for 2. and 3. see col. 2 and p. 845) a disposer RV. vii , 13 , 1 (Sa1y. `" a giver "') ; `" a striver "' , an ascetic , devotee , one who has restrained his passions and abandoned the world Up. Mn. MBh. &c. (cf. IW. 131) ; N. of a mythical race of ascetics (connected with the Bhr2igus and said to have taken part in the creation of the world) RV. &c. &c. ; N. of a son of Brahma1 BhP. ; of a son of Nahusha MBh. Hariv. Pur. ; of a son of Vis3va1mitra MBh. ; N. of S3iva MBh. ; = %{nikAra} or %{kAra} L.
2 yati 2 (fr. 3. %{ya} correlative of %{ta4ti} ; declined only in pl. nom. acc. %{ya4ti}) , as many as (= Lat. {quot}) , as often , how many or often RV. (for 1. and 3. %{yati} see col. 1 and p. 845).
3 yati 3 f. (for 1. and 2. see p. 841 , cols. 1 and 2) restraint , control , guidance TS. Br. ; stopping , ceasing , a pause (in music) Sam2gi1t. ; a caesura (in prosody) Pin3g. ; (also %{I}) f. a widow L.
4 yAti see %{ahaM-yAti}.
1 muni m. (accord. to Un2. iv , 122 fr. %{man}) impulse , eagerness (?) RV. vii , 56 , 8 ; (prob.) any one who is moved by inward impulse , an inspired or ecstatic person , enthusiast RV. AV. Br. ; a saint , sage , seer , ascetic , monk , devotee , hermit (esp. one who has taken the vow of silence) S3Br. &c. &c. (with %{hRdayeSu@sthitaH} , the internal monitor or conscience Mn. viii , 91) ; a Bra1hman of the highest (eighth) order , Hcst. ; N. of a son of Kuru MBh. ; of a son of Dyuti-mat Ma1rkP. ; of Vya1sa Kir. ; of Bharata Sa1h. ; of Agastya L. ; of a Buddha or Arhat Lalit. ; of Pa1n2ini &c. (cf. %{-traya}) ; of other nien VP. ; of various authors Cat. ; of various plants (Agati Grandiflora , Buchanania Latifolia , Butea Frondosa , Terminalia Catappa , the mango-tree and Attemisia Indica) L. ; pl. `" the celestial Munis "'N. of the seven stars of Ursa Major (and there fore a symbolical N. for the number `" seven "') Var. Su1ryas. S3rutab. ; (%{i}) f. a female Muni (also %{I}) Un2. iv , 122 Sch. ; N. of a daughter of Daksha (and wife of Kas3yapa) , mother of a class of Gandharvas and Apsaras (cf. %{mauneya}) MBh. Hariv. Pur. ; n. N. of a Varshs (called after a royal Muni) VP.
In the above, can note how Yati has a basic meaning, with which it appears with in Vedic and Itihasa texts, and how it is therefore used as proper names of Vedic persons and Gods (e.g. MW entry above lists Yati as the name of Rishi Vishvamitra's son, as directly associated with the Brighus Rishis, and as Shiva's personal name too etc), all while "Yati" is not in any of its assigned meanings a peculiar synonym for Jain/Buddhist <- can then compare *that* with how one of the later and additional meanings of Muni is a reference to a Buddha/Arhat. (Though the original pre-Buddhist/pre-Jaina meaning of the Vedic Skt term Muni of course referred to Hindu persons alone.)
Can also look up the meanings that MW gives for shramaNa and see how in only an additional sense does "shramaNa" (later) acquire the meaning of something Buddhist/Jain, whereas the Hindu/plain meaning is the unambiguous sense in which it was used in the pre-Shramanic Hindu contexts such as Ramayanam and MBh:
Quote:1 zramaNa mf(%{A} or %{I}) n. making effort or exertion , toiling , labouring, (esp.) following a toilsome or menial business W. ; base , vile , bad ib. ; naked L. ; m. one who performs acts of mortification or austerity , an ascetic , monk , devotee , religious mendicant S3Br. &c. &c. ; a Buddhist monk or mendicant (also applied to Buddha himself cf. MWB. 23 &c. ; also applied to a Jain ascetic now commonly called Yati) MBh. R. &c. ; N. of a serpent-demon Buddh. ; (%{A} or %{I}) , a female mendicant or nun L. ; a hard-working woman L. ; (%{A}) f. a handsome woman L. ; = %{zabarI-bhid} , %{mAMsI} , %{muNDIrI} L. ; n. toil , labour , exertion S3a1n3khS3r.
2 zrAmaNa n. (fr. %{zramaNa}) g. %{yuvA7di} ; (%{I}) f. N. of a plant L.
Note that the first meaning of the word that's made blue follows the meaning of the last blue bit, which is described above as the sense it has in the Vedic [color="#0000FF"]shaa~Nkhaayana-shrauta-suutra ("S3a1n3khS3r").[/color]
And the 2nd meaning emphasised in blue references the way the word is used in the Vedic [color="#0000FF"]shatapatha-braahmaNa ("S3Br").[/color]
(Neither implying it's used as a reference to Jainism/Buddhism.)
Certainly, such pre-Buddhist/pre-Jain (and pre-Ajeevika) meanings is what the Skt word shramaNa ever had in the Ramayanam (and Mahabharatam and all earlier texts). It's a later-devised *additional* meaning that the word shramaNa can also stand as a synonym for (particular kinds of) Buddhists or Jains.
And the above MW entry further states about the word shramaNa that it's "also applied to a Jain ascetic now commonly called Yati". The use of the word "now" in MW concerning Yati seems to imply that, while Yati can be used as a descriptive (i.e. in the plain vanilla meaning it has) for Hindu and eventually non-Hindu ascetics, it appears not to actually have become a synonym for Jains [or Buddhists] until more recently (i.e. "recent" being relative to the time of the Monier-Williams lexicon). [color]<- If so, then that just put an even greater damper on the legions of claims that pivoted around the assumption that Yati is an equivalent for ancient Jains.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"]The subsequent claims the author had thereafter launched - *based* on their Mere Assumption that the "Yati" referred to in the Vedas was magically a reference to ancient Jains - now falls through:[/color] the whole sobstory of their theorised victimisation by the Hindus (mass slaughter of their kind and other stuff they read there), of the hypothesised replacement of their religion by the Vedic Hindus, and even the pretence (I mean assumption) of Jains having existed in the Vedic era by claiming that their alleged existence was acknowledged by the Vedas - all of it just falls down flat. <- But that's what happens when a base assumption - on which a massive web of further assumptions/insinuations are built around - turns out to be hollow: sort of like when you take the foundation layer away from a house of cards and it all comes crashing down.
When Yati has many meanings - and none of which originally referred to Jains or Buddhists - and when the Vedas uses the words in their *original* meanings in the Vedic context, what gives others the right to mangle the Vedas by force-reading themselves into it and then to further invent a whole edifice of slanderous fictions (propagandic lies) aka pseudo-history based on self-favouring conjecture, all in order to set themselves up as the beknighted victims and the Hindus as invading oppressors. (In reality, the Hindus are the victims - of presumptuous and calculated insinuations. Anyone can look over the pasted article excerpt again to see the extent of the motivated speculations/insinuations.)
Continued in next.