Post 4/6
Concerning this next section in the article:
1. The above is in error as regards dating: the very same western chronology that now dates Valmeeki Ramayana to a few centuries BCE - between half a millennia BCE to 100 BCE - dates the "Paumacariya" as I think it's called (which is the earliest of many Jain plagiarisms of the Vedic itihAsa Ramayana) to somewhere between 2nd to 4th centuries CE as its exact composition date within this period is unknown.
Meaning: Jains can't have it both ways.
- Either the Valmeeki Ramayanam's composition gets dated to even earlier than its present dating of 500 BCE to 100 BCE (c.f. in the British era, Kalidaasa - of Raghuvamsha etc fame - was dated 1st century BCE), in which case the Jain Paumacariya can then be put back to 1st century BCE (i.e. still no overlap)
- OR the Valmeeki Ramayanam is - though still dated BCE - some centuries closer at 500-100 BCE, making the Paumachariya 2nd century CE at its earliest/for its earliest parts.
(Fortunately for Jains, Hindus are more charitable and date the Paumachariya to 1st century CE.)
Either way though, Valmeeki's Ramayanam still works out older. And always will, since there's a relative chronology that puts a gap between the two since there most definitely is a gap. A significant one actually.
So, no matter how close the west brings Indic chronology to the present, there is always going to be a *relative* time gap between Valmiki Ramayanam and the first Jain spin off it, and never an overlap of the two periods of composition.
Anyway, not even the west pretends the oldest Jain spin off of the Hindu Ramayana is the original view.
The contextually-Vedic Ramayana and Mahabharata are actually extremely ancient at their core content. Besides, even looking past the (issue of the dating of the) Valmeeki composition, the 2 itihasas were "ancient" narratives among even ancient Hindus. And the context of both original itihAsas is exclusively Vedic - i.e. a Vedic-era setting, hence neither of them knowing of Jainism or anything so late.
As stated, there are numerous Jain clones of the Vedic Ramayanam, apparently not even quite consistent with each other on certain important points. But may come back to this later.
2. Like Gandharvas, Kinnaras, Apsaras, Yakshas/Yakshinis etc, the Vidyadharas are Divine *Vedic* beings (e.g. MBh and HV already mentioned them, same with Kinnaras). They're not Jain/Buddhist/what-have-you, or "devoted to Jain Jinas" as is being claimed. The latter making any pretences at Vidyadhara-s (or Kinnara-s and Yaksha-s etc), would just indicate another instance where they plagiarised these beings from Vedic cosmology into their own cosmologies, as they did much else - all while they've badmouthed the Vedic religion. (Same as how they plagiarised the Vedic epic Ramayanam and badmouthed the Vedic religion of both Rama and Ravana.)
3. On the totally irrelevant reference to Yoga Vasishtha Ramayana in the article:
How is bringing this up even relevant to an argument for Jain historicity/existence in the Vedic era?
- The Yoga Vasishtha Ramayana (a work on Yoga + Advaitam, I understand [?]) is currently dated 10th or even 11th century CE. Whatever the date, the relative chronology with the pre-existing Hindu itihasa is what is pertinent here. Now, that's not to detract from anything meaningful the text might have to say, but one does note:
- *Even* if the text did know the existence of Jainism - it certainly would not be surprising if it did at this late stage in Indian history - this can't remotely constitute "proof" that the original RAmAyaNa context, being Vedic and pre-Jain/pre-Buddhist etc, "therefore" knew of Jainism.
- But as it so happens, I still can't find a mention of "jinendra" in the digitised text of the YVR at all: I searched through the transliterated text (note: this too is available for public scrutiny, so people can check for themselves) and can't find "jinendra" or "jina indra" in the entirety of it. (And I even threw in a search for jënendra, just in case this turned out to be relevant somehow). The available transliterated text certainly looks complete, as it froze my browser for a huge time while it loaded. But then the YVR text is supposed to be huge.
- The searches even ran over some famous commentary on the original work. Turns out even the commentary didn't use "jinendra"/"jina indra". (BTW: there's no "jaina" in the entire text or its commentary either.)
So: where did the claimant pull this assertion of "jinendra" in the YVR from? Don't know.
And more importantly, *again*: even if the YVR did mention it, how would that prove anything about the original (Vedic) Ramayanam?
4. More importantly, on this next claim advanced:
They wish.
How hysterical: Buddhists choose to read it as a reference to themselves (and as proof of their existence at the time the epic was set in), whereas the Jains insist the reference must be exclusively to themselves, in exclusion of Buddhism (which Jains graciously admit is of late origin). Laughable. Especially when the word shramaNa - plain meaning, i.e. lowercase s - indicated Hindu Yati long before the Jains and Buddhists appeared, and yet even more time had to still pass before people started to pretend that shramaNa referred to the latter groups (let alone exclusively).
BTW, what the Jain article is conveniently omitting is that the [clearly Vedic] shramaNas invited as guests by Dasharatha were....invited specifically for the occasion of a very major Vedic Yagnya. [I *think* this was moreover an ashvamedha (?)]
So it sounds like yet another case of Jains merely looking through ancient Hindu texts for a word they think/hope/dream refers to them exclusively, but where they forgot to bother to read the circumstances in which the word occurred and which circumstances just underline how it really can't refer to Jains (or Buddhists etc). And not only because Jains didn't even exist in the Ramayana context, but because the circumstances of the very instance they point to are as damning [to their intention/pretensions] as a Vedic yagnya.
Actually, at this point, it's useful to repeat that quote from the VR site posted earlier in this thread, where it argued that people can refrain from jumping to the desperate conclusion that the Ramayana "must" have been written when Buddhism had already appeared in the world, merely because people noticed the pre-existing Skt word shramaNa occurring in the Valmiki Ramayanam. Here, this bit:
valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga14/bala_14_prose.htm
To repeat the MW lexicon entry for shramaNa again:
Continued in next.
Concerning this next section in the article:
Quote:Jainism in the Period of Ramayana
The period of Ramayana is earlier than Mahabharata. The majority of the scholars believe most of the events and persons connected with the story of Ramayana to be real and historical. The oldest available Jain version of Rama epic is Paumachariya in Prakrit which was composed in 530 years after the Mahavira-nirvana according to the statements of the author named3 Vimala Suri. It belongs to about the same period as the oldest Brahaminic version, the Ramayana of Valmiki i.e. to the first century B. C. No doubt Vimal seems to be acquainted with the other works on the life of Rama but he criticizes them as giving false and fantastic statements. On the other hand, he himself claims to give a real and true account of the life of Rama, based on the words of Tirthankara Mahavira. The story of Ramayana as stated in the Jain Puranas is substantially similar to the account of Valmiki1 But the way in which the Jain version differs from the Brahaminic Ramayana throws a very significant light on the position of Jainism. According to the Jain version, Ravana and Raksas were highly cultured people belonging to the race of the Vidyadharas and were great devotees of Jina.2 But the Hindu tradition depicted them as evil natured and irreligious demons because they were antagonistic to the sacrificial cult of the Vedic sages. At the same time, they were defeated, therefore, they become the demons in the hands of the poets. Considering these two accounts together, it seems that the Vedic people denounced the Rakshas because they were the followers of Jainism. F. E. Pargiter also asserts the Jains were treated as Asuras and Daityas by the3 Hindus. Rama, his brother Laksamana and their enemy Ravana were 63 prominent personages (the trisastisalaka purushas) of the Jain traditions where in the Raksas and Vanaras of the Ramayana have been described not as semihuman or demons but as highly civilized and cultured human beings of the Vidyadhara race who were mostly devotees of the Jina.
Even in the Yoga Vasistha Ramayana in the Chapter of Vairagya, Rama expresses to be of a peaceful nature like4 Jinendra. There is also mention in the Ramayana of Valmiki that the king Dasaratha, the father of Rama entertained the sramanas as the5 guests. The word sramana indicates the Jain saints and not saints of Buddhism which is of late origin.
Thus, it seems that Jainism was in existence in the period of Ramayana according to the Jain traditions. Lord Munisuvarta, the 20th Tirthankara is said to be the contemporary of Rama.1 Munisuvratanatha seems to be as real person as Rama himself.
1. The above is in error as regards dating: the very same western chronology that now dates Valmeeki Ramayana to a few centuries BCE - between half a millennia BCE to 100 BCE - dates the "Paumacariya" as I think it's called (which is the earliest of many Jain plagiarisms of the Vedic itihAsa Ramayana) to somewhere between 2nd to 4th centuries CE as its exact composition date within this period is unknown.
Meaning: Jains can't have it both ways.
- Either the Valmeeki Ramayanam's composition gets dated to even earlier than its present dating of 500 BCE to 100 BCE (c.f. in the British era, Kalidaasa - of Raghuvamsha etc fame - was dated 1st century BCE), in which case the Jain Paumacariya can then be put back to 1st century BCE (i.e. still no overlap)
- OR the Valmeeki Ramayanam is - though still dated BCE - some centuries closer at 500-100 BCE, making the Paumachariya 2nd century CE at its earliest/for its earliest parts.
(Fortunately for Jains, Hindus are more charitable and date the Paumachariya to 1st century CE.)
Either way though, Valmeeki's Ramayanam still works out older. And always will, since there's a relative chronology that puts a gap between the two since there most definitely is a gap. A significant one actually.
So, no matter how close the west brings Indic chronology to the present, there is always going to be a *relative* time gap between Valmiki Ramayanam and the first Jain spin off it, and never an overlap of the two periods of composition.
Quote:Paumacariya - Vimalasà «ri, HemasÃÂgarasà «rë - Google Books
Poem in Ãâ¬ryàmetre, Uddesa and Pavva, based on the RÃÂmÃÂyaá¹â¡a and adapted to the Jaina point of view; composition date unknown, 2nd-4th centuries A.D.
Anyway, not even the west pretends the oldest Jain spin off of the Hindu Ramayana is the original view.
The contextually-Vedic Ramayana and Mahabharata are actually extremely ancient at their core content. Besides, even looking past the (issue of the dating of the) Valmeeki composition, the 2 itihasas were "ancient" narratives among even ancient Hindus. And the context of both original itihAsas is exclusively Vedic - i.e. a Vedic-era setting, hence neither of them knowing of Jainism or anything so late.
As stated, there are numerous Jain clones of the Vedic Ramayanam, apparently not even quite consistent with each other on certain important points. But may come back to this later.
2. Like Gandharvas, Kinnaras, Apsaras, Yakshas/Yakshinis etc, the Vidyadharas are Divine *Vedic* beings (e.g. MBh and HV already mentioned them, same with Kinnaras). They're not Jain/Buddhist/what-have-you, or "devoted to Jain Jinas" as is being claimed. The latter making any pretences at Vidyadhara-s (or Kinnara-s and Yaksha-s etc), would just indicate another instance where they plagiarised these beings from Vedic cosmology into their own cosmologies, as they did much else - all while they've badmouthed the Vedic religion. (Same as how they plagiarised the Vedic epic Ramayanam and badmouthed the Vedic religion of both Rama and Ravana.)
3. On the totally irrelevant reference to Yoga Vasishtha Ramayana in the article:
Quote:Even in the Yoga Vasistha Ramayana in the Chapter of Vairagya, Rama expresses to be of a peaceful nature like4 Jinendra.
How is bringing this up even relevant to an argument for Jain historicity/existence in the Vedic era?
- The Yoga Vasishtha Ramayana (a work on Yoga + Advaitam, I understand [?]) is currently dated 10th or even 11th century CE. Whatever the date, the relative chronology with the pre-existing Hindu itihasa is what is pertinent here. Now, that's not to detract from anything meaningful the text might have to say, but one does note:
- *Even* if the text did know the existence of Jainism - it certainly would not be surprising if it did at this late stage in Indian history - this can't remotely constitute "proof" that the original RAmAyaNa context, being Vedic and pre-Jain/pre-Buddhist etc, "therefore" knew of Jainism.
- But as it so happens, I still can't find a mention of "jinendra" in the digitised text of the YVR at all: I searched through the transliterated text (note: this too is available for public scrutiny, so people can check for themselves) and can't find "jinendra" or "jina indra" in the entirety of it. (And I even threw in a search for jënendra, just in case this turned out to be relevant somehow). The available transliterated text certainly looks complete, as it froze my browser for a huge time while it loaded. But then the YVR text is supposed to be huge.
- The searches even ran over some famous commentary on the original work. Turns out even the commentary didn't use "jinendra"/"jina indra". (BTW: there's no "jaina" in the entire text or its commentary either.)
So: where did the claimant pull this assertion of "jinendra" in the YVR from? Don't know.
And more importantly, *again*: even if the YVR did mention it, how would that prove anything about the original (Vedic) Ramayanam?
4. More importantly, on this next claim advanced:
Quote:"There is also mention in the Ramayana of Valmiki that the king Dasaratha, the father of Rama entertained the sramanas as the5 guests. The word sramana indicates the Jain saints and not saints of Buddhism which is of late origin."
They wish.
How hysterical: Buddhists choose to read it as a reference to themselves (and as proof of their existence at the time the epic was set in), whereas the Jains insist the reference must be exclusively to themselves, in exclusion of Buddhism (which Jains graciously admit is of late origin). Laughable. Especially when the word shramaNa - plain meaning, i.e. lowercase s - indicated Hindu Yati long before the Jains and Buddhists appeared, and yet even more time had to still pass before people started to pretend that shramaNa referred to the latter groups (let alone exclusively).
BTW, what the Jain article is conveniently omitting is that the [clearly Vedic] shramaNas invited as guests by Dasharatha were....invited specifically for the occasion of a very major Vedic Yagnya. [I *think* this was moreover an ashvamedha (?)]
So it sounds like yet another case of Jains merely looking through ancient Hindu texts for a word they think/hope/dream refers to them exclusively, but where they forgot to bother to read the circumstances in which the word occurred and which circumstances just underline how it really can't refer to Jains (or Buddhists etc). And not only because Jains didn't even exist in the Ramayana context, but because the circumstances of the very instance they point to are as damning [to their intention/pretensions] as a Vedic yagnya.
Actually, at this point, it's useful to repeat that quote from the VR site posted earlier in this thread, where it argued that people can refrain from jumping to the desperate conclusion that the Ramayana "must" have been written when Buddhism had already appeared in the world, merely because people noticed the pre-existing Skt word shramaNa occurring in the Valmiki Ramayanam. Here, this bit:
valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga14/bala_14_prose.htm
Quote:Some scholars tend to conclude that Ramayana might have been written in post Buddhist period by finding the words like shramaNa etc., the famous wandering Buddhist monk sect. The word shramaNa in Sanskrit means only a pilgrim, and pilgrimage is an ordained aspect of salvation as per Indra is the friend of traveller. Therefore wander - aitareya brahmaNa [VII.33.3] The Buddhist shramaNa -s are the wandering monks in search of converts whereas Hindu shramana-s are pure sanyasi-s wandering for their own salvation.(BTW, this last link seems to me to confirm that the occasion of the shramaNa guests at the Vedic Yagnya is indeed one that involved an ashwamedha.)
To repeat the MW lexicon entry for shramaNa again:
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.=shatapatha-braahmaNa &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=shaa~Nkhaayana-shrauta-suutra.
2 zrAmaNa n. (fr. %{zramaNa}) g. %{yuvA7di} ; (%{I}) f. N. of a plant L.
Continued in next.