This article is exactly the same one as Jain Karmic Theory (Theory of Karma in Jains) (word for word), so I would recommend that one be replaced with the other or something to that effect. This may explain why there are so few links to the page :) Rhino loupe 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This article does not meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism/Assessment standards for A-class articles. It has many grammatical errors, poor structure, bias in that it holds Jainism above other religions, citation problems and bias, and relatively low useful content compared to other A-class articles. These also explain the two tags I added. To alleviate this, I suggest that writers with poor grammar add stuff to the talk page for review before inserting it, and that unbiased sources be used. I also suggest that more detailed content be added, and that unverifiable information be deleted. -- queso man 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don;t understand the logic behind claiming tat Jainism's conception of a universe governed by Karmic law differs in *any* way from Buddhist or Hindu ideas. In Buddhism, as this article states later on, the conception is identical; the only difference between Jainism & Buddhism vs Hinduism is that Hinduism has intermediary Gods; however, in Hinduism Gods, along with every other aspect of creation, are merely aspects of the underlying field of being, Brahma, which the physical universe is also merely part of.
In other words, in Hinduism the distinction between 'spiritual' and 'physical' is postulated as being a false one; this is a FUNDAMENTAL part of the religion; so it logically follows that the 'spiritual' laws of karma are fundamentally the same as the 'physical' laws of the universe (since the universe and Brahma are one) - just like in Jainism.
So it would seem that the claim that Jainism is at all different in its conception of Karma involves willful ignoring the facts about the other dharmic religions. - hopleton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.201.121 ( talk) 19:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Jaini is not the best source to use. There is clear bias here.
A new section called - A critique on Karmic Theory - has been added which discusses the criticisms levelled by the Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. It also discusses the short comings from a scholars point of view as well as popular misconception from western point of view. This should hopefully more or less take care of biases in the overall article as well as provide a balanced approach. An interesting observation by dundas - As to the general attitude of Jains themselves towards the doctrine, he states that few study the intricacies of the doctrine and familiarity with it would not be regarded as of any real relevance to most Jains. Pg 102 but I am not shure it will come in which section -- Anish Shah 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This Articles can be expanded to include more stuff on Karmas in Jainism.-- Anishshah19 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have completely re-written the article on Karma in Jainism. However the references have not come properly. Can someonne format it ?-- Anishshah19 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your edits on Karma_in_Jainism.
For any changes please discuss on talk pages first or else it would be considered as POV and reverted back. I would appreciate your contributions a lot. Looking forwarding to constructive contribution to ensure that this article(in fact all jainism articles) is rated as featured article.-- Anish Shah 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just copyedited the intro. I love the clarity of the sentences and the wealth of content in them. I have done a fair bit of reordering, however, so that the logic breaks down into three sub-sections with related material collected together and building up sentence by sentence. Please let me know if this injures your fine work Anish, and change things back to reflect sources better if need be. My work, although done directly in the article, is done so merely for convenience, it is a proposal offered for your expert approval, not more than that. Looking forward to copyediting the next section. Warm regards, Alastair Haines ( talk) 08:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a good quote....a bit cynical though in the starting. I think I will use the end part.-- Anish ( talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As per Alastairs suggestion I have incorportaed the above quote as follows:
If agreeable, we can incorportae the same in the main body of article in Experiencing the effects section.-- Anish ( talk) 05:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Below is a summary record of words used in this article (or prior revisions) of non-English origin: in verifiable IAST form, with recommended standard glosses (feel free to edit), brief definitions (ditto), internal links, and external links to reliable sources where helpful (feel free to add). Alastair Haines ( talk) 12:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
A list of some key resources for general Wikipedia work on Jainism.
Please feel free to expand this list. Alastair Haines ( talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Scholars normally translate Tirthankara as "Ford Maker" i.e. one who builds bridge to cross the ocean of suffering (that is samsara). Check out P. Jaini [1], Dundas [2] and A concise dictionary of Indian philosophy: Sanskrit terms defined in English By John A. Grimes [3]. I would say it would be better to keep Ford-maker rather than prophet. Because Prophet means messenger of God, esp. in Abrahamic religions and is likely to be misunderstood in this context.-- Anish ( talk) 11:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore Scholars prefer to use capital "T" while usage of word Tirthankara. [4] -- Anish ( talk) 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"Stithi (the duration of the karmic bond) – The karmic bond remains latent and bound to the consciousness up to the time it is not activated." Shouldn't this be "up to the time it is activated."? Chris the speller ( talk) 02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"The 2nd Century CE Jain text, Bhagavatī Ārādhanā (1616) sums up"... Does 1616 here represent a year in the 17th century? If so how is it a 2nd-century text? Or is 1616 a verse or chapter number? Chris the speller ( talk) 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello friends of the Karma in Jainism article. I'm back to complete work on copy-editing, reviewing and expanding the article, hopefully helping work it up to featured status. It's nice to see the talk page active. Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In ordinary words: complicated sacrifices made priests more important than gods, creating the caste system, but at least people could hope to build up good karma and improve their rebirth. Alastair Haines ( talk) 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's an excellent quote to support your lead. :)
Anish, can you help me understand leśya a bit better, please. Can someone have more than one type of leśya? Must we be all black or all red or all white, or can we have combinations of all the different types? Alastair Haines ( talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
One reason this article is important is because karma is used in English in ways rather different to the Indian religions from which it borrowed the word.
To my ears, karma is used as a mass noun in English:
So, although English can theoretically form a plural for karma with s it prefers not to:
In English, karma, is typically used, casually, to mean "good or bad vibes": for example, "this place has good karma". In fact, English almost assumes there are two kinds of karma, good and bad. Obviously, this is not its proper original sense. All karma is bad! Freedom from karma is good. ;)
I did a brief search for a good reliable source on this without luck. I might pull out the old Oxford at some point. Alastair Haines ( talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You have understood the Jain concept of Karma properly.....all Karma is bad....even this so called good karma needs to be shed off to attain liberation..that is the goal of every soul.-- Anish ( talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Articleye ( talk · contribs) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This article can be passed if the problems listed below are addressed.
Trust it satisfies you.
I hope all the problems are addressed. Thanks.-- Indian Chronicles ( talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have asked for others in the community to comment on this at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Karma_and_particle_physics. Let us wait for responses, then continue with the review. Articleye ( talk) 09:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment The name Scientific interpretations is misleading since karma clearly does not lie inside the boundary of science. The content in it can be written somewhere else in a different section, perhaps under material theory; since it is noteworthy that the karma in Jainism is also a matter (pudgala) rather than cause/effect only. Also this karmic particles are minute, perhaps indivisible particles according to Jainism, not according to science. Rahul Jain ( talk) 16:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Writers such as Glasenapp, G.C. Pande and Padhmanabh Jaini are of the view that the concept of Karma or moral causation was perhaps pre-Aryan in origin. However, other scholars such as Surendranath Das Gupta, Kshiti Mohan Sen, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Radhakrishnan, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer and Swami Abhedananda trace the origins of Karma to the Brahmanic world view itself as it developed over the centuries between the origin of the Samhitas and the development of the Upanishads. In that sense, the doctrine of Karma developed across Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism at around the same time. It is not clear therefore that a 'most scholars' interpret the concept of Karma as pre-aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin. Academic opinion is divided on the issue. If this article is to insist that 'most scholars' are of the view that the concept of Karma is pre-aryan, then it needs to be cited.
I tend to be uncomfortable with the concept of 'Aryan' and 'pre-Aryan' when both Buddhist and Jain texts use the word 'Aryan' quite often to illustrate the origins and teachings of their founders i.e. the 'Aryan Eightfold path', the '4 Aryan truths' etc. In fact, the modern Indian word 'ji' comes from the Jain prakrit 'Aaji' which in turn means 'Arya'. The issue of Aryan vs pre-Aryan tends to instead fall within the Germanic school of Indian history but may not tally entirely with the facts. What is Aryan? What is pre-Aryan? Unless this is sorted out, care needs to be exercised in the flippant use of such terminology.
-- Dipendra2007 ( talk) 11:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Dipendra, the persons that you have mentioned are sound scholars in doctrine and philosophy but they are simply following the Hindu orthodox beliefs. We have to be careful in quoting such people. You will find hundreds of such quotes that reflect the Hindu orthodox beliefs. Infact even a few decades ago sound scholars wrongly believed Jainism to be “off-shoot” of Hinduism. With due respect to Swami Vivekanand, howsoever sound scholar and great man he may be, even he committed the mistake of classifying Jainism as an vedic offshoot. Then, there are current lot of pseudo-scholars (like Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak, and David Frawley) who are now influenced by Hindutva ideology who try to pass off tall claims as scholarly research. I know it is difficult for most Hindus—indoctrinated since childhood of Hindu orthodox beliefs—to come in terms with new scholarly researches and opinions. In the same way, there are many Jain orthodox belifes (like Lord Rishabha had a life span of 84 million years) that stretch credulity and although part of many books, cannot be used as a reference in wikipedia. Having said that let me address you concerns and prove my edits:
1. Karma, Samsara and re-birth are not mentioned in Vedas – Have you ever read Vedas? Well I have. They do not mention karma and re-birth or even any similar concept. This is what the scholars say–
2. Karma is non-brahminical theory. This fact is many times mentioned in Upanishads and Hindu Texts.
3. Brahmins (Vedics or Hindus) learned of Karma from Sramanas of which Jainism (and Buddhism) is a continuation. So quite apparently the origins of Karma lie in Sramana religions as all scholars are noting:
4. Usage of word “Aryan” in Jain texts– In Jain texts the word Arya is used to mean noble and is not reference to race. More specifically arya means those who are capable of learning religion as opposed to anarya i.e. irreligious people.
-- Anish ( talk) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Anish,
Thank you for the in-depth, informative and detailed response. This is a solid and I learnt a lot. I intend to follow-up by reviewing your citations over the holidays.
Let me respond though. You have not conclusively established that most scholars view Karma as pre-Aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin. This might well be a definitional issue. I would not dismiss Surendranath Das Gupta, Kshiti Mohan Sen, Radhakrishnan, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer and Swami Abhedananda (not Vivekananda) on the grounds that they were orthodox Hindus. These were rigorous international scholars respected in Ivy League and Oxbridge circles for their academic knowledge perhaps more than several scholars that you highlight.
I would respectfully caution against being selective vis-a-vis the sources one relies on by excluding serious scholarship that one may disagree with. If one were to use your reasoning, then Padmanabh Jaini needs to be excluded since he may be similarly viewed as an orthodox Jain while Robert Zydenbos and Von Glasenapp are specialists on Jain studies, not Hinduism. Further, many of the scholars I cite were hardly orthodox (I am not sure what the word means).
It is clear that the Upanishads represent a Kshatriya philosophical quest much like Buddhism and Jainism. To the extent that the doctrine of Karma is first enunciated in the Upanishads in considerable depth, indicates its kshatriya origins. Most scholarship agrees on that.
But does this make it pre-aryan or even non-Brahmanic. The Kshatriya imprint in the Samhitas - the main text of the Veda - is very significant. Many of the hymns were authored by kshatriyas. The Samhitas with its key Kshatriya contribution provides the pre-eminent legitimating reference point for the Brahmanic worldview. In other words, the Brahmanic worldview encapsulates the kshatriya element. The doctrine of Karma being kshatriya in origin does not make it non-Brahmanic. If this were the reasoning, half of the Rig Veda would be non-Brahmanic!
In short, the question remains unresolved whether the doctrine of Karma evolved over the several centuries (700 to 800 years?) between the compilation of the earlier Samhitas and the enunciation of the Upanishads or whether it was pre-Aryan in origin? Was it a parallel development across the three traditions i.e. the Upanishads, Buddhist and Jain or was it Sramanic in origin that was assimilated into the Brahmanic worldview? Scholarly opinion differs with significant weight on either side. Hence, we can not allege that 'most scholars' view Karma as pre-Aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin.
I would therefore support the compromise wording proposed by Alastair Haines.
The word 'Aryan' always meant 'noble' be it in the Samhitas, Upanishads, the Buddhist texts and Jainism. It did not have racial connotations in the modern sense until the German scholarship of Indic studies in the 1800s. The languages of North India belong to the Indo-European family. But did these languages emerge in India due to the migration of people into the Indian subcontinent or was it due to technological/cultural diffusion? These issues remain under serious scholarly debate. I therefore remain uncomfortable with terms such as pre-Aryan.
Let me end by thanking you for the rigorous response and the citations. I learnt a lot and intend to read them. -- Dipendra2007 ( talk) 07:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Dipendra, Thanks for your reply....even I am agreeable to Alastairs edit. Please feel free to review the references provided by me and point out the errors, if any. I have reasons to question the use of scholars used by you...its not just because that do not agree to my view point. The reasosn are : 1) Later scholarly research has shown some of their research wrong, 2) Their work proves that they have not done much research on Jainism 3) Most of them have dismissed Jainism as off-shoot of Hinduism. This is biggest their blunder and shows how much knoeledge of Jainism they have. They may be scholars in one area and well respected, but they cannot be quoted here for their off the cuff remarks. Take one example. One would assume National Geographic to be scholarly Magazine (and rightly so)...but some time back in one of its article on Wildlife and photography in India...they had quoted that Jainism and Buddhism are off-shoot of Hinduism in one off the cuff remark. Obviously an article on photography cannot be quoted as reference in Article on Indian religions. Anyway you have tried to discredit some of the scholars quoted by me just becasue I questioned some scholars quoted by you. This is wrong approach. I have done my home work well. I have more such references which I have not quoted here. Robert J. Zydenbos is a well known scholar in not only Jainism but Sanskrit, Indian Philosophy, Buddhism and Kannada. he is known more for his Dravidian studies rather than Jainology. Infact he earned his doctorate in Kannada Literature. At the same time he is a a sound scholar on Jainism. Padmamabh Jaini is a sound scholar on Sanskrit, Pali and Buddhism. He is head of Dept of Buddhist Studies in University of Berkley. Helmuth Von Glasenapp is known more for his work on Vedanta, Upanisads and Buddhism rather than simply on Jainism. I have chosen scholars for references well and after due consideration. It is also amply clear that Karma, Ahimsa, Moksa and Samsara are not mentioned in vedas. They were known only in later Upanasads after the time of Mahavira and Buddha. And you admit its of Kshyatriya Origin then how it be of Brhamanical origin. Itspite of my showing you that Upanishads themselves admitting that its of non-brahmanical origin, you are refusing to believe it. What more can I say? If you feel Alastairs edits are NPOV, even I am agreeable to it and lets leave it to that, rather than proving who came first?-- Anish ( talk) 08:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Anish,
Thank you for the response. I continue to learn from you. I did not intend to question the rigor of several of the scholars you cite. In fact, I intend to read many of them. Thank you for the lead.
I reiterate however that there are alternate academic points of view of equal rigor that have not been conclusively disproven. Several of the scholars you cite appear solid. The scholars I mention are no less rigorous when it comes to the study of religion. For example, Radhakrishnan and Ananda Coomaraswamy were established scholars of both Hinduism and Buddhism. I concede that none of them were authorities of the Jain tradition per se - but that is besides the point. We are discussing here the origins of Karma.
Your brief description of Axel Michael and Barbara Harshav seems to indicate that neither explicitly establishes that Karma is pre-Aryan in origin. Likewise your citation of Robert Zydenbos and Gavin Flood does not appear to indicate that the latter two conclusively asserts that Karma is pre-Aryan in origin. You cite the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Chandogya Upanishad. The quotes do not of themselves prove a pre-Aryan origin. They only establish the Kshatriya authorship of that particular philosophical discourse.
Buddhist sources describe Ajatashatru as an ardent disciple of the Buddha. Jain sources describe him as fervent follower of Mahavira. Hindu sources (e.g. the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) describe him as a foremost teacher of the higher learning and patron of the Brahmins. Archeological evidence (I refer here to A.L Basham, Romila Thapar and others) indicates that both Ajatashatru and his father - Bimbisara patronized Brahmins, Buddhists, Jains and Ajivikas. The multiple evidence at hand does not of itself indicate that Ajatashatru's teaching is pre-Aryan in origin.
The word Karma is mentioned in the Samhitas. I concede however that these were later insertions if one were to look at the syntax and vocabulary. But the 700 to 800 years between the compilation of the earlier Samhitas and the Upanishads could well be sufficient time for the development of such ideas in the three parallel traditions - i.e. Brahmanic, Buddhist and Jain. It does not necessarily indicate that a reportedly pre-Aryan Sramanic tradition influenced the Brahminic tradition in this one instance. The three traditions drew from the same Indic milieu. While it is not correct to describe Jainism as an offshoot of Hinduism, it remains a parallel tradition belonging to the same family - much like the shared backdrop of Christianity and Islam.
My last point is that the mere fact of Kshatriya antecedents of an intellectual doctrine - such as karma - does not necessarily make it non-Brahmanic when the very essence of the latter was a synthesis to begin with - one that its origins in the earliest of the Samhitas itself with the latter's considerable Kshatriya presence. Lets not forget that the Rig Veda does refer to Rishabha. The Brahmanic can not be exclusively confined to the Brahmin caste. The former can not be reduced to the latter.
An addenda. The Buddhist texts were first put down in writing in the 1st century BCE in Sri Lanka. They were recorded in Pali, a language systematized in the Theravada monasteries of Sri Lanka to be a fit recipient of the Buddhist texts. The Buddha himself spoke the same Magadhi Prakrit as Mahavira did. He did not speak Pali. In fact, no Pali inscriptions have been excavated in Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. Ashoka's inscriptions were in Prakrit.
The Jain texts were first put down in writing perhaps in the 4th century CE in Prakrit. The fact that the texts of the two religions were written down many centuries after their founders had died - itself reflects the possibility that no one tradition antedated the other - but each may well have extracted from the same Indic bedrock. The dating of the different texts is important to realize that Vivian Worthington's theory of Karma and Yoga as Sramanic in origin can be contested.
Let's therefore agree on the suggested wording of Alastair Haines. Best regards. -- Dipendra2007 ( talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think our definition of what is 'Brahmanic' differs. Several scholars are of the view that the doctrine of Karma is 'Brahmanic' as well as 'Sramanic'. That was my sole point.
I agree with you on the antecedents of the Jain texts. This said, the redaction or compilation as it has come down to us is dated the 4th century CE although much of the material in it might be much earlier in origin as you mention. But this makes it difficult to conclusively date the different material within the text i.e. what was 4th century BCE versus what was 4th century CE? All religious texts, not just the Jaina, demonstrate similar multiple layers.
In short, let's agree as you propose on the compromise wording of 'several scholars'. I will proceed to insert.
Best regards-- Dipendra2007 ( talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Jainism speaks of karmic "dirt", as karma is thought to be manifest as very subtle and microscopically imperceptible particles pervading the entire universe. [3] They are so small that one space-point—the smallest possible extent of space—contains an infinite number of karmic particles (or quantity of karmic dirt). citation needed
The citation is provided for the first line, the second is merely an elaboration/explanation of the first.
The relationship between the material and psychic karma is that of cause and effect. citation needed The material karma gives rise to the feelings and emotions in worldly souls, which—in turn—give rise to psychic karma, causing emotional modifications within the soul. citation needed These emotions, yet again, result in influx and bondage of fresh material karma. [4]
Isn't the citation provided enough to accommodate two lines?
Jains hold that the karmic matter is actually an agent that enables the consciousness to act within the material context of this universe. citation needed They are the material carrier of a soul's desire to physically experience this world. citation needed When attracted to the consciousness, they are stored in an interactive karmic field called kārmaṇa śarīra, which emanates from the soul. [5]
In this case too, the citation provided should be sufficient for the claims.
Thus, karma is a subtle matter surrounding the consciousness of a soul. citation needed When these two components—consciousness and ripened karma—interact, the soul experiences life as known in the present material universe. citation needed
This is merely the summation of the paragraph. Citations shouldn't be needed for these.
I find that there are enough citations for the claims, need opinion of other editors on this. Rahul Jain ( talk) 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ( talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Apart from this small points, every thing looks ok. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Few more problems:
I told you guys not to push the antiquity nonsense during our recent brush on talk India. To give you guys a fair chance I even compiled a list of reliable scholarly sources: User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism, in contrast to the garbage you were peddling there. You can't selectively quote two scholars and attempt to establish the fantasy that Hinduism got its notions of Karma, Samsara, Moksha, rebirth from Jainism. The majority of scholars don't agree with this view. I won't do anything now, but if you are fantasizing about pushing this in an FAC run, I will be there to check the details. Please don't consider this a threat. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
So basically now, you have resorted to the time and tested method used in Wikipedia to discredit the reliable sources and scholars quoted by someone who does not toe your line. However, what you are stating is nothing but your opinion, which reflects your bias. What you have stated changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. These references hold good. These are solid references that follow the rigorous Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Furthermore, the publishers are also reliable. In fact, I can turn the tables and analyse the references quoted by you and here is what I found about them, starting at the top:
So basically, what you are peddling here is references from a ragtag bunch which consists of an ex-soldier who did not complete his bachleors degree, a marine who specialises in fiction and non-fiction, a communist writer having little knowledge of classical languages, and someone whose primary fame is reaserch on economy of India or another one whose laurels rests on dissertation of the economic functions of South India’s medieval Tirupati temple. Even I could go on and on and shred to pieces the credit of all your references that you are mongering, by using your own tactics. Thanks for showing the way. So whose sources are more obscure and controversial? The academic credentials of the above list hardly inspires confidence to discuss the origins of Indian philosophical concepts. Some of them have done nothing on study on Jainism/ Buddhism or Sramana philosophy, or even on ancient History of India. And those who have done lack relevant academic qualifications or are controversial. And your sources end up contradicting each other.
One of your source Babb Lawrence says: Jainism is sometimes said to have been founded by Mahavira in the sixth century B.C.E. In reality, however, Jain traditions are much older than this, dating back in all probability to the teachings of Pārśvanāth, who lived in the ninth century B.C.E. Then you gleefully quote Basham that Mahavira is the founder of Jainism, contradicting yourself. This is quite repetitive. And some of them are so error ridden like: Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), who claims that Mahavira was a younger contemporary of Buddha. Younger??? Not only this para, but, the entire book should not quoted here, if this is the type to errors it contains. I can understand a difference in opinion, but not patently obvious errors. The same error is made by Doniger, Wendy who places Buddha before Mahavira.
Furthermore, some of your own sources claim that Karma, Moksha and renunciation concepts originated from Sramana’s and then adopted by Brhamanas. You kept these sources for a different purpose, but did not realise that it actually did the opposite.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Karma in Jainism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Karma in Jainism : A class Article== A class as this article satisfies the necessary conditions of A class articles as per wiki standards and is ready to be classified as a featured Article. -- Anish Shah 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The section (Origins and Influence) needs to be re-written Rather than fighting over who came first, I think it would be better to provide an outline of development of Karma in vedic stream of thought and development of karma in Jainism; perhaps in two different paragraphs. Also, the last paragraph seems to be in wrong section. Rahul Jain ( talk) 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the first paragraph. It looked as if some kind of tug-of-war between Vedics and Shramans claiming "we were first". Instead, I have added two paragraphs. One contains the origins of karma in Jainism and the other contains the early development in Jainism specifically. This seems to be more in line with the title of the article Karma in Jainism. Rahul Jain ( talk) 11:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first2=
has generic name (
help)
This article is exactly the same one as Jain Karmic Theory (Theory of Karma in Jains) (word for word), so I would recommend that one be replaced with the other or something to that effect. This may explain why there are so few links to the page :) Rhino loupe 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This article does not meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jainism/Assessment standards for A-class articles. It has many grammatical errors, poor structure, bias in that it holds Jainism above other religions, citation problems and bias, and relatively low useful content compared to other A-class articles. These also explain the two tags I added. To alleviate this, I suggest that writers with poor grammar add stuff to the talk page for review before inserting it, and that unbiased sources be used. I also suggest that more detailed content be added, and that unverifiable information be deleted. -- queso man 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don;t understand the logic behind claiming tat Jainism's conception of a universe governed by Karmic law differs in *any* way from Buddhist or Hindu ideas. In Buddhism, as this article states later on, the conception is identical; the only difference between Jainism & Buddhism vs Hinduism is that Hinduism has intermediary Gods; however, in Hinduism Gods, along with every other aspect of creation, are merely aspects of the underlying field of being, Brahma, which the physical universe is also merely part of.
In other words, in Hinduism the distinction between 'spiritual' and 'physical' is postulated as being a false one; this is a FUNDAMENTAL part of the religion; so it logically follows that the 'spiritual' laws of karma are fundamentally the same as the 'physical' laws of the universe (since the universe and Brahma are one) - just like in Jainism.
So it would seem that the claim that Jainism is at all different in its conception of Karma involves willful ignoring the facts about the other dharmic religions. - hopleton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.201.121 ( talk) 19:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Jaini is not the best source to use. There is clear bias here.
A new section called - A critique on Karmic Theory - has been added which discusses the criticisms levelled by the Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. It also discusses the short comings from a scholars point of view as well as popular misconception from western point of view. This should hopefully more or less take care of biases in the overall article as well as provide a balanced approach. An interesting observation by dundas - As to the general attitude of Jains themselves towards the doctrine, he states that few study the intricacies of the doctrine and familiarity with it would not be regarded as of any real relevance to most Jains. Pg 102 but I am not shure it will come in which section -- Anish Shah 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This Articles can be expanded to include more stuff on Karmas in Jainism.-- Anishshah19 10:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have completely re-written the article on Karma in Jainism. However the references have not come properly. Can someonne format it ?-- Anishshah19 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your edits on Karma_in_Jainism.
For any changes please discuss on talk pages first or else it would be considered as POV and reverted back. I would appreciate your contributions a lot. Looking forwarding to constructive contribution to ensure that this article(in fact all jainism articles) is rated as featured article.-- Anish Shah 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just copyedited the intro. I love the clarity of the sentences and the wealth of content in them. I have done a fair bit of reordering, however, so that the logic breaks down into three sub-sections with related material collected together and building up sentence by sentence. Please let me know if this injures your fine work Anish, and change things back to reflect sources better if need be. My work, although done directly in the article, is done so merely for convenience, it is a proposal offered for your expert approval, not more than that. Looking forward to copyediting the next section. Warm regards, Alastair Haines ( talk) 08:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a good quote....a bit cynical though in the starting. I think I will use the end part.-- Anish ( talk) 16:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As per Alastairs suggestion I have incorportaed the above quote as follows:
If agreeable, we can incorportae the same in the main body of article in Experiencing the effects section.-- Anish ( talk) 05:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Below is a summary record of words used in this article (or prior revisions) of non-English origin: in verifiable IAST form, with recommended standard glosses (feel free to edit), brief definitions (ditto), internal links, and external links to reliable sources where helpful (feel free to add). Alastair Haines ( talk) 12:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
A list of some key resources for general Wikipedia work on Jainism.
Please feel free to expand this list. Alastair Haines ( talk) 16:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Scholars normally translate Tirthankara as "Ford Maker" i.e. one who builds bridge to cross the ocean of suffering (that is samsara). Check out P. Jaini [1], Dundas [2] and A concise dictionary of Indian philosophy: Sanskrit terms defined in English By John A. Grimes [3]. I would say it would be better to keep Ford-maker rather than prophet. Because Prophet means messenger of God, esp. in Abrahamic religions and is likely to be misunderstood in this context.-- Anish ( talk) 11:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore Scholars prefer to use capital "T" while usage of word Tirthankara. [4] -- Anish ( talk) 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"Stithi (the duration of the karmic bond) – The karmic bond remains latent and bound to the consciousness up to the time it is not activated." Shouldn't this be "up to the time it is activated."? Chris the speller ( talk) 02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"The 2nd Century CE Jain text, Bhagavatī Ārādhanā (1616) sums up"... Does 1616 here represent a year in the 17th century? If so how is it a 2nd-century text? Or is 1616 a verse or chapter number? Chris the speller ( talk) 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello friends of the Karma in Jainism article. I'm back to complete work on copy-editing, reviewing and expanding the article, hopefully helping work it up to featured status. It's nice to see the talk page active. Alastair Haines ( talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In ordinary words: complicated sacrifices made priests more important than gods, creating the caste system, but at least people could hope to build up good karma and improve their rebirth. Alastair Haines ( talk) 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's an excellent quote to support your lead. :)
Anish, can you help me understand leśya a bit better, please. Can someone have more than one type of leśya? Must we be all black or all red or all white, or can we have combinations of all the different types? Alastair Haines ( talk) 14:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
One reason this article is important is because karma is used in English in ways rather different to the Indian religions from which it borrowed the word.
To my ears, karma is used as a mass noun in English:
So, although English can theoretically form a plural for karma with s it prefers not to:
In English, karma, is typically used, casually, to mean "good or bad vibes": for example, "this place has good karma". In fact, English almost assumes there are two kinds of karma, good and bad. Obviously, this is not its proper original sense. All karma is bad! Freedom from karma is good. ;)
I did a brief search for a good reliable source on this without luck. I might pull out the old Oxford at some point. Alastair Haines ( talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You have understood the Jain concept of Karma properly.....all Karma is bad....even this so called good karma needs to be shed off to attain liberation..that is the goal of every soul.-- Anish ( talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Articleye ( talk · contribs) 10:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This article can be passed if the problems listed below are addressed.
Trust it satisfies you.
I hope all the problems are addressed. Thanks.-- Indian Chronicles ( talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have asked for others in the community to comment on this at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Karma_and_particle_physics. Let us wait for responses, then continue with the review. Articleye ( talk) 09:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment The name Scientific interpretations is misleading since karma clearly does not lie inside the boundary of science. The content in it can be written somewhere else in a different section, perhaps under material theory; since it is noteworthy that the karma in Jainism is also a matter (pudgala) rather than cause/effect only. Also this karmic particles are minute, perhaps indivisible particles according to Jainism, not according to science. Rahul Jain ( talk) 16:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Writers such as Glasenapp, G.C. Pande and Padhmanabh Jaini are of the view that the concept of Karma or moral causation was perhaps pre-Aryan in origin. However, other scholars such as Surendranath Das Gupta, Kshiti Mohan Sen, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Radhakrishnan, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer and Swami Abhedananda trace the origins of Karma to the Brahmanic world view itself as it developed over the centuries between the origin of the Samhitas and the development of the Upanishads. In that sense, the doctrine of Karma developed across Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism at around the same time. It is not clear therefore that a 'most scholars' interpret the concept of Karma as pre-aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin. Academic opinion is divided on the issue. If this article is to insist that 'most scholars' are of the view that the concept of Karma is pre-aryan, then it needs to be cited.
I tend to be uncomfortable with the concept of 'Aryan' and 'pre-Aryan' when both Buddhist and Jain texts use the word 'Aryan' quite often to illustrate the origins and teachings of their founders i.e. the 'Aryan Eightfold path', the '4 Aryan truths' etc. In fact, the modern Indian word 'ji' comes from the Jain prakrit 'Aaji' which in turn means 'Arya'. The issue of Aryan vs pre-Aryan tends to instead fall within the Germanic school of Indian history but may not tally entirely with the facts. What is Aryan? What is pre-Aryan? Unless this is sorted out, care needs to be exercised in the flippant use of such terminology.
-- Dipendra2007 ( talk) 11:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Dipendra, the persons that you have mentioned are sound scholars in doctrine and philosophy but they are simply following the Hindu orthodox beliefs. We have to be careful in quoting such people. You will find hundreds of such quotes that reflect the Hindu orthodox beliefs. Infact even a few decades ago sound scholars wrongly believed Jainism to be “off-shoot” of Hinduism. With due respect to Swami Vivekanand, howsoever sound scholar and great man he may be, even he committed the mistake of classifying Jainism as an vedic offshoot. Then, there are current lot of pseudo-scholars (like Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak, and David Frawley) who are now influenced by Hindutva ideology who try to pass off tall claims as scholarly research. I know it is difficult for most Hindus—indoctrinated since childhood of Hindu orthodox beliefs—to come in terms with new scholarly researches and opinions. In the same way, there are many Jain orthodox belifes (like Lord Rishabha had a life span of 84 million years) that stretch credulity and although part of many books, cannot be used as a reference in wikipedia. Having said that let me address you concerns and prove my edits:
1. Karma, Samsara and re-birth are not mentioned in Vedas – Have you ever read Vedas? Well I have. They do not mention karma and re-birth or even any similar concept. This is what the scholars say–
2. Karma is non-brahminical theory. This fact is many times mentioned in Upanishads and Hindu Texts.
3. Brahmins (Vedics or Hindus) learned of Karma from Sramanas of which Jainism (and Buddhism) is a continuation. So quite apparently the origins of Karma lie in Sramana religions as all scholars are noting:
4. Usage of word “Aryan” in Jain texts– In Jain texts the word Arya is used to mean noble and is not reference to race. More specifically arya means those who are capable of learning religion as opposed to anarya i.e. irreligious people.
-- Anish ( talk) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Anish,
Thank you for the in-depth, informative and detailed response. This is a solid and I learnt a lot. I intend to follow-up by reviewing your citations over the holidays.
Let me respond though. You have not conclusively established that most scholars view Karma as pre-Aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin. This might well be a definitional issue. I would not dismiss Surendranath Das Gupta, Kshiti Mohan Sen, Radhakrishnan, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer and Swami Abhedananda (not Vivekananda) on the grounds that they were orthodox Hindus. These were rigorous international scholars respected in Ivy League and Oxbridge circles for their academic knowledge perhaps more than several scholars that you highlight.
I would respectfully caution against being selective vis-a-vis the sources one relies on by excluding serious scholarship that one may disagree with. If one were to use your reasoning, then Padmanabh Jaini needs to be excluded since he may be similarly viewed as an orthodox Jain while Robert Zydenbos and Von Glasenapp are specialists on Jain studies, not Hinduism. Further, many of the scholars I cite were hardly orthodox (I am not sure what the word means).
It is clear that the Upanishads represent a Kshatriya philosophical quest much like Buddhism and Jainism. To the extent that the doctrine of Karma is first enunciated in the Upanishads in considerable depth, indicates its kshatriya origins. Most scholarship agrees on that.
But does this make it pre-aryan or even non-Brahmanic. The Kshatriya imprint in the Samhitas - the main text of the Veda - is very significant. Many of the hymns were authored by kshatriyas. The Samhitas with its key Kshatriya contribution provides the pre-eminent legitimating reference point for the Brahmanic worldview. In other words, the Brahmanic worldview encapsulates the kshatriya element. The doctrine of Karma being kshatriya in origin does not make it non-Brahmanic. If this were the reasoning, half of the Rig Veda would be non-Brahmanic!
In short, the question remains unresolved whether the doctrine of Karma evolved over the several centuries (700 to 800 years?) between the compilation of the earlier Samhitas and the enunciation of the Upanishads or whether it was pre-Aryan in origin? Was it a parallel development across the three traditions i.e. the Upanishads, Buddhist and Jain or was it Sramanic in origin that was assimilated into the Brahmanic worldview? Scholarly opinion differs with significant weight on either side. Hence, we can not allege that 'most scholars' view Karma as pre-Aryan or non-Brahmanic in origin.
I would therefore support the compromise wording proposed by Alastair Haines.
The word 'Aryan' always meant 'noble' be it in the Samhitas, Upanishads, the Buddhist texts and Jainism. It did not have racial connotations in the modern sense until the German scholarship of Indic studies in the 1800s. The languages of North India belong to the Indo-European family. But did these languages emerge in India due to the migration of people into the Indian subcontinent or was it due to technological/cultural diffusion? These issues remain under serious scholarly debate. I therefore remain uncomfortable with terms such as pre-Aryan.
Let me end by thanking you for the rigorous response and the citations. I learnt a lot and intend to read them. -- Dipendra2007 ( talk) 07:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Dipendra, Thanks for your reply....even I am agreeable to Alastairs edit. Please feel free to review the references provided by me and point out the errors, if any. I have reasons to question the use of scholars used by you...its not just because that do not agree to my view point. The reasosn are : 1) Later scholarly research has shown some of their research wrong, 2) Their work proves that they have not done much research on Jainism 3) Most of them have dismissed Jainism as off-shoot of Hinduism. This is biggest their blunder and shows how much knoeledge of Jainism they have. They may be scholars in one area and well respected, but they cannot be quoted here for their off the cuff remarks. Take one example. One would assume National Geographic to be scholarly Magazine (and rightly so)...but some time back in one of its article on Wildlife and photography in India...they had quoted that Jainism and Buddhism are off-shoot of Hinduism in one off the cuff remark. Obviously an article on photography cannot be quoted as reference in Article on Indian religions. Anyway you have tried to discredit some of the scholars quoted by me just becasue I questioned some scholars quoted by you. This is wrong approach. I have done my home work well. I have more such references which I have not quoted here. Robert J. Zydenbos is a well known scholar in not only Jainism but Sanskrit, Indian Philosophy, Buddhism and Kannada. he is known more for his Dravidian studies rather than Jainology. Infact he earned his doctorate in Kannada Literature. At the same time he is a a sound scholar on Jainism. Padmamabh Jaini is a sound scholar on Sanskrit, Pali and Buddhism. He is head of Dept of Buddhist Studies in University of Berkley. Helmuth Von Glasenapp is known more for his work on Vedanta, Upanisads and Buddhism rather than simply on Jainism. I have chosen scholars for references well and after due consideration. It is also amply clear that Karma, Ahimsa, Moksa and Samsara are not mentioned in vedas. They were known only in later Upanasads after the time of Mahavira and Buddha. And you admit its of Kshyatriya Origin then how it be of Brhamanical origin. Itspite of my showing you that Upanishads themselves admitting that its of non-brahmanical origin, you are refusing to believe it. What more can I say? If you feel Alastairs edits are NPOV, even I am agreeable to it and lets leave it to that, rather than proving who came first?-- Anish ( talk) 08:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Anish,
Thank you for the response. I continue to learn from you. I did not intend to question the rigor of several of the scholars you cite. In fact, I intend to read many of them. Thank you for the lead.
I reiterate however that there are alternate academic points of view of equal rigor that have not been conclusively disproven. Several of the scholars you cite appear solid. The scholars I mention are no less rigorous when it comes to the study of religion. For example, Radhakrishnan and Ananda Coomaraswamy were established scholars of both Hinduism and Buddhism. I concede that none of them were authorities of the Jain tradition per se - but that is besides the point. We are discussing here the origins of Karma.
Your brief description of Axel Michael and Barbara Harshav seems to indicate that neither explicitly establishes that Karma is pre-Aryan in origin. Likewise your citation of Robert Zydenbos and Gavin Flood does not appear to indicate that the latter two conclusively asserts that Karma is pre-Aryan in origin. You cite the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Chandogya Upanishad. The quotes do not of themselves prove a pre-Aryan origin. They only establish the Kshatriya authorship of that particular philosophical discourse.
Buddhist sources describe Ajatashatru as an ardent disciple of the Buddha. Jain sources describe him as fervent follower of Mahavira. Hindu sources (e.g. the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) describe him as a foremost teacher of the higher learning and patron of the Brahmins. Archeological evidence (I refer here to A.L Basham, Romila Thapar and others) indicates that both Ajatashatru and his father - Bimbisara patronized Brahmins, Buddhists, Jains and Ajivikas. The multiple evidence at hand does not of itself indicate that Ajatashatru's teaching is pre-Aryan in origin.
The word Karma is mentioned in the Samhitas. I concede however that these were later insertions if one were to look at the syntax and vocabulary. But the 700 to 800 years between the compilation of the earlier Samhitas and the Upanishads could well be sufficient time for the development of such ideas in the three parallel traditions - i.e. Brahmanic, Buddhist and Jain. It does not necessarily indicate that a reportedly pre-Aryan Sramanic tradition influenced the Brahminic tradition in this one instance. The three traditions drew from the same Indic milieu. While it is not correct to describe Jainism as an offshoot of Hinduism, it remains a parallel tradition belonging to the same family - much like the shared backdrop of Christianity and Islam.
My last point is that the mere fact of Kshatriya antecedents of an intellectual doctrine - such as karma - does not necessarily make it non-Brahmanic when the very essence of the latter was a synthesis to begin with - one that its origins in the earliest of the Samhitas itself with the latter's considerable Kshatriya presence. Lets not forget that the Rig Veda does refer to Rishabha. The Brahmanic can not be exclusively confined to the Brahmin caste. The former can not be reduced to the latter.
An addenda. The Buddhist texts were first put down in writing in the 1st century BCE in Sri Lanka. They were recorded in Pali, a language systematized in the Theravada monasteries of Sri Lanka to be a fit recipient of the Buddhist texts. The Buddha himself spoke the same Magadhi Prakrit as Mahavira did. He did not speak Pali. In fact, no Pali inscriptions have been excavated in Bihar or Uttar Pradesh. Ashoka's inscriptions were in Prakrit.
The Jain texts were first put down in writing perhaps in the 4th century CE in Prakrit. The fact that the texts of the two religions were written down many centuries after their founders had died - itself reflects the possibility that no one tradition antedated the other - but each may well have extracted from the same Indic bedrock. The dating of the different texts is important to realize that Vivian Worthington's theory of Karma and Yoga as Sramanic in origin can be contested.
Let's therefore agree on the suggested wording of Alastair Haines. Best regards. -- Dipendra2007 ( talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think our definition of what is 'Brahmanic' differs. Several scholars are of the view that the doctrine of Karma is 'Brahmanic' as well as 'Sramanic'. That was my sole point.
I agree with you on the antecedents of the Jain texts. This said, the redaction or compilation as it has come down to us is dated the 4th century CE although much of the material in it might be much earlier in origin as you mention. But this makes it difficult to conclusively date the different material within the text i.e. what was 4th century BCE versus what was 4th century CE? All religious texts, not just the Jaina, demonstrate similar multiple layers.
In short, let's agree as you propose on the compromise wording of 'several scholars'. I will proceed to insert.
Best regards-- Dipendra2007 ( talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Jainism speaks of karmic "dirt", as karma is thought to be manifest as very subtle and microscopically imperceptible particles pervading the entire universe. [3] They are so small that one space-point—the smallest possible extent of space—contains an infinite number of karmic particles (or quantity of karmic dirt). citation needed
The citation is provided for the first line, the second is merely an elaboration/explanation of the first.
The relationship between the material and psychic karma is that of cause and effect. citation needed The material karma gives rise to the feelings and emotions in worldly souls, which—in turn—give rise to psychic karma, causing emotional modifications within the soul. citation needed These emotions, yet again, result in influx and bondage of fresh material karma. [4]
Isn't the citation provided enough to accommodate two lines?
Jains hold that the karmic matter is actually an agent that enables the consciousness to act within the material context of this universe. citation needed They are the material carrier of a soul's desire to physically experience this world. citation needed When attracted to the consciousness, they are stored in an interactive karmic field called kārmaṇa śarīra, which emanates from the soul. [5]
In this case too, the citation provided should be sufficient for the claims.
Thus, karma is a subtle matter surrounding the consciousness of a soul. citation needed When these two components—consciousness and ripened karma—interact, the soul experiences life as known in the present material universe. citation needed
This is merely the summation of the paragraph. Citations shouldn't be needed for these.
I find that there are enough citations for the claims, need opinion of other editors on this. Rahul Jain ( talk) 03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Redtigerxyz ( talk · contribs) 11:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Apart from this small points, every thing looks ok. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Few more problems:
I told you guys not to push the antiquity nonsense during our recent brush on talk India. To give you guys a fair chance I even compiled a list of reliable scholarly sources: User:Fowler&fowler/Sources for Jainism, in contrast to the garbage you were peddling there. You can't selectively quote two scholars and attempt to establish the fantasy that Hinduism got its notions of Karma, Samsara, Moksha, rebirth from Jainism. The majority of scholars don't agree with this view. I won't do anything now, but if you are fantasizing about pushing this in an FAC run, I will be there to check the details. Please don't consider this a threat. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
So basically now, you have resorted to the time and tested method used in Wikipedia to discredit the reliable sources and scholars quoted by someone who does not toe your line. However, what you are stating is nothing but your opinion, which reflects your bias. What you have stated changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. These references hold good. These are solid references that follow the rigorous Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Furthermore, the publishers are also reliable. In fact, I can turn the tables and analyse the references quoted by you and here is what I found about them, starting at the top:
So basically, what you are peddling here is references from a ragtag bunch which consists of an ex-soldier who did not complete his bachleors degree, a marine who specialises in fiction and non-fiction, a communist writer having little knowledge of classical languages, and someone whose primary fame is reaserch on economy of India or another one whose laurels rests on dissertation of the economic functions of South India’s medieval Tirupati temple. Even I could go on and on and shred to pieces the credit of all your references that you are mongering, by using your own tactics. Thanks for showing the way. So whose sources are more obscure and controversial? The academic credentials of the above list hardly inspires confidence to discuss the origins of Indian philosophical concepts. Some of them have done nothing on study on Jainism/ Buddhism or Sramana philosophy, or even on ancient History of India. And those who have done lack relevant academic qualifications or are controversial. And your sources end up contradicting each other.
One of your source Babb Lawrence says: Jainism is sometimes said to have been founded by Mahavira in the sixth century B.C.E. In reality, however, Jain traditions are much older than this, dating back in all probability to the teachings of Pārśvanāth, who lived in the ninth century B.C.E. Then you gleefully quote Basham that Mahavira is the founder of Jainism, contradicting yourself. This is quite repetitive. And some of them are so error ridden like: Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), who claims that Mahavira was a younger contemporary of Buddha. Younger??? Not only this para, but, the entire book should not quoted here, if this is the type to errors it contains. I can understand a difference in opinion, but not patently obvious errors. The same error is made by Doniger, Wendy who places Buddha before Mahavira.
Furthermore, some of your own sources claim that Karma, Moksha and renunciation concepts originated from Sramana’s and then adopted by Brhamanas. You kept these sources for a different purpose, but did not realise that it actually did the opposite.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Karma in Jainism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
==Karma in Jainism : A class Article== A class as this article satisfies the necessary conditions of A class articles as per wiki standards and is ready to be classified as a featured Article. -- Anish Shah 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 17:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The section (Origins and Influence) needs to be re-written Rather than fighting over who came first, I think it would be better to provide an outline of development of Karma in vedic stream of thought and development of karma in Jainism; perhaps in two different paragraphs. Also, the last paragraph seems to be in wrong section. Rahul Jain ( talk) 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the first paragraph. It looked as if some kind of tug-of-war between Vedics and Shramans claiming "we were first". Instead, I have added two paragraphs. One contains the origins of karma in Jainism and the other contains the early development in Jainism specifically. This seems to be more in line with the title of the article Karma in Jainism. Rahul Jain ( talk) 11:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |first2=
has generic name (
help)