I don't understand what you are getting so angry about. As this is a talk page, I just wanted to tell you my personal views on why I did what I did. How is that a reason for you to get so offended? And I did not misquote Padmanabh Jaini. Nobody can call that misquoting. Jaini, Collins, Upinder Singh and multiple others have said similar things. And "obfuscating"? That means writing material in a way that is hard to understand. When did I ever do that? As for anti-brahminism, yes I am very concerned about any attempt to paint a minority group as the symbol of all evil. Whether that be Muslims, Christians, Brahmins or anyone else.
Anyway OK look I am not interested in quarreling with you either, I won't make any further changes, hope that makes you happy. ForestTeacher ( talk) 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
lol, looks like you are really offended and angry. Ofcourse you misquoted sources and obfuscated. Here is a sample (let admin take note):
1) You wrote "In later centuries, perhaps as an attempt to assimilate into society at large, even Sramana writers like Jinasena produced lawbooks which declared that the Varna system was not of Brahminical origin, but had, in fact, been created by the first Jain Tirthankara Vrsabha. [1]"
This is your own POV. You gave a wrong portrayal of varna system. To correct you, i wrote the historical context in which jainas wrote law books here - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shramana&diff=476069702&oldid=476067379
In later periods, the Jains migrated towards the West and South of India and established themselves as prosperous communities in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta courts. The Digambaras in the South could not preach against social ranks at the cost of their survival. It was suicidal for them to follow the brahmanical law-books. Therefore in the 8th century, Jinasena produced Jain lawbooks in the guise of puranas glorifying Jain Thirthankaras and declaring Varnas were not of Brahmanical origin but was promulgated by the first of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, Vrsabha, at the beginning of the present kalpa'. Vrashabha prescribed Jain rites for birth, marriage, death and instituted a class of Jain-brahmans. [2]
2) You wanted to portray as though largest number of monks who made up though Shramana movements were brahmins. This is quite an lol point. Collins mentions this in the context of Buddhism, but you twisted it, used selective portions of Collins work to obfuscate and wrote this:
"However, it has been noted by authors such as Randall Collins that some offshoots of the Shramana movement like Buddhism were actually more of reform movements within the educated religious classes (which was mostly composed of Brahmins), than rival movements from outside these classes. [3] The largest number of monks in the early movement were of Brahmin origin, and virtually all the monks were recruited from the two upper classes of society. [4] Similarly, a group of eleven Brahmins was the first to accept the Jainism preached by Mahavira, becoming his chief disciples or Ganadharas. [5]
So I corrected your obfuscation, quoted the reference exactly word by word in the References section here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shramana&diff=476062909&oldid=476058427 , and wrote this paragraph in the text section: With regard to Buddhism, Randall Collins opined that Buddhism was more of reform movement within the educated religious classes, composed mostly of Brahmins, than a rival movement from outside these classes, with the largest number of monks in the early movement derived from Brahmin origin, and virtually all the monks were recruited from the two upper classes of society [6] -- = No ||| Illusion = ( talk) 06:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra
You seem to be a master obfuscator (expected this).
1) Obviously Buddhism is not the standard bearer for sharamana traditions. Your contention that you are "clearly talking about early Buddhism here" is plain falsity. Its obvious you are just playing around to push your obfuscations.
2) I don't quote references word by word either. In this case i had to do it bcoz of your obfuscations.
3) Rubbish. You quoted varna system out of context, you never wrote anything about the historical context in which Jinasena / law-books of jains thru puranas came into being.
4) Ofcourse buddhist monks depended on patronisation by the wealthy. People got fooled by the concept of "earning" good karma. Early buddhist traditions upheld caste system for its own survival. With your edit conflicts, obfuscations, moving content, how can anyone expect to complete writing an article. Am not interested in jumping to support buddhists, like how you jump to do obfuscations for brahmins, lol
Anyways now you have the article all to yourself. You can do what you want with it. Am not writing on that page anymore. All obfuscations someday come to a nought. Keep trying to manipulate content for all you will. Lets see how the future comes to pass. -- = No ||| Illusion = ( talk) 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra
I have no idea why the above discussions have not taken place at Talk:Shramana. What I do know is that both of you are way over the three revert rule. I urge you to discuss at the appropriate venue, where I have started a thread for that purpose. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 18:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
jaini
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I don't understand what you are getting so angry about. As this is a talk page, I just wanted to tell you my personal views on why I did what I did. How is that a reason for you to get so offended? And I did not misquote Padmanabh Jaini. Nobody can call that misquoting. Jaini, Collins, Upinder Singh and multiple others have said similar things. And "obfuscating"? That means writing material in a way that is hard to understand. When did I ever do that? As for anti-brahminism, yes I am very concerned about any attempt to paint a minority group as the symbol of all evil. Whether that be Muslims, Christians, Brahmins or anyone else.
Anyway OK look I am not interested in quarreling with you either, I won't make any further changes, hope that makes you happy. ForestTeacher ( talk) 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
lol, looks like you are really offended and angry. Ofcourse you misquoted sources and obfuscated. Here is a sample (let admin take note):
1) You wrote "In later centuries, perhaps as an attempt to assimilate into society at large, even Sramana writers like Jinasena produced lawbooks which declared that the Varna system was not of Brahminical origin, but had, in fact, been created by the first Jain Tirthankara Vrsabha. [1]"
This is your own POV. You gave a wrong portrayal of varna system. To correct you, i wrote the historical context in which jainas wrote law books here - http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shramana&diff=476069702&oldid=476067379
In later periods, the Jains migrated towards the West and South of India and established themselves as prosperous communities in the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta courts. The Digambaras in the South could not preach against social ranks at the cost of their survival. It was suicidal for them to follow the brahmanical law-books. Therefore in the 8th century, Jinasena produced Jain lawbooks in the guise of puranas glorifying Jain Thirthankaras and declaring Varnas were not of Brahmanical origin but was promulgated by the first of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, Vrsabha, at the beginning of the present kalpa'. Vrashabha prescribed Jain rites for birth, marriage, death and instituted a class of Jain-brahmans. [2]
2) You wanted to portray as though largest number of monks who made up though Shramana movements were brahmins. This is quite an lol point. Collins mentions this in the context of Buddhism, but you twisted it, used selective portions of Collins work to obfuscate and wrote this:
"However, it has been noted by authors such as Randall Collins that some offshoots of the Shramana movement like Buddhism were actually more of reform movements within the educated religious classes (which was mostly composed of Brahmins), than rival movements from outside these classes. [3] The largest number of monks in the early movement were of Brahmin origin, and virtually all the monks were recruited from the two upper classes of society. [4] Similarly, a group of eleven Brahmins was the first to accept the Jainism preached by Mahavira, becoming his chief disciples or Ganadharas. [5]
So I corrected your obfuscation, quoted the reference exactly word by word in the References section here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shramana&diff=476062909&oldid=476058427 , and wrote this paragraph in the text section: With regard to Buddhism, Randall Collins opined that Buddhism was more of reform movement within the educated religious classes, composed mostly of Brahmins, than a rival movement from outside these classes, with the largest number of monks in the early movement derived from Brahmin origin, and virtually all the monks were recruited from the two upper classes of society [6] -- = No ||| Illusion = ( talk) 06:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra
You seem to be a master obfuscator (expected this).
1) Obviously Buddhism is not the standard bearer for sharamana traditions. Your contention that you are "clearly talking about early Buddhism here" is plain falsity. Its obvious you are just playing around to push your obfuscations.
2) I don't quote references word by word either. In this case i had to do it bcoz of your obfuscations.
3) Rubbish. You quoted varna system out of context, you never wrote anything about the historical context in which Jinasena / law-books of jains thru puranas came into being.
4) Ofcourse buddhist monks depended on patronisation by the wealthy. People got fooled by the concept of "earning" good karma. Early buddhist traditions upheld caste system for its own survival. With your edit conflicts, obfuscations, moving content, how can anyone expect to complete writing an article. Am not interested in jumping to support buddhists, like how you jump to do obfuscations for brahmins, lol
Anyways now you have the article all to yourself. You can do what you want with it. Am not writing on that page anymore. All obfuscations someday come to a nought. Keep trying to manipulate content for all you will. Lets see how the future comes to pass. -- = No ||| Illusion = ( talk) 08:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra
I have no idea why the above discussions have not taken place at Talk:Shramana. What I do know is that both of you are way over the three revert rule. I urge you to discuss at the appropriate venue, where I have started a thread for that purpose. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 18:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
jaini
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).