Talk:Dandamis

Dandi Swami was a Digambar Jain Acharya references to which, can be found in the first reference of article itself. His reply was that worldly affairs can't give you true knowledge. Quoted text "no one coming in the bravery of European clothes - cavalry cloak and broad brimmed hat and top-boots, such as Macedonians wore - could lear their wisdom. To do that, he must strip himself naked and learn to sit on the hot stones besides them". Such a mode of Tapasya is there in Jainism only. Pankaj Jain 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is patently false. You cannot possibly try to claim that only Jains engage(d) in tapas exercises. Hindus and the Ājīvikas and many other śramaṇa movements too numerous to number engaged in tapas exercises - a practice which, incidentally, is found in the Rigveda. Here's an entire book on the subject of Vedic practices (perhaps the predecessor/parallel of what became the śramaṇa movement) about generating spiritual power, which literally means "heat":


 * Your insistence on claiming everything ascetic as "Jain" is ahistoric. Ogress smash! 07:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed one should be careful and not superficially generalize. Similarly, it is also wrong to assume that everything in ancient India was 'brahminical' or 'Vedic', because very obviously it was not. (For instance, we have it on the authority of the older Upaniṣads themselves that the doctrine of karma and rebirth was unknown to brahmins, and they had to learn it from a king, a kṣatriya, who by definition has no traditional right to teach the Vedas. And we also know that the Buddha and Mahāvīra were kṣatriyas.) Also, the ancient Greek reports are interesting but notoriously imprecise, and sometimes plainly wrong, on certain details. As far as I know, the common consensus nowadays is to assume that the 'gymnosophists' were śramaṇas. Whether they can be identified as Jainas is again a different matter. Vidyasagara (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed one should be careful and not superficially generalize. Similarly, it is also wrong to assume that everything in ancient India was 'brahminical' or 'Vedic', because very obviously it was not. (For instance, we have it on the authority of the older Upaniṣads themselves that the doctrine of karma and rebirth was unknown to brahmins, and they had to learn it from a king, a kṣatriya, who by definition has no traditional right to teach the Vedas. And we also know that the Buddha and Mahāvīra were kṣatriyas.) Also, the ancient Greek reports are interesting but notoriously imprecise, and sometimes plainly wrong, on certain details. As far as I know, the common consensus nowadays is to assume that the 'gymnosophists' were śramaṇas. Whether they can be identified as Jainas is again a different matter. Vidyasagara (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)