Talk:Hinduism and Jainism/Archive 1

Inline citations in the lead
The lead section only summarizes the article and there isn't really a need for the inline citations, is it? Regarding the recent edits of User:RegentsPark, here are some quotes from the text, that directly support the materials.



Rahul Jain (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Vedas
The article says :-

''The scriptures known as Vedas are the foundations of Hinduism. As per Hinduism, these scriptures do not have any author and are present since the beginning of the universe This position was countered by Jains who said that saying vedas as authorless was equivalent to saying that anonymous poems are written by nobody. Jain scriptures, on the contrary, were believed by them to be of human origin and hence had greater worth'' (citation given :Dundas, p. 234.)

The above line in article seems to be original research, as Vedas In Hindu tradition are the creation of Brahma. See search link -  --- going by that can Dundas be accepted as a reliable source ??? I think Dundas did not research well before writing.

The whole article is based on only 2-3 sources like Dundas, Glasennap and Jaini - and when the article was declined previously at AfC - many reviewers had commented same and asked that we need additional sources.

Also one of the editors had therefore had suggested that Wouldn't it be best to restore (history merge) the draft at the original AFC page so the previous article history and reviewers' comments are not lost? see comment at -Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article (and Paul Dundas), in my opinion, refers to Apaurusheyatva of vedas. The precise quote from Dundas is
 * There is also this paper which says that similar claims were made by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa of Mimamsa school of Hinduism.
 * --Rahul (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * --Rahul (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * --Rahul (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, I am not saying that you have written something which is not mentioned by Dundas. But if Dundas or someone else mentions something wrong about Vedas - we cannot take that statement as true because there are thousands of other sources which says Vedas were authored by Brahma and if Dundas say something absurd like (Vedas are)anonymous poems were not written by anybody  we cannot mention that in article. Even I can publish a book (if I have resources) are write or twist words to change facts. We cannot allow such things to be written on wiki Jethwarp (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole article Apaurusheyatva is also wrong and almost unsourced . We have a policy we cannot cite Wiki article as citation.
 * As far as my knowledge gore Apaurusheyatva is a sanskrit word which literallt translates to somethinig not done/written by purusha (or man) - which means it is an act of God. The above article also says Vedas were heard by Rishis - which part however is correct as it has come from mouth of Brahma, who recited it and were later written down, will have to clean up whole Apaurusheyatva article, it seems -- Jethwarp (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * apaurusheya, being 'not man-originated' ; Apaurusheya (not made by a man); apaurusheya – means not the work of mankind or beyond human imagination; apaurusheya not composed by human entity but uttered by Paramatma (SOME AVAILABLE MEANINGS OF WORD) Jethwarp (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources? --Rahul (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Here are the high-level problems I see with the current draft: It is unclear what the intended scope of the article is supposed to be. Is it the relation between the theology and teachings of the two religions, or the historical and present-day relationship between adherents of the two religions? The scope of the article will determine the organization and relevant sources/material for the article. The bulk of the article should be based on comprehensive sources on the topic, ie Hindu-Jain relations. Trying to look through books on Jainism to see what they say about Hinduism and vice versa is just a recipe for on-wiki synthesis and (possibly unintentional) POV pushing. At present, the sources being used are pretty sub-standard for this topic (note: this is different from their being "unreliable") and at best should be used with care as supplementary sources with proper attribution. If there are no sources that deal with the topic in a comprehensive manner, wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. I think the above two issues need to be addressed before we get into the analyzing the text of the article and consider moving it into mainspace. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Scope
 * Sources

Wait, I just noticed that there is also the mainspace article Hinduism and Jainism that was recently (re?)created. Rahul, can you clarify the relation between this draft and that article so that we can avoid duplication of discussion and effort? Abecedare (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Its the same. This is the proposed draft for that article. The name of the article does not matter, its the content. Can't the scope of the article be relation between the theology and teachings of the two religions as well as the historical and present-day relationship between adherents of the two religions?


 * Secondly, there are special sections, in two of the books mentioned, that deals specifically with the topic Jainism and Hinduism. In Paul Dundas, we have a chapter Jain relativism and attitudes towards Hinduism and Buddhism and a subsection The Jains and the Hindus. Similarly in Glasenapp, we have Jainism and indian religions and a subsection Jainism and Hinduism. They are comprehensive treatment of the topic and the Jain relationship with Hindus is notable enough to be metioned. Rahul Jain (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:Synthesis does not apply here. It would apply if I use two or more different sources, combine them, and come to a conclusion which was not there initially in any of the sources. This is not at all done in the article. Rahul Jain (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just had a spin through Glasenapp and can see why there might be some scope now that the article title has been changed. I'm not sure yet that there is enough to justify a separate article, rather than some notes at Indian religions. What are we actually trying to do here? List similarities and differences? I worry that we might fall into a trap of comparing apples and oranges unless we can emphasise that one has its origins in the other. - Sitush (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to create something like Islamic–Jewish_relations. We also have a lot of coverage in Dundas, and both Jainism and Hinduism are Indian Religions so there are a lot of similar philosophical concepts and the religious boundaries are not so rigid in India. Conversion from Hinduism to Jainism and vice-versa is not usually seen as apostasy. If we cover all these, there is enough for a complete article. Rahul (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One problem with the comparison between this article and Islamic-Jewish relations is that the latter is actually about the relations, i.e., the way in which the two religions have interacted over the centuries. And, there seems to be significant interaction to report. Jainism and Hinduism, on the other hand, appear to be religions that draw on some overlapping spiritual traditions but don't have the same history of interaction (conflict and amity) that Islam and Judaism have had. It seems to me that you're attempting to write an article that is more similar to Abrahamic religions than to Islamic–Jewish_relations. --regentspark (comment) 21:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm also concerned that because Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism all contain some essential relationship, we'll end up with Hindu cf Jain, Hindu cf Buddhism, Jain cf Buddhism and will in large part just be repeating ourselves. That's why we have the Indian religions article, surely? - it equates to the Abrahamic one, although it is poor at present. - Sitush (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there is some overarching way of expressing the commonality between Hinduism, Jainism and possibly Buddhism? Indian religions doesn't seem right. Sikhism, for example, is an Indian religion but draws more from the monotheistic Islam than it does from the polytheistic Hinduism. --regentspark (comment) 00:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have Buddhism and Jainism and Buddhism_and_Hinduism. Would it be appropriate to merge all of them into Indian Religions article? We can also create an article titled "Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism" (or some other logical permutation) if that's appropriate. Otherwise, I think we can let the three articles develop independently. Rahul (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with seeing how this article develops independently. But, it does need pruning and more focus and I've pruned the lead a bit to focus it toward the spiritual traditions (feel free to revert/rewrite). The amity between Jains and Hindus could easily be a subsection somewhere close to the end of the article. --regentspark (comment) 15:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Will it be fine to move the article to main article space? Can you move it, if it is? Rahul (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved with a note asking that it be taken to AfD if someone thinks it needs to be deleted. --regentspark (comment) 16:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Society and Culture, and dundas
Is Dundas reliable source? Because he sounds like a pro jain source. Can anyone give me a link of his book "the jains" and page 237 ? . And I removed the line "The difference in the rituals of practitioners of the two religions would be that the Jains do not give any importance to bathing in holy water, cremating or burying ascetics, offering sacrifices to the dead and burning widows" because it's 100% WP:FRINGE since Hinduism forbids all sacrifices and burning of widows for the present age. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added another source regarding Sati (burning of widows). Regarding reliability of Dundas, you can check with the WP:RSN. Here is the specific quote from Dundas at page 237:
 * --Rahul (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you made it up? Show me where the page is saying. Dundas is a pro-jain source, certainly lacking the account for writing about other religions. Also, if you are talking about the secondary sources, what about these sources, animal sacrifice is forbidden,,, and Sati is also forbidden, That's why i had removed it.. And it should be. 06:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladesmulti (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 November 2013
 * Did you made it up? Show me where the page is saying. Dundas is a pro-jain source, certainly lacking the account for writing about other religions. Also, if you are talking about the secondary sources, what about these sources, animal sacrifice is forbidden,,, and Sati is also forbidden, That's why i had removed it.. And it should be. 06:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladesmulti (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 November 2013


 * Bladesmulti took this to WP:RSN without informing people here unfortunately. I've replied there. Dundas looks like a RS to me. Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad, will remember next time. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a big problem. Note above I've signed for you as it wasn't clear that post was by you. What I'm not clear about is the sentence you removed - I assumed it was sourced to Dundas, but now I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sentence i removed, is sourced to Helmuth von Glasenapp, he hasn't well described that bit, and treating hinduism which was pre krishna as hinduism that is post krishna. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the precise problem? Reliability of Dundas or Reliability of Glasenapp? --Rahul (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing anymore, except that there's a need of Dundas's book' page 237. And removal of the line "The difference in the rituals of practitioners of the two religions would be that the Jains do not give any importance to bathing in holy water, cremating or burying ascetics, offering sacrifices to the dead and burning widows". Bladesmulti (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why no responses have been made in this regard? There's still no verification about the sentence where the article is claiming that Jain regarded named scriptures to be false, neither anything has been suggested related to "The difference in the rituals of practitioners of the two religions would be that the Jains do not give any importance to bathing in holy water, cremating or burying ascetics, offering sacrifices to the dead and burning widows" but only a WP:FRINGE... Bladesmulti (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I also doubt about animal sacrifices, because if animal sacrifices are allowed by Vedas or Manusmriti, you will need specific source for that. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have provided the quote from Dundas' book in my earlier comment, if you want further verification, I would suggest that you read the mentioned book.
 * The sentence that you quoted is well referenced, (Glasenapp p. 494). I have also provided a supplementary source which discusses Hindu Sati and Jain Sati briefly.
 * The sentence regarding animal sacrifices is currently referenced. If you can bring reliable source which contradicts this in any sense, we can discuss and include that. Rahul (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This sounds more of a social issue, than religion, the Sati practice was temporary(done after islamic invasions), Animal sacrifices being forbidden for present age(3102 BCE - now), and bathing in holy river(highly social practice). Bladesmulti (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources? --Rahul (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Animal sacrifice Sources,,,, and Sati source, given before too, don't know about Holy river bathing though, but there's probably some. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Awakening by Subrata Das Gupta is not a reliable source for this. It is a story. Other sources you provided does not seem to contradict anything given in the article. --Rahul (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Another one, Since it's not allowed to hindus in the present age, how it can be regarded important to hindus? That is 100% contradiction, it's better if you just remove that one liner, since it's making no sense, and if you went explaining, you will only mislead people believing that this page lacks explaining the rational differences of both religions. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's also not a reliable source. --Rahul (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Forbidden as per dharmshastra. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would request you to read WP:RS. --Rahul (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't 2+2=4? Or I have to describe the obvious more than 3 times now. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is mathematics relavant here? You don't have to describe the obvious, just bring the reliable source which states it. The sources that you say are regarding Sati are not reliable. If you want, you can go to WP:RSN regarding "Awakening", "Yantra, Mantra, Tantra" and "Hindu book of the dead". --Rahul (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, at least 3 sources have been given, by the writers of multiple books, you can prove that they are not reliable, just like we proved before that Dundas is not reliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you need to get opinion of other editors and form a consensus before removing the sourced material. --Rahul (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone would agree that "burning widows" or "offering sacrifices" are not the teachings of hinduism, so why you are misleading with some WP:FRINGE which makes no sense ultimately. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. I have attributed the claim to Glasenapp, who made it. If there are sources which differ, we can insert them too giving their due weight. Also, please don't replace a source to the tag, as you did here.

It does matter what the writer has wrote, and Glasenapp has wrote utter nonsense. Are you saying that anyone can write any thing and present a false source(because it hasn't been verified) here? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What false source? --Rahul (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Dundas, p. 237" that one. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Paul Dundas is reliable source and I have already quoted the exact statement. Removing the source is not correct. At most you can replace the source with verification needed tag if you don't trust me.
 * Helmuth Von Glasenapp is also a reliable source. You can take him too to WP:RSN, but don't just remove the claim just because you find it wrong. We can insert reliably sourced contradictory claims (if they exist) in order to achieve neutral point of view. --Rahul (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends upon what he is talking about, and since he's heavily misleading for a particular line, he can't be used there. Also i have added the tag right now, but you have to verify the source as quickly as possible. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How else can I verify? There is another source, which says somewhat similar thing. It has a google book preview availible to me. Maybe you can verify it too.
 * No mahabharat, purana and vedas? More concerned about Mahabharat though. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ramayana do exist in Nandi-sutra. I am citing it as a supplementary reference. Regarding Sati, there is a mention of it in the Whitney Kelting book which compares Jain Sati with Hindu Sati. Apparently, there are some stories about Sati (virtuous wives) who, in hindu stories, dies along with their husbands and in Jain stories, they become a jain nun after the death of their husbands. --Rahul (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ramayana exists, but not mahabharat, purana or vedas, And Sati has no role for the present age, it's just a suicide, nothing more than that, it wasn't done for any religious purpose either. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added this to the article: "Helmuth Von Glasenapp writes that the difference in the rituals of practitioners of the two religions would be that the Jains do not give any importance to bathing in holy water, cremating or burying ascetics, offering sacrifices to the dead and burning widows. Jains share a list of names of sati (virtuous women) with Hindus. The narratives of those Sati have certain variations. In Hindu context, a sati protects her husband and his family and has the intention to die before or with her husband. M. Whitney Kelting notes that the highest virtue for a Hindu women is to become satimata by dying on the funeral pyre of her husband. Jain sati, however, sees renunciation, rather than self-sacrifice as the highest virtue. Jains explicitly reject any notion of bodily self-sacrifice."


 * The claims are sourced and even attributed to scholars. We have two scholars who say somewhat similar thing about burning of widows. If there are scholars who differ, we can add their views too, and hence achieve neutrality. But please don't delete an information just because you think that it is wrong. (You might want to read NOTTRUTH) --Rahul (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You must read WP:FRINGE, which your source is, from a complete no namer. Who is "whitney kelting"? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you self-revert, atleast on the basis of WP:3RR for now. Unfortunately, I can count four reverts already. Then, we can discuss the reliability of Kelting. --Rahul (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR doesn't apply if some kind of misleading or inappropriate junk is removed which is 100% contradictory with the actual information. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it does. --Rahul (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Aren't we getting off topic already? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A simple google search, this is M. Whitney Kelting. and Helmuth Von Glasenapp was an eminent West German Indologist who taught at the University of Konigsberg. Both are reliable. --Rahul (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet they are not reliable enough for such serious subject, for claiming something which is contradictory with other writings or scriptures itself. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If other scholars differ, we can mention them too. --Rahul (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article feels biased and has fragments of hatred towards either Hindus and non vegetarians on the basis that someone or some religion calls it a bad practice. Additionally, article provides inadequate comparison between two religions. For example, 1. Article provides information that Hindus refer to people who don't believe in veda as nastik, but what jains refer to people who do not believe in their holy scriptures is not provided. 2. Introduction for Jainism is given fairly in detail, whereas Hindus are explained in one sentence people who follow Hinduism. 3. Mention of fisherman and hunter is in condescending tone.

This article is inclined towards Hinduism and shows Jainism as a result of revolt in ancient beliefs of Hinduism. However, even scholars have agreed now that both are unique and have coexisted in ancient times. The text should be redrafted to show the point of difference and not that Jains were those who opposed the Hindu beliefs and Vedas. Jains could argue that Hinduism was founded by those opposing the Jinvani. Classic story regarding that argument is the story of Marichi which is found in both texts.

Therefore, this being endless argument needs specific attention. This article should focus on the differences and similarities in beliefs and practices only. It should not use words like x dont believe in y or opposed y. Instead x believes a while y says b -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  07:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Especially the lead section, pinging  -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  07:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There's also no mention of the doctrine of Anekantavada of Mahavira which somehow explains the relation and differences between the two. According to that principal, two people can percieve the same knowledge in two different ways. This clearly explains Shiva as Rishabha. Rishabha attained Moksha at kailasha, the place where Shiva lives. Shiva has thrishul, Rishabha also had trishul (shool means Gyan in Sanskrit, trishul referes to ratantray). Shiva is depicted as bhola which has no worldly desires so is rishabha. Shiva has third eye which demolishes the world. Rishabha has third eye (Kevala gyana) which demolishes his worldy ambitions (karma). Shiva is carrier of ganga. Ganga is depicted to have entered the world washing the feet of Rishabha. Shiva's vehicle is Bull so is Rishabha's symbol. Shiva is shown married to shakti (goddess of power), Tirthankara is depicted to own the greatest of world's power. Shiva is shown playing his damru, Rishabha also damruing (couldnt find a better word for English) his karmas. Linga also means adobe or residence. Shiva linga resembles kailash parvat where Shiva resides or Rishabha attained Moksha. Jains also worship places where arihants attained Moksha like Shikharji mangitungi etc.-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  08:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Similar depictions of kala dravya or time (jainism) as kali (goddess). Brahma is another name for Rishabha because he created the 4th kala by teaching people worldly deeds when kalpavriksha fell and his image resembles the samavasarana completely. Durga, or any other deity of Hinduism can be understood within Jainism as well with the principle of Anekantavada. Famous Jain saints have time and again stated that the graphical depictions of philosophies which were created for people for them to understand easily, were misunderstood to be beings in themselves. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  08:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sir, you can improve the article as long as you use reliable sources. I agree with you that article should focus on similarities and differences between the philosophies of the two religions. If you want to make some constructive changes, you are welcome to do so.- Rtalk 13:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent removal of content
Recently, the following content has been removed: "To demonstrate the authority of Jainism over Hinduism, jain monks such as Haribhadra wrote satires in which he says that cheats, theives and other low tricksters gathered and created various stories which were then ascribed to various gods. This is how the Hindu pantheon of gods came to be. He made a point that humans would imitiate gods, if gods behaved badly in the stories, so will the humans. Hindu deities, such as Shiva, are generally viewed in purely negative terms within Jainism."

Harisena, another digambara monk, writes that a Jain monk and nun broke their vow of chasity and gave birth to a boy who was named Rudra (literally: "terrible"). Rudra is one of the ephitets of Shiva. Rudra became a monk and meditated on Mount Kailasa which is a sacred place associated with Shiva. At Kailasa, he was attracted to a group of girls who came there to bath. Their father was a king whose throne was taken by his evil brother. Rudra restored their father to the throne and consequently married those girls. The magical heat of his semen and his massive penis killed most of the girls. Uma was not destroyed by this because she new him from previous lives. Shiva then declared himself as the creator of the world when he experienced tremendous sexual plessure with Uma. He then spread the shiva doctrine. The kings were afraid that they might lose their kingdom to Shiva, hence they tricked Uma to reveal the secret of how he may be killed. They then killed them while they were sleeping together. Harisena says that linga, the emblem of shiva's penis, is situated all around India to counter the effect of murdered Shiva's magic. This is credited to a Jain monk who advised the kings to do so. Thus, Harisena not only degrade Shiva but also attributes the presence of his penis to Jainism."

I am not sure how this is not-sourced as mentioned in the. The book as well as page number is mentioned clearly. Therefore, I am reinstating it. I request the concerned editor to please discuss as per WP:BRD before removing it again. --Rahul (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw two more paragraphs, apart from those mentioned above were removed. They did not have inline references indeed. However, general references are provided in the "sources" section and hence it is not a reason good enough to remove it just for the lack of inline references. I will, anyways, add them back with proper inline citation soon. --Rahul (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic
I have removed the controversial content because its Not Encyclopedic- You are adding stories written by Jain monks to the article. While editing Wikipedia, we should remember that we are editing an encyclopedia, like Encyclopaedia Britannica. Instead of copying complete satires, a statement regarding the same should be added. Like 'Jain monks like Harisena, .. wrote satires on Shiva mythology'. Pinging admin for better opinion. -Rtalk 03:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is completely encyclopedic to write what kind of stories they wrote. Also, if your bold edits are reverted, please do not edit-war. I would kindly refer you to WP:BRD. --Rahul (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)