Talk:Indian religions/Archive 2

An attempt at consensus solution to prevent edit wars on Indian religion
Indian religion page has been subjected to un-necessary edit wars that could have been prevented by arriving at a consensus that takes into account multiple view points in the spirit of wikipedia. This consensus is attempted taking into consideration that that even the scholars can have discord in opinions and that there cannot be an absolute view on events pertaining to pre-history.

Hence the table below provides an attempt to arrive at a consensus of divergent views.
 * 1) Edit 1 (column 1)– reflects IAF views
 * 2) Edit 2 (column 2)– reflects views of Anishshah19 and Manish Modi
 * 3) Column 3 is an attempt to harmonize the both views to make it NPOV
 * 4) Column 4 is an explanation

'''I hope that IAF will concur to the above and hence seek his help and cooperation. '''--Anish (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Now AnishShah19 has finally come to the negotiating table after a long & protracted engagement of reversions and lots of discussions. This compliant attitude after relenting to differing opinions of mine, and aimed at convergence of views toward the final version of the article, is welcome.


 * Anishshah19 :  IAF..it is not the first time that I have offered a friendly consensus…when you started talk on my talk page ….I took it as an attempt to create a consensus in good faith but it was not to be. I had offered before also….here. Let us try to harmonise our views and get away from the negative edit wars in the spirit of Anekantvada and tolerant Indian culture. --Anish (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wanted to convey. I had a slight expectation that you would allude to that very same thing, and you infact did. In that link, my reply is the same which I have repeated above --> No trading of edits, come what may. In your table, edits 1,2 and 4 were totally unnecessary, because were never under any disagreement in the first place. I think you simply placed them to give me the same sort of illusion that you have "agreed" to my edits.

No. The bone of contention is the number 3 entry in your table regarding Jainism and sramanas. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But having said that, we should all remember that factual correctness cannot be traded for anything else. It is the primary ordain of wikipedia. So, at the end no one can say, "oh look, I agreed to x number of your edits, so you gotta agree to x number of mine".


 * Anishshah19 :  The fact that “1 + 1 = 2” cannot be negotiated. Period. But in cases where there are scholarly discords and multiple scholarly views, especially when in case of pre-historic period….wikipedia is inclusive enough to accommodate all views as long as proper respectable scholarly references are provided. Let us follow the Wikipedia policy strictly. --Anish (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AnishShah19's agreement to most of my version of edits in my reverts agreed is quite appreciable. Now the contention is over one line in the third column, "Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion. Buddhism and Jainism are a continuation of Shramana traditions. Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara, is often considered as the founder of Jainism. However, now the scholars hold that Parsva, the 23rd Tirthankara, (9th Century BCE) to be a historical person and that Vardhamana Mahavira rather than being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition."

Let us slice-and-dice that statement and examine each of its parts :-

1) Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion.

Please look that's not SHRamana, but SHAmanic traditions. I suggest you look at the article on Shamanism. McEvilley and Flood refer to the latter whenever he talks of links between Jainism and older civilizations. According to the shamanism article it is said to be any cult practice like invoking spirits, fire, eccentric behaviour like nudity and all that.

The vratya-muni culture described in the Vedas, as pointed out by McEvilley is precisely this Shamanism. The nudity, smearing bodies with ash, long hair, singing, dancing, dirty stuff, is precisely what Vratyas did, as Gavin Flood described. Also, do note that the Vedas do not have the word 'sramana' (as you had incorrectly pointed from an Atharva Ved verse). Yes, Vedas describe Vartyas and munis as McEvilley and Flood have pointed out.

Now the crux here is that along with the Jaina culture, McEvilley does not fail to include Saiva and Ajivika traditions also, because like the vartya-muni ascetics, these 2 groups also followed the same characteristics :- long hair, wearing animal skin, timeless penances. This is even the description of Lord Shiva here http://www.monochrom.at/polytheism/pictures/TanzenderShiva.jpg !! Even today's Kumbh mela sadhus are like that.

McEvilley and Flood only say that these Shamanic PRACTICES like nudity, long hair and penances are traceable to the muni-vratyas of the Vedic age, the Indus Valley and even as far back in time and place as the Mesopotamian civilization (as per McEviley). That it later on branched out into Saiva cults (that survives to this day), the extinct Ajivikas and Jainism (barely surviving) is proof that the Ideas of Saiva and Jaina and Ajivika were developed later --- but their practices were developed much much earlier than their advent.

It's something like as if 3 groups of theatre actors were given their costumes to wear first, and then asked to generate a story around those costumes later. The costumes were animal skin, ash and long hair. One group became Saiva, another the Jaina, and the third failed as Ajivika.

Nowhere do Flood, McEvilley, or for that matter any of the authors say that Jainism with its Tirthankars, 8-fold path, Jai Jinendra etc. was practiced in Indus Valley or in the Vedic age. Yes, its true that their bodily-punitive acts were indeed common amongst many people.

So your sentence should something like, "Apart from the Vedic religion, Ancient India also had another major cult that followed Shamanic ritualism like nudity, uncut hair, long penances etc. Buddhism, Jainism and Saiva cult of Hinduism, as well as the now-defunct Ajivika cult adopted most, or all of these these traditions.....". In the reference note, you can write that although the word 'Shaman' is a likely corruption of the word 'Sramana', it has begun to stand for all practices performed by social outcasts, like unusual bodily upkeep (ashes, animal skins and shaving the body), carefree merrymaking, and chanting incantations to invoke the netherworld.

Then we can add the following reference : "The word shaman is in fact loosely used for almost any savage witch doctor who becomes frenzied and has communication with spirits. In its original form it appears to be a corruption of the Sanskrit Shramana, which, indicating a disciple of Buddha, among the Mongolians became synonymous with magician." Here it should be clarified that although the word SHAman is thought to have been derived from SHRamana, SHAman has come to mean magician-like practices done by peoples in various civilizations spanning geographies at all time. On the other hand, Shramana was a school of ideas restricted to northern India, and which developed in the fifth & sixth centuries B.C. and which reached their pinnacle around the times of Buddha and Mahavira (founders of Buddhism and Jainism respectively).

Prior to this you can add my version of Hinduism and Jainism-Buddhism.


 * Anishshah19 :  Now once again we are going back into the loop of this so-called “logical analysis” and plethora of discussions which is nothing but original research. But since you have put this up, let me discuss it….but there is going to be no end to it.
 * I am quite aware of what Shamanism means. It is quite different from Sramanans and there is no need to introduce it into out talk just because McEvilley has discussed it in his book…it is a red herring. Although, just for your information he clearly says that Vratyas are connected to Jainism here. Nowhere has he equated Jainism with Shamanism. Unfortunately, you are attempting WP:OR just to fit the facts into your paradigm. The sentence that you have suggested is most unfortunate as you are pushing a POV, maybe inadvertently, when you call Vedic “religion” and others as “cults”. Please note that in the references, the authors, Harry Oldmeadow, Pande and Flood all clearly say – “Sramanas” and not “Shamanism”. I have used this authors as references and have quoted them. This is in conformity with wikiguidelines of verifiability and citing reliable sources by providing full inline citations. You may believe that alternate suggestion that you have given is perfectly true and you are justified in believing it to be true and although I don’t agree with it, I respect that, but it does not confirm to wiki guidelines and much of it is original research. --Anish (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF :Now I too have used your sources in full compliance of wikiguidelines WP:V and WP:Cite. I have infact typed lines and paras from the e-books of Gavin Flood and McEvilley, of course alongwith the duly provided url, page number and sections. I used your sources themselves, and so it does not come under WP:OR. What you are proposing is in fact WP:OR and WP:POV, by not only repeated misinterpretation of educated guesses as facts, but also clear ignorance (purposeful or not), of what the authors are saying.

Firstly, McEvilley makes it clear that the traditions and acts and socio-cultural Practices that are depicted on various seals and motifs ranging from Mesopotamian and IVC civilizations might have formed the ancestry of latter day Saiva, Ajivika, Tantra, Sankhya, Buddhist and.....Jaina schools of cults. These are Shamanic traditions and McEvilley's entire book does not even contain the word sramana.

Firstly, all authors, especially McEvilley and Gavin Flood make it clear that it is the PRACTICES AND NOT IDEAS of vratuya-munis (and Mesopotamian civilization) that maybe linked to Jainism. Further, these practices were the precursors of NOT ONLY Jains, BUT ALSO SAIVAS and AJIVIKAS TOO. The fact that there was a branching out later on means that the Ideas of these 3 cults came later --- they only inherited the practices. This is mentioned by McEvilley in pages 277 & 278 ( I have typed it out below).

You said, "Although, just for your information he clearly says that Vratyas are connected to Jainism. And for your info, I have numerously said that he has devoted an entire section to Vratyas and SOME of their PRACTICES linked to Jainism, and not others like "song, sex and dance". This is on Pg 275. I think you deliberately choose to ignore this. You are also deliberately ignoring that McEvilley also says that not only Jainas, but also Saivas, Ajivikas, Tantras and Sankhyas are also inheritors of the Vratya-muni ascetic culture.

Although I have already typed out sections from that page, I'll retype it below :-

Pg 275 ****


 * The Vratyas may have been either a non ARyan or Aryan non-Vedic group.....who brought with them ascetic and estatic practices from outside. The Atharva Veda attributed special austerities to them, saying "the Vratya" stood erect for one full year. This feat connects them to the Jain tradition, in which one of the main duties of the monk is "the stabilization of the body in different postures..which benefit the soul and are difficult to perform" . The most important is kayotsarga, which is standing upright and motionless for long periods of time. The Jain tirthankaras Rishabha and Parsva were doing this when they became enlightened. It was also a common austerity of the Ajivikas and it has tentatively been identified on the Indus Valley seals. The Vratyas...made their living as "travelling magician clans specializing in song, sex and dance". Their ritual practice may have been the source of the tantric ritual of the Paricra Makara or the Five Ms.

****

Is "song, sex and dance" part of Jainism ? Re-read Gavin Flood's commentary on Vratyas and munis. What they did was not Jain at all in any way (magic, dancing, gypsing etc. as described by G. Flood). I already put it up in the previous section of this talk page. As for McEvilley's other discussion on Vratyas and Munis, he does not fail to include Saiva and Ajivika cults also. Those excerpts too are put up in the previous section.

So only feats, or in other words 2 of the sum total practices of Vratyas are compared with not only Jainism, but also Saiva, Ajivika, Tantra and Sankhya cults. Nowhere does he say that Jainism originated with Vratyas. The keywords are feats and practices.

Now for the part where Thomas says that there was a split in tradition, where the Jain monks differed from the Ajivikas and Buddhist streams of thought, and deviated from other sects. For this, he describes the Panca Makara that he described of the Vratyas :

Pg 277 ****


 * The tantric sects practice the ritual of panca Makara or Five Ms that is the use of five substances that are taboo in the Aryan cult, and whose Sanskrit names begin with M : Madya (wine), mamasa (meat), matyuna (sexual intercourse), mudra (fried cereals), and matsya (fish). The left-hand stream is made up of the sects that approve of this practice and the right-hand stream which opposed it. .. The Indian sects that share the general inheritance is called the tantric circle. They include Ajivikism, left-hand tantra, Lokayata, Saiva schools, Nath Yogis and a good deal of unspecified village practice.

Another important dichotomy between tantra and Veda was their attitude towards religious asceticism. In the non-Aryan community, it was practiced with Shamanic intentionality. Various practices of sexual magic were involved as well as maintaining a bodily posture for a long period of time... .Aryan reformers edited out the shamanic intentionality, replacing the bodily emphasis with a puritanical tendency toward celibacy.

****

Now after having described the left-wing tantras, McEvilley now describes how Mahavira was just separated from the major Ajivika tradition in the next page. He was a reformer and the Jainism that he gave all of us, was totally different from the original practices of left-hand tantra (dance, sex and song) which the Ajivika sect wanted to follow.

Pg 278 ****


 * These contradictory tendencies can be seen at work in the famous schism between Mahavira and Gosala, the Ajivika leader who is described as among the six "heretic" teachers in Buddhism. Gosala roughly represents the left-hand way, while Mahavira is a reformer who turns his back on the left-hand way in favor of the right. At first it seems they were in the same group...Further, Gosala is known to have called himself the twenty-fourth Tirthankara, the same title that Mahavira claimed for himself. The implication is that they both belonged to the same school or tradition and each claimed to be its leader. The Jain Bhagwati Sutta includes 12 Ajivika saints held up as models for Jains..


 * Siddhartha was more concerned about Ajivikas than the Jain rivals. Asoka placed Ajivikas before Jains in his seventh pillar edict.. and the Arthashastra placed Buddhists first, Ajivikas second and Jains third in its list of Nastika religions.


 * There are numerous signs that Ajivika represents an earlier stage of Indian religion than Jainism, and is more in keeping with Dravidian character and tradition. Indeed its antiquity though summed is formidable. Both Buddhism and Jainism reacted against Ajivikism which must have been present before they defined themselves in part to be in contrast with it. The Ajivika monk's initiation involved physical ordeals like grasping a hot iron, which has shamanic lineages. Ajivikas are said to have performed penances in funeral urns [like Indus Valley].


 * .. The Jain texts present Gosala as the disciple of Mahavira who broke away, however, it is widely believed that Mahavira was the disciple and Gosala, the master. It seemed at first that Mahavira belonged to the clothed proto-Jain religion of Parsva, the previous tirthankara to which his parents also belonged. At some point, he left this group with Gosala, an ascetic probably in the lineage of the Muni, whom the tenth book of the Rig Veda described as the vatarasana, or wind-clad. Mahavira became a naked ascetic like Gosala, then later broke away from him and partially returning to his earlier affiliation, led a sect of reform Jains, who went naked, followed rigid rules which formed no part of their ancient creed, that is the religion of Parsva.


 * The more puritanical Buddhists and Jains regarded the Ajivikas as immoral for their prototantric advocacy (LIKE THE VRATYAS') of sexual magic, song and dance. Mahavira ruled that, "When found singing, dancing, making music, ....is liable for prosecution". Music, dance and laughter are Ajivika practices which Mahavira is Aryanizing. Imitated animal voices....are shamanic practices. In shamanic practices worldwide, dancing, chanting and speaking in animal tongues are part of shamanic performances. ''Mahavira's prohibition constitutes an attempt to edit the remnants of shamanic performances out of his version of Jainism.

****

Pg 280 ****

Aryan Reformers.


 * Incidentally, some members of the ksatriya community found saw in the example of the Vratyas, the anitomian Ajivikas, the the muni and others, not an old-age retirement plan but a way to spend one's whole life. A number of ksatriya religious teachers including it seems, Siddhartha and Mahavira dropped out of society and formed separate ascetic communities.


 * On this view, the Brahmanic ascetic asrama and the Buddhist-Jain orders are to be regarded as reformers of an earlier ascetic tradition. It seems that Gosala, Mahavira and Buddha all engaged in the PRACTICES of the older tradition, perhaps in the lineage of Parsva. Siddhartha's own words indicate that in the six years of auterities, he went naked and shaved his body .. .this is an indication of the Jain-Ajivika tradition, which derives from the same source, or serves as a source for both of them. Gosala, who seems to have been non-Aryan seems to have been an unreformed version of an earlier tradition descending from the Indus Valley. Mahavira and Siddhartha reformed this practice in shaping their Own sects. Mahavira seems to have reformed the practice of asceticism for magical purposes....

****

Now about munis' magic that was renounced by Mahavira :

Pg 280-281 ****


 * Magic.


 * In the pre-Aryan or atleast pre-Vedic tradition, religious virtuosos practiced austerities and claimed to recieve supernatural powers; the muni of the Rg Veda X.136 claimed with his ability to travel throughout the Universe at will is one example of many..... ...For Mahavira, magical powers "have nothing at all to do with the road leading to salvation". Among the early Buddhists, it was regarded as an impediment.. Stories of the magical powers were inevitably told of Siddhartha and Mahavira by their devotees.


 * Contrary to shamanic practice which featured control of fire, Mahavira responded with coolness.. .. He chose to retain the emphasis on austerity, but to link it with nonviolence and release from reincarnation.

****

So in conclusion, the vratyas and munis with their shamanic practices of penances, 'sexual magic', flying with the wind etc. were denounced by Mahavira and Siddhartha who were essentially reformers of these shamanic practices. Both Mahavira and Buddha shunned and mocked the Ajivikas, who truly inherited the entire array of shamanic body practices that was handed down to them through the ages by Vratyas and Munis. Jainism and Buddhism retained some austerities like standing and sitting poses, but rejected forthright MOST of them (including Parsva's practices) and began their own ideas like nonviolence and middle-path.

My suggestion is, "Jainism and Buddhism which arose in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., were essentially reform movements of a long-standing tradition of shamanic ritualism that existed in parallel throughout the Vedic period. They, along with the Saiva and the extinct Ajivika cults adopted some austerities like standing for long periods and roaming naked, but rejected most of the shamanic practices like singing, dancing, sexual magic, sorcery, etc. These two cults, along with the extinct Ajivika tradition (which was at odds with Jainism and Buddhism) are known as sramana traditions, i.e. ascetic traditions..."

Now don't start quoting authors other than McEvilley, G. Flood and Chapple. They too just make brief observations that Jainism's practices are probably linked to IVC ..... Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19: IAF, You need to understand that just because you have typed a long drawn essay from a book, it does not fall within the wikiguidelines of WP:V and WP:Cite. It has to be relevant to the stuff that you are editing on the mainspace article. Else it only has a purpose to mislead people and give a illusion that you have done a lot of research. Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Thomas McEvilley's epoch book is a widely referenced,quoted, and recommended book in the field of ancient history and so it perfectly qualifies as a WP : V verifiable source. WP : cite is infact compounded by other historians Christopher Chapple and G. Flood (whom you and I both have quoted earlier) in turn quoting from McEvilley's book. Citing and quoting such a book on Indian religions is all the more mandatory given that it deals specifically with the origins of Indian religions. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19: No problem in quoting McEvilley, only don’t MISQUOTE or indulge in Original research or push your POV’s. And if there is confusion on Mc Evilley (as you seem to be confused on your hobby horse of Shamanism) then there are other authors that can be quoted and cannot be ignored. --Anish (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19:However you may have not realised it, you have done me a big favour by typing this info and it simply reinforces what I have been saying all along. Let us analyse the info put up by you:-


 * Disassociation of ideas and practices/traditions does not make any logical sense and none of the authors even allude to divorce of ideas and traditions/practices. You feel that you have come to a brilliant conclusion that by disassociating ideas from practices, you can make any claims that you like. Even still, your conclusion that the link between Jainsim and IVC/vratya etc. is simply of tradition, acts and practices and not ideas, (even if it is taken at face value) does not in any way preclude Jainism and Sramanas claim to antiquity.Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF :  Cut the retorts out first. It is Thomas McEvilley, Flood et al who state (as I typed out and don't claim on my own) and conclude that some of the practices of the Vratyas --- notably standing for long periods and abstinence --- were accepted by the Jains and Buddhists and were backed up by religious sanction. However, most other practices like singing, dancing, matted hair, full nudity and sexual magic were completely rejected by them. This was the edit that I made in the article, and did not conclude on my own.

Now you were earlier fixated on the linkage between Vratyas and Jains, that most authors including McEvilley made. What you missed out fully was that only some practices of the Vratyas were followed, whereas most other practices were rejected.

You confused the mere mention of a possible link between the practices of the Vratyas and the Jains to be the proof of antiquity of Jainism stretching back to Vedic or even IVC times. I have repeatedly pointed out that :


 * the Vratyas were shamanic practitioners and not people from sramana dharma that you wrongly claim


 * that only some of those Vratya's shamanic practices were followed, and others were not like X-rated things, song, dance and matted hair


 * that the few that were followed by Jains and Buddhists were given the religious backing, that was to later become their faiths

I had to finally type out the pages 275 to 280 or 282 to finally drive home this point on record on this page, because otherwise you were totally ignoring what I was saying.

As McEvilley has stated in Pg 275 onwards, that the Jains and Buddhists were reformers of an older shamanic (not sramana) tradition. The competing cult of Ajivikas, which refused to budge from the strict austerities perished, whereas Jainism and Buddhism that abandoned most of the practices of the Vratyas while accepting only a few (after giving religious justification), survived.

This is exactly what I wrote in the last edit of the article. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19: Your subterfuge of harking repeatedly on Shamanism in the fond hope of misguiding everyone is not going to fool anyone. See how cleverly you have edited out the lines that were inconvenient to you like on the page 279 that you claim to have faithfully reproduced. Let me quote the following line that you kept out in the hope that I will miss it, which I initially did miss out – “In any case, the origin of Ajivika-Jain TRADITION disappears in pre-history; possibly going back ultimately to the Indus valley itself, where there are iconographic elements that seems to foreshadow the iconography of Parsva.” – belies your utterly false claim that only “some of the practices” of Jainism are linked to “Indus Valley Civilisation” The author not only talks of linking Jainism with IVC by “some of the PRACTICES”, but also by ICONOGRAPHY and TRADITION. Conclusion: irrefutable reference on hoary antiquity of Jainism and expose on your misinterpretation. I have also shown below that these X-rated practices were followed by Vedics also which have been reformed now in Hinduism. --Anish (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19:


 * While we are at “ideas”, it is proved that Sramanas were originators of concept of karma, renunciation, Samsara, moksa are all sramana concepts borrowed by vedics. Refer to my previous post by Gavin Flood – “The origin and doctrine of Karma and Samsara are obscure.These concepts were certainly circulating amongst sramanas, and Jainism and Buddhism developed specific and sophisticated ideas about the process of transmigration. It is very possible that the karmas and reincarnation entered the mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renouncer traditions.” page 86
 * Secondly, I have never denied that IVC/Vratyas had a link with Ajivikas and Saivas. Just because Ajivikas and Saivas can claim antiquity, this does not forbid the claims of Jainism. Unfortunately, you see everything black and white, either-or; but actually the truth is lying somewhere in the grey areas. Again, Ajivikas were Sramanas and Saivas were non-vedic, proving my point of hoary antiquity of the non-vedic tradition mostly represented by the sramanas. Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Where do Karma, dharma fit in the current scheme of things ? Chalo, chalo for your convenience lets assume that karma, dharma and reincarnation all originated with the sramanas and the Upanishads have just copied it all from the sramanas, and that nothing in Upanishads is original. So it just implies is that even the older Upanishads were composed very late, probably as late as 100 B.C. to 100 A.d and later. Still, how does this change the fact that sramanas were a movement of the fifth and sixth centuries B.C. ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19: You seem to have forgotten, but I will humour you. Well this was to counter your “original research” that – “…Shramana faiths borrowed ideas from Vedic texts and Upanishads,….” So now you admit that it is actually the other way round i.e. Vedics and Upanishads borrowed from Sramana faiths concepts like Karma, moksa, renunciation etc. And by the way, you have painted this page with irrelevant stuff and then you ask me what do Karma, dharma fit in the current scheme of things? Great! What next?
 * And come to think of it…….it does matter in the current scheme of things. You had only said that continuity can be claimed by IDEAS and not PRACTICES (An artificial definition). Well the,n Hindus and Upanishads should claim continuity from Sramanas and not Vedas!!! Not an outrageous claim, if one goes by your logic and original research --Anish (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19:**Your “original research” that equates branching out of Sramanas into various traditions as denial of antiquity and continuity of Sramanas is rather absurd, bunk and quite illogical. In the same vein, the branching of the Hindu cults would deny the antiquity and continuity of the Vedic religion into Hinduism itself.Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF :  Correction. Not sramanas, but shamans. Get the terminology right first. I have to time and again correct you that you cannot use sramana and shamanism interchangeably.

The shamanic traditions can claim their ancestry to the Vratyas and munis that co-existed along with the Vedic religion. These shamanic societies of the Vratyas and munis passed on their practices of nudity, matted hair, unkempt selves, and austerities like long penances onwards to not just Jains, but also Ajivikas, Tantras, Sankhyas, Saivas, Buddhists and Jains. The Jains and Buddhists retained only some of these while filtering out the majority of them like those aforementioned.

And don't bank on "original research" vs. scholarly quotes (that I typed out for you to see). You are the one erroneously claiming that a) Vratyas were sramanas, when in fact they were shamanic people and b) they were the ancestors of Jains, when in fact they were the possible ancestors of Saivas, Tantras and Ajivikas too, which never belonged to sramana line of thinking.

The non-sramanas like Saivas and Sankhyas also claim descent from the shamanic lines (not sramana lines) of Vratyas, as did the Jains and Buddhists. Your mistaken idea is :- the Jain and Buddhist religions claim descent from the sramana line of Vratyas. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19: It is not my mistaken idea that - the Jain-Buddhist-Ajivika religions i.e. Sramana claim descent from the sramana line of Vratyas/muni/IVC, but it is a scholarly view of following scholars (to name just a few) which have been discussed to death before (which you are conveniently ignoring before; you seem to be riding McEvilley because of some references on Shamanism which you are trying unsuccessfully to twist and turn) :-


 * Mary Pat Fisher (1997) In : Living Religions: An Encyclopedia of the World's Faiths I.B.Tauris : London ISBN 1860641482 - “The extreme antiquity of Jainism as a non-vedic, indigenous Indian religion is well documented. Ancient Hindu and Buddhist scriptures refer to Jainism as an existing tradition which began long before Mahavira.” Page 115
 * Heinrich Zimmer (1969) Joseph Campbell ed. In: Philosophies of India, Princeton University Press NY, ISBN 0691017581 - Dr. Zimmer believed that there is truth in the Jaina idea that their religion goes back to a remote antiquity, the antiquity in ques¬tion being that of the pre-Aryan, so-called Dravidian period, which has recently been dramatically illuminated by the discovery of a series of great Late Stone Age cities in the Indus Valley, dating from the third and perhaps even fourth millennium b.c. (cf. Ernest Mackay, The Indus Civilization, London, 1935; also Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization, pp. 93ff.).
 * Harry Oldmeadow (2007) Light from the East: Eastern Wisdom for the Modern West, World Wisdom, Inc ISBN 1933316225 :  What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with vedic Hinduism known as sramana dharma. Essentially, the sramana tradition included it its fold, the Jain and Buddhist traditions, which disagreed with the eternality of the Vedas, the needs for ritual sacrifices and the supremacy of the Brahmins. Page 141
 * Larson, Gerald James (1995) “India’s Agony over religion” SUNY Press ISBN 079142412X :  There is some evidence that Jain traditions may be even older than the Buddhist traditions, possibly going back to the time of the Indus valley civilization, and that Vardhamana rather tha being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition. Page 27
 * Valerie J. Roebuck(2004) in “The Upinashads” Penguin Classics ISBN 0140447490 :  Vratyas of AV were perhaps a precursor of Sramanas page 501
 * It is here that we are coming to a full circle, your fetish on shamanism notwithstanding.. This is just a sampling. I am not giving the whole set of references once again, read them above if you want. The above scholars have proved your statement that - “antiquity of Jainism is my invention”- as total bunk. Rather, it is a scholarly consensus. --Anish (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19:**So now let us move to Page 275 and see what objections you harbour? It is clear from the page that Vratyas are non-vedic and austerities connect them to Jainism and Ajivikas. Ok your objection stems from the phrase – “travelling magician clans specializing in song, sex and dance”. This does not disprove anything. Like I have said before, Sramanas were wide and varied had different practices some of them were even precursors of the Charvakas. Refer Valerie J. Roebuck that I have posted above. - “Sramanas like Indian sadhus, seem to have followed a variety of practices some of them wearing distinctive robes or animal skins, others going naked, some of them with shaven heads, other with matted hair. Both Buddhism and Jainism originated in Sramana circles as did a number of other movements that did not survive like Ajivikas.” page xxii .Wearing Animal skins and matted hair does not confirm to current way of Buddhists and jains but still they were sramanas. Secondly, Page 277 itself says that these Shamanic practices were reformed and forbidden by Mahavira. So obviously it is not present in Jainism.  Now, the same logic that you are using for denying the antiquity of Jainism can be used to deny antiquity of Hinduism. Vedics used to do Ashwamedh yagna – sacrifice horses; do Hindus sacrifice horses now? The brahmanas and vedic deities are described as “beef eater” in vedas, can it be identified with current brahmanas now? So your so called logical analysis goes for a toss !!! Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF :  Vratyas were non-Vedic outcasts from the Vedic society. They were shamans and as described in the Vedas, their cult or activities hinged on a whole host of un-civil behaviour like singing, dancing, going naked, having matted or very long hair and sexual magic. They also performed penances like standing erect for one year (Atharva Veda). The munis were also similar and the Vedas describe them as nude (wind-clad).

Pg. 275 of McEvilley's book describes the Vratyas' practices in comparison with the kept-alive Jain penance of standing for one year. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19: There is no logical connect between your reply and my comment above. Your premise that the entire magic etc. disproved the antiquity of Sramanas has been refuted by me to which you have not been able to give a rebuttal, but as usual you have put in some irrelevant filler that was previously repeated before. --Anish (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Page 277 – I can’t see any purpose why you have typed this so the above comment holds. Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : The last line of Pg. 275 says that the Vratyas may have been the originators of tantric rituals of pancha makara or the 'five Ms'. Pg 277 begins to describe the left-hand tantric circle that adhered to the tantric rituals or five Ms of madya, matsya .. etc. It says that, "In the non-Aryan community, it was practiced with Shamanic intentionality." This circle included the Ajivikas, the Lokayattas, Saivas and Nath Yogis.

Pg. 278 then goes on to describe the differences or schism between the left-hand way and the right-hand way. The Ajivikas' Gosala was the former, whereas Mahavira left Gosala behind in favour of the reformed right way. He founded the right-hand way, while rejecting most of the shamanic ritualism of the Parsva cult. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19:**Page 278 – The comment “The Jain Bhagwati Sutta includes 12 Ajivika saints held up as models for Jains” – proves the common sramana tradition of Jainism and Ajivika. Another comment – “There are numerous signs that Ajivika represents an earlier stage of Indian religion than Jainism, and is more in keeping with Dravidian character and tradition. Indeed its antiquity though summed is formidable” read in conjunction with one more comment – “It seems that Gosala, Mahavira and Buddha all engaged in the practices of the older tradition, perhaps in the lineage of Parsva.” conclusively proves antiquity of Sramanas as well as Jainism. It further calls Mahavira as a reformer (which even Jain texts say : Uttaradhyana Sutra clearly says that Mahavira introduced nudity and reformed five vows of monks which was NOT in conformity with Parsva) So how does confirm it with your original research that - Jainism “originated” with Mahavira ? The left-hand and right-hand stuff discussion and whether Mahavira was a master or disciple is irrelevant to discussion on antiquity and historicity of Sramanas and Jainism.Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : Therein lies the fallacy of your claim. I'll come back to the first typed excerpt of mine that you quoted above. Re-read the third comment that, "Gosala, Mahavira and Buddha all engaged in the practices of an older tradition, perhaps in the lineage of Parsva." Pg. 278 says that Jainism rejected most of those shamanic practices associated with the Vratya, muni and Parsva lineage and most of Mahavira's decrees pronounced or were meant to do exactly that. Ajivikism and Jainism share a lineage of these traditional shamanic practices.

Mahavira even rejected the Parsva cult, but McEvilley mentions that just as Mahavira accepted a few of the practices like standing erect, he also accepted some of Ajivika's sainthoods. The historical fact is that Mahavira broke away from Ajivikism and then formed Jainism. Jainism was a reform movement of those old shamanic practices, and not handed down from generations in Mahavira's hands.

What you are mistaking is your WP : Pov, but NONE of the authors dilute practices and ideas and make it clear that Jainism and Buddhism were reform movements of an older tradition of practices.

Now, as for your first quote they have to be seen in the prism of not only Valerie Roebuck's quotation but the Indiana.edu's scholarly articles that provides dates. “The Jain Bhagwati Sutta includes 12 Ajivika saints held up as models for Jains” proves the common thread of not sramana, but the shamanic tradition of Jainism and Ajivika.

Valerie Roebuck's comment is that :- “Sramanas like Indian sadhus, seem to have followed a variety of practices some of them wearing distinctive robes or animal skins, others going naked, some of them with shaven heads, other with matted hair. Both Buddhism and Jainism originated in Sramana circles as did a number of other movements that did not survive like Ajivikas.” page xxii

Very true, I agree with Roebuck, and also add that the sramana tradition as per the Indiana.edu article dates to the fifth and sixth centuries BC. These traditions were spawned by sramanas of that time two of which became popular during Mahavira and Buddha. You first mixed up sramana with shamanic tradition, and then claiming in all WP : PoV, that the ideas and not practices of the Ajivika-Jain-Buddhist trait were sramana.

From Indiana.edu Module 11 Indo-shramanical (600 BC to 300 BC) :-

The term "shramana" is from the root shram .. .. and refers to non-Indo-Brahmanical mendicant groups that began to appear in North India some time around the sixth century B.C.E. There were many such shramana groups, but two in particular eventually developed into independent religious traditions in ancient India of great importance: the Jains and the Buddhists.

From hereIndian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19: Then why are you ignoring the fact that the same source (indiana.edu) says the following: “Jain tradition is one of the oldest TRADITION in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times” and “Indo-Shramanical layer, reflects the resurfacing of pre-brahmanical TRADITION.” Obviously, the periods like Indo-Brahmanical and Indo-Shramanical have been categorised on the basis of influence and not origins as your “original research” would like us to believe. And can you read Tradition? I hope so! So spare your favourite lecture on “…some practices…”--Anish (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Page 280-1 – Once again I fail to see relevancy of putting up the page on magic. Mahavira rejected Magic…its already discussed he was a reformer.Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF : I put that up, because of your continued insistence on equating some practices of the munis with the Jains as rock-solid proof that not only all the practices, but all ideas of munis too were inherited verbatim by Jains.

That's not true as McEvilley showed on the section, Magic, pg. 280-281. As he stated, those practices were discontinued by Jains. Where do the ideas come in, jab pactices hi nati chche ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By trying to restrict the number of references or books that I can quote, you are flouting wikipedias rules. I am free to put as many references that I like; infact I have already put up more than a dozen reliable references that prove antiquity of Jainism.
 * So my previous suggestion for consensus edit still holds true. Too bad you are not able to see the whole picture and sticking to your own rehashed versions --Anish (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IAF :  This is a dumb claim. Have I come and tied your hands and put a virus in your PC so that you can't access the net ?

Now we have come full circle. Five months back when I first pointed out from the sole Indiana.edu page that the sramana tradition is not before 600-500 BC, you came up with all these references, finally ending with Chappple, Flood and McEvilley's book. Then now we have established that what you mistook for sramana is what the authors called shamanic tradition; that the Jain-Buddhist traditions were essentially reformers of the shamanic PRACTICES (McEvilley, pg. 280, section Aryan reformers) and that what you call sramana cannot be so, because non-sramana cults like Saiva, Sankhya and Tantra also claim descent to the same (shamanic) tradition. Valerie Roebuck's reference of sramana is provided a definitive date in the Indiana.edu page, Module 11 which is 500-600 BC.

Your repeated persuasion that Vratyas = Jains is also untrue, because Vratyas have been clearly described as shamanic peoples, and besides, Jains REJECTED MOST OF VRATYAS' practices.

Now as for Ashwamedha. Firstly, Vedas are chanted by a few million people daily and the same fire rituals are done in much the same manner that they were done originally. Bull-sacifice is mentioned in vedas, not cows (cow cremation is mentioned). You should know that in Ashwamedha, a horse was actually not killed, but made to roam around wearing gold. There are no maharajas and mahajanapadas to perform this ritual today and fight and defeat rival kingdoms who capture that horse.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19: Thanks for giving me the link to Ashwamedha. You should have atleast read it before making authoritative claims that are later proved wrong!! Talking about dumb claims! It clearly says that the Horse and many other animals are slaughtered and flesh roasted! Let me put up the relevant details:-
 * “After this, the horse, a hornless he-goat, a wild ox (go-mrga, Bos gavaeus) are bound to sacrificial stakes near the fire, and seventeen other animals are attached to the horse. A great number of animals, both tame and wild, are tied to other stakes, according to a commentator 609 in total (YV VSM 24 consists of an exact enumeration).Then the horse is slaughtered (YV VSM 23.15, tr. Griffith) “Steed, from thy body, of thyself, sacrifice and accept thyself. Thy greatness can be gained by none but thee.” The chief queen ritually calls on the king's fellow wives for pity. The queens walk around the dead horse reciting mantras. The chief queen then has to mimic copulation with the dead horse, while the other queens ritually utter obscenities. On the next morning, the priests raise the queen from the place where she has spent the night with the horse. With the Dadhikra verse (RV 4.39.6, YV VSM 23.32), a verse used as a purifier after obscene language. The three queens with a hundred golden, silver and copper needles indicate the lines on the horse's body along which it will be dissected. The horse is dissected, and its flesh roasted. Various parts are offered to a host of deities and personified concepts with cries of svaha "all-hail". The Ashvastuti or Eulogy of the Horse follows (RV 1.162, YV VSM 24.24–45), concluding with………..
 * So now what do we have here? You have examples of vedics indulging in copulation with dead horse, bestiality, burning of stake many animals including horse and dissecting and roasting the horse……..all these by vedics; not outcasts………..now you tell where does this even remotely resemble the Hinduism today which claims continuity since Vedic age simply by chanting of vedas by millions? Forget today, even during “historic times” hardly any king used to do it with only a few recorded instances in history. So there goes your objection on lack of kings today!!!! So now these x-rated shamanic things that you keep on repeating again and again and again …were not only done by vratyas but by vedics. So now let me logically conclude (going by your discovered logic) that Hinduism is not a continuation of vedas but only “some of the PRACTICES” like chanting of vedas have continued by millions!

2) Mahavira, the 24th Tirthankara, is often considered as the founder of Jainism. However, now the scholars hold that Parsva, the 23rd Tirthankara, (9th Century BCE) to be a historical person and that Vardhamana Mahavira rather than being a “founder” per se was, rather, simply a primary spokesman for much older tradition.

The tradition of Jainism at most stretches to 9th cen. BC. Still, that is not Vedic, but Vedantic i.e. Veda-anta or end of the Vedas. This was the time that the first of the Upanishads started to get composed. So even then Jainism cannot be said to have been a "parallel philosophical stream to Vedic Hinduism".


 * Anishshah19 :  Historicity of a tradition can be inferred from the antiquity of its beliefs and traditions, its references in the various ancient texts, archaeological evidences, besides existence of historical personalities connected with the tradition. You are simply taking existence of Mahavira and Parsva as a yardstick to measure the antiquity of Sramana tradition, which is not correct. I have discussed this before, but you are forcing me to repeat this – Apply this same logic to vedic period. None of the vedic personalities are historical; they are either mythical or pre-historic - does that mean that vedic period did not exist ?? --Anish (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

See I have repeatdly told you that the BOOK called Rig Veda is dated to 1,500 BC. How does it matter whether its gods and goddesses really existed or not, in this context ?

Read the Vedic Period article. The opening sentence tells you that, "....it is the period in India's history when the sacred BOOKS i.e. the 4 Vedas, the Brahmanas and their subsequents were written down......" I have edited parts of that article, and nowhere does it discuss the characters present in those Books.

The Rig Veda is the solid surviving testament to that age. The characters here are unimportant. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3) Now let's examine the statement of Harry Oldmeadow (2007) Light from the East: Eastern Wisdom for the Modern West, World Wisdom. He says, "There has been an ongoing debate between Jainism and Vedic Hinduism as to which revelation preceded the other. What is historically known is that there was a tradition along with Vedic Hinduism known as Sramana dharma. Essentially, the Sramana tradition included it its fold, the Jain and Buddhist traditions, which disagreed with the eternality of the Vedas, the needs for ritual sacrifices and the supremacy of the Brahmins."

See, there can be 2 cases here : what McEvilley, G. Flood and others describe as shamanic, he is calling sramanic. Or, by Vedic Hinduism he means classical Hinduism that came to originate in the Vedantic age. I think its the second case in all likelihood. The majority of authors compare muni-vratyas & IVC to Shaman, and not sramana.


 * Anishshah19 :  Once again you are committing the same mistake. You are equating Sramanas with Shamanism, which is once again wrong. If Shamanism = Sramanas then this will push back the antiquity of Sramana more. Both Jainism and Hinduism display and have certain beliefs common with Shamanism. But that does not prove anything. You have put up a long drawn para on Shamanism. If you want to discuss Shamanism in detail then start a new section on it; but I don’t think it is appropriate on Indian religion page. Sramanas were quite inclusive and included many sects. Buddhism speaks of 6 different Sramana teachers other than Buddha himself, each with varying different practices and beliefs. Check this out. Template:PaliCanonSamanaViews On “Vedic Hinduism”, you are putting words in mouth of the author. You are interpreting it as per your paradigm and once again indulging in OR. Let the intent of the author stay as it is. --Anish (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right now I won't make any changes in the article because you take time to read and make out whatever you can of all this, and also because a certain modrator is after my account. Take your own time to reply here. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anishshah19 :  In conclusion, I have tried my best to adhere to WP:VER. In the spirit of Consensus let us be inclusive and include all views (of course backed by adequate references) so as to make the article truly WP:NPOV

True, and I agree. I have suggested my version of the edit which is fuly verifiable. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply on Sramanas and IVC continued
I note that Thomas McEvilley is a professor of Art History. Any reason his views should be more acceptable than recognized experts in Jainism and Buddhism?

The Shramana tradition is indeed much older than Mahavira and Gotama Buddha. There were Jinas before Mahavira and there were Buddhas before Gautama. Ashoka erected a column dedicated to the memory of one of the former Buddhas and the two chinese pilgrims met followers of Devadatta who worshipped at the memorials of former Buddha. There were also other ajivikas before Goshala. --Malaiya (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil
Editors here are reminded that civility is not an option on Wikipedia, it is a core policy. Some of the above dialogue appears to contradict this policy. Also, no one is required to give their real name on Wikipedia, and anyone learning the real name of any editor is prohibited from publishing it. Please discuss the article, not each other. Rumiton (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "Religion" applied to Dharmic Traditions is culturally insensitive and engenders an insidious cultural bias
Dharmic traditions are spiritual traditions that subsume, and are united by, the meme of Dharma. Most of the indigenous spiritual traditions of India correlate with the set of what Western scholarship has historically denoted as "Indian religions", "religion" though, being a Western scholarly construct and misattribution to both Dharma and Indian culture, is culturally insensitive and engenders an insidious cultural bias. Many of the Dharmic Traditions originated in India or the Indian subcontinent. They are Sanatana Dharma, Jain Dharma, Buddha Dharma, and Sikh Dharma. Dharmic Traditions comprise a subset of the set of "Eastern religions" that include Taoist traditions. Tao and Dharma being etymologically rooted and semantically cognate, given their congruent semantic field. These traditions share similarities in core tenets, mode of worship, and associated practices due to their common fulcrum, shared geographical context, cultural substrate, entwined history, dialogic lineages and generations of permeable discourse.

Flower Sermon

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. Please cite all this to reliable sources. Relata refero (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird hovering, could you stop spamming us with such PC non-issues and focus on writing an encyclopedia please. dab (𒁳) 10:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole rubric of "religion" vis-à-vis  non-English spiritual traditions as a meaningful descriptive is bunk, a contagion, anathema, a Western scholarly paternalism, a misattribution: an obscuration of what is a reticulum of dialogic and dialectic lineages and disciplines of practice, and experiential and existential cognizance; the insipid taint of attribution and accretion, conceptually rendered by the construction of "isms" be damned! Western scholarly discourse is to be rewritten through sapiential sentience. Hark!
 * i bite my thumb @ u Sir, to you Sir I bite my thumb...
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Better cite sources for your unencyclopedic edits
User:B9 hummingbird hovering|B9 hummingbird, you had better cite your sources for this edit and even if you find them, this should be phrased as an attributed opinion. I propose that the obscure term dharmic tradition is not used throughout Wikipedia, but that the far more common term Indian religions is used. Andries (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence without citing any reputable source except the partisan Frawley strikes me as very unencyclopedic. I reverted it.
 * "Emergent discourse denotes "Dharmic Traditions" as the appropriate rubric for scholarship. The former rubric, "Indian Religions" is an English and Judeo-Christian paternalism. The traditions construed as Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism conceal the centrality and unity of Dharma."

I am not saying that such opinions have no place in the article if properly explicitly attributed, but as it is now, it does not help the encyclopedia and deserved to be reverted.

Andries (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No No No
[http://www.kosal.us/Hinduism/The%20Dhaarmik%20Traditions4.pdf The Dharmic Traditions of Hinduism. Edited and Compiled by Kosla Vepa PhD: Indic Studies Foundation] B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 14:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will have a look. What is the relevant page nr. ? Andries (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

B9, you are just trolling at this point. Sometimes you can overdo "political correctness" to a point where it isn't possible to use English for fear of Anglo-Saxon bias. This is just silly. "Hinduism" gives you a smacking 9 million google hits, many of them Hindu sites. Your position that the term is a "paternalism" is, to be blunt, bunk. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if Hinduism is an attempt to create a Western construct around a different mode of thought, there's not a damn thing we can do about it on WP. That opinion is actually not uncommon but the fact is that the construction has been completed; most scholars (and indeed non-scholars) think of it as a matter of the history of thought as opposed to current thinking, and WP will reflect that. Relata refero (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

move protected
The question of titling has been formally discussed on two full-blown AfDs. There was clear consensus to keep the article at its present title. B9 hummingbird hovering keeps moving things around according to some idiosyncratic pov he is pushing. I am move protecting the article against this. The possibility to move-protect the article does however not excuse B9's disruptive behaviour, and if he keeps up his present vein, we may need to impose sanctions on the user instead of the article. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The democracy of Truth
Enforced hegemony, threats, mud-slinging: profound, unmitigated disappointment.

When the alternative nomenclature of these four traditions is stated, namely: Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), Jain Dharma (Jainism), Buddha Dharma (Buddhism), Sikh Dharma (Sikhism), these "traditions of Dharma", "Dharmic Traditions" is clear and unquestionable. That this is concealed demonstrates the mixed blessing of scholarship. Also, that Western scholarship of Dharmic Traditions has not clearly questioned and explicitly explored the auspice terminology and rubric classification demonstrates the rudimentary and partisan nature, thus far, of Western scholarly endeavour in relation to these traditions. To state this amongst my peers is painful and shames me and my scholarly lineage(s): a defensible journal of peers is calling!

There is an insidious tendency for Wikipedians and Internet users in general to equate number of returns from an Internet search as signifying validity through raw numbers: Quality, not quantity, is true scholarship.

"Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,

Nor set down aught in malice."

Thank you for your contributions

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic vs Indian religious tradition
I'm really unsure of the logic behind using Indian instead of Dharmic when discussing this group of religious traditions. Yes, they all originated in the Indian subcontinent, but they aren't exclusive to India or limited to India. With the Abrahamic religions we refer to a common belief they hold: The connection Abraham had with God. We don't call them Middle Eastern Religions because they originated in the Middle East. The Dharmic religions (or traditions) hold a common belief in Dharma - thus they are Dharmic. If they're going to be called Indian religions we should change the Abrahamic article to Middle Eastern Religions. I read the talk page and the choice to use a region instead of common belief was never explained. I know to some this may just be semantics, but I think it matters. Maiku (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

this has been discussed at length. You need to understand that we don't choose the term that is "better", we choose the term that is more current. If in ten years, "Dharmic" should become a widely used term for this group, we'll be able to change the title. As it is at present, we were simply not able to establish that the term sees any use beyond a very few isolated cases. This is not a question of our discussing the term's semantics. The only debate we can have here is related to the term's usage in notable publications of religious studies or Indology. dab (𒁳) 14:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Widely-used terms that are inaccurate should not be used. Buddhism is not Indian and while Hinduism originated in India, it is not strictly-speaking "Indian." I am certain I can find sources to establish this and I plan to. Zenwhat (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Few terms in religions are completely accurate and well defined. Andries (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the term Indian religions is more accurate and better defined than the very vague Andries (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

""Indian religion""????!!! such thing does not exist.. its a propaganda. India in its current form exist mere since 1947 where as people in subcontinent have been living and practicing those religions before this country came into existance......It is absulutely wrong to use the term ""Indian religion"" instead it should be ""South Asian Religion""". Its not about chosing accurate or current term... you cannot incapuslate buddhhism and other religion which existed before India as country existed.....this page does not have any meaning except to propagate indian's immoral dominance in south asia and to promote its neo-colonism.

Its a serious issue here. As an example there are more Hindus and Bhuddhist living in Nepal when we see the percentage. Buddha himself was born in Lumbini which is in Nepal. So how can a religion or philosophy of a Nepali guy (Gautam Buddha) be an """Indian religion?!!!!""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.166.40 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually they did all originate in India so theres no point in arguing with each other.

Page protected
I have fully protected the article for one week to insulate it from a rekindled edit war between versions. Please take the time to work out consensus and seek help in doing so if it is needed. Keep the tone civil and productive, staying focused on finding an acceptable compromise. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The following sentence, being the central point of dispute can be removed, as it represents the sole viewpoint of one of the consensus-seeking parties :- "Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion. [2] [3] Both streams have existed side by side in Iron Age India, mutually influencing each other."
 * The following sentence, being the central point of dispute can be removed, as it represents the sole viewpoint of one of the consensus-seeking parties :- "Ancient India had two co-existent philosophical streams of thought, the Shramana religions and the (Brahmanical) Vedic religion. [2] [3] Both streams have existed side by side in Iron Age India, mutually influencing each other."


 * Till the time the issue reaches resolution, the sentence must reflect neither points of interest. So, it should thus not mention which culture it was parallel to (AnishShah's viewpoint), nor any dates (my viewpoint). So, it should be changed to, "...Jainism and Buddhism were the by-products of the sramana stream of thought. Buddhism was founded by Gautama Siddhartha, and Jainism is largely said to have been founded by Mahavira, who is said to be the last in a long line of 24 enlightened beings ..." Since it looks like no one will leave their stated positions, atleast the article must not be tilted to one side. Otherwise I can go on arguing endlessly while the one-sided status quo will remain protected. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, that is not possible. Administrators protect on the version that they find it at. Those involved in the edit war must discuss the issue and come to a consensus before the page will be unprotected or edited. Admins will always protect it on the wrong version. Woody (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

editprotected Woody, the disclaimer on the top of the edit protection template mentions that the admins do not associate with the version the article's been frozen at. You probably mistook my suggestion to be an endorsement of my views alone. I say that DO NOT adhere to either party's version, till such time the article is in abeyance (the article is currently oriented towards one party's view).

The "protection of the wrong version", as you say does not supercede the maintenance of neutrality throughout consensus discussion, and this maintenance of neutrality is perfectly possible by an admin, as mentioned on the protection template.

This is necessary, because as the article is currently positioned toward one particular PoV, any attempts to reach consensus from my side will be futile, as the other party already has its version under lock & key. It probably won't even bother to reply then .... Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}

Page protected, again
I have protected the article for two weeks. Please work out your differences and find a compromise here on the talk page. Continued edit warring is intolerable at this point. If you cannot work out your disagreement here, please seek outside assistance. If disruption and edit warring continues, I will apply blocks as needed to prevent further disruption and post to AN/I asking other administrators to endorse a topic ban for all involved parties. Vassyana (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest admins (including you, Vassyana) also be passive observers in the topical debate too. As you can see, my latest edit is neutral because it panders to neither AnishShah19's sramana-parallel-to-Vedic theory, nor sramana = 500 BC view of mine. This is because, should a topical ban take place, the article should not be out of bounds for either party, i.e. it should still remain neutral. The article should not be frozen on one particular view.

The "quarrel" has reduced to me reverting to the neutral view, whereas AnishShah19 continues to push his PoV nonetheless. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * IAF’s claim that this article has now neutral is false, as he was pushing for removal of sramana-parallel-to-Vedic references, which was very well referenced by scholars, and he succeeded in it and hence the protected article is now tilted in his POV. His tall claim that - he was reduced to reverting to neutral view - is another joke, as seen from his history of POV pushing. Nonetheless, I give him credit for seeing some sense and removing the Mahavira-founder-theory.--Anish (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith edit. Please revert it if it is unacceptable.
I have dared to work on this Article, in spite of a long history of learned debates that have accomulated over time. It is my two-cents, in good faith, open to Wikipedians revision, even to rv. Thanks and regards. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsism
Its an well known fact even on Wikipedia that Persians are of Indo-Aryan race see Indo-Iranians its documented and sourced in there. --Padan (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Zoroastrianism is not an Indian religion although 80% of the world's Parsis are in India. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and Jainism as Offshoots of Hindu Dharma
Obviously the two use Sanskrit/Indo-Aryan words such as Ahimsa, "Arya Dharma", karma, Nirvana, "Brahmapatha", etc. Were they any religious texts in the world before the Veda?

The following scholarly sources will be used in the article:
 * Scholars Jeffrey Brodd and Gregory Sobolewski write that "Jainism shares many of the basic doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism."


 * Jainism derives its title from the Sanskrit verb root "ji", meaning to conquer.


 * Victor N. Davich writes, "The Buddha Buddhism arose from Hinduism 2500 years ago and Buddhists share some of the central beliefs of Hindus."


 * Bashir Maan writes, "Buddhism Buddhism arose as an offshoot of Hinduism in the Behar region of India in the fifth or sixth century BC".


 * National Geographic edition reads, "The essential tenants of Buddhism and Hinduism arose from similar ideas best described in the Upanishads, a set of Hindu treatises set down in India largely between the eighth and fourth centuries B.C."


 * Scholar James Bird writes, "But when primitive Buddhism originated from Hindu schools of philosophy, it differed as widely from that of later times, as did the Brahmanism of the Vedas from that of the Puranas and Tantras."


 * Buddhism survived followed by Hindus. National Geographic edition reads, "The flow between faiths was such that for hundreds of years, almost all Buddhist temples, including the ones at Ajanta, were built under the rule and patronage of Hindu kings."


 * Peter Marshall speaking of Ahimsa, writes, "The compassionate message of Hinduism was further developed by its offshoots Jainism and Buddhism."


 * These sources are not specialists and not reliable. The word "Hinduism" is here being used in a misleading way. Modern Hinduism is a confluence of streams of thought that were once opposed; Brahmanism (Vedic religion) and shramanic thought. Buddhism and Jainism are more pure representatives of shramanic thought, although this was originally just for recluses so there is a lot of other stuff in these two religions as well. Mitsube (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but please state why all sources are not reliable. It is rather obvious that Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are similar religious traditions that emerged after Brahmanism, and have influenced each other, link and overlap with each other. Feel free to remove the sources that state Buddhism to be offshoots of Hinduism. Trips (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Trips, you seem to be a reasonable and a good faith editor. But, how it is obvious that “Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are similar religious traditions that emerged after Brahmanism” This seemingly innocent statement implies that Buddhism and Jainism, emerged from Brahmanism, which is not true as they emerged from the Sramana tradition. --Anish (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The scholarly consensus is different:


 * 1) "Buddhism was influenced by Brahmanism, Kung explains, and by the idea of the wheel of rebirth and the six paths: hells, pretas (hungry ghosts), animals, humans, asuras (titans) and devas (gods)."
 * 2) Professor Jacobi marks that Jainism and Buddhism are offshoots of Brahmanism.
 * 3) Arthur Anthony Macdonell writes of Jainism (like Buddhism), "Equally an offshoot of Brahmanism,..."
 * 4) John Mackinnon Robertson writes "Of Jainism, another offshoot of Brahmanism,..."
 * 5) Roger G. Newton writes of Jainism (like Buddhism) as "another heretical offshoot of Brahmanism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.164.208 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You can copy-paste whatever you want, but National Geographic, Hans Kung etc are not specialists and not reliable. This seems to be outdated 19th century scholarship. Mitsube (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "emerged from", and "emerged after". Trips (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

'''THE VEDAS MENTION THE TIRTHANKARAS ALTHOUGH NEVER MENTION JAINISM. IF JAINISM IS PRE-ARYAN THEN WHY DO THE TIRTHANKARAS HAVE SANSKRIT NAMES? WHY NOT NAMES IN A NON-INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE? WHY ARE THERE NOT ANY TEXTS OLDER THAN VEDAS? ALSO WHY HAVE JAIN ACCEPTED WORSHIP OF GENERIC HINDU DEITIES?'''

Jainism on HinduWiki Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.164.208 (talk)


 * As dab has pointed out earlier, you will do us a great favour by reading the previous discussion and sticking to the truce or consensus or whatever. Also desist from using the all caps and bold…it will not help you cause. For every one reference you provide, I have ten more scholarly references to contrary. Your references (howsoever scholarly you may claim) are clearly one part of story and push the Hindu orthodox POV. So you desist from putting it up and everyone will thank you for not indulging in edit war. The Jainism article on hinduwiki is a big joke. No will take it seriously.--Anish (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and Jainism ARE NOT Offshoots of Hinduism
It seems that you have really not seen the debate above. I have quoted a dozens of references above from scholars and Indologists that :-


 * Jainism is not an “offshoot” of Hinduism.
 * If not older, it is as old as vedic religion.
 * Vedas refer to Jain Tirthankaras proving that Tirthankaras existed before the documentation of Vedas. This itself proves antiquity of Jainism.
 * Jainism and Buddhism arose from the common ancient sramana tradition which was not in anyway related to Vedism.
 * Ahimsa, Karma, Jnana, samsara and Moksa are essentially Sramana concepts of which vedics were not aware and borrowed by them in the Upaishads.

I have hundreds of such references from established “Scholars”. So I suggest you stop pushing you Hindutva POV or it will be treated as vandalism.--Anish (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The historical Vedic religion and Hinduism are not the same thing, please get the fundamentals right. Trips (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Same thing" is a pedestrian term here, and shouldn't lead one to jump on to concluding that HVR and classical Hinduism were 'entirely different', 'independent' or 'not related'. Hinduism has been evolving and HVR is it's precursor, it's crux, it's bedrock (call it whatever). Note that the word 'Hindu' is a Persian construct and never once appears in any Hindu text.

As for Buddhism & Jainism, they arose from the larger sramana cult, which began around 500-400 BC. This movement itself was part a general intellectual era that began in 800 BC to analyze/summarize the Vedas and which in fact led to the formation of ideas like 'Dharma', 'birth-cycle', salvation etc. The primary Upanishads recorded these terms first. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "This movement itself was part a general intellectual era that began in 800 BC to analyze/summarize the Vedas." That's not what scholars say. The shramanas didn't care about Brahmanism. They weren't interested in it. They had their own, parallel culture. Some of them tried to incorporate the Vedas into their way of thinking, likely Brahman recluses, and others didn't, often non-Brahmans, like the Buddha and Mahavira. Mitsube (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not what scholars say. Oh yes, they do right here. Vedanta is a coompound word of Veda-anta or end of the Vedas, and contains commentaries on the Vedas. Vedanta began around 800-900 B.C. a good 300-400 years before the time of Sramana movement itself, leave aside the time of Mahavira and Gautam Buddha.

The shramanas didn't care about Brahmanas. Correction. Some did and some didn't. Those that did were [Samkhya] and

Dude, it seems that you are a very late entrant into the article's edition. You have produced verbatim, exactly those very references that had been forced out of this article many months ago. To see why, you have to take time out and read the previous sections of this talk page and the archives to see why.

Now this edit of yours, "“This confirms that the doctrine of transmigration is non-aryan and was accepted by non-vedics like Ajivikism, Jainism and Buddhism. The Indo-aryans have borrowed the theory of re-birth after coming in contact with the aboriginal inhabitants of India. Certainly Jainism and non-vedics [..] accepted the doctrine of rebirth as supreme postulate or article of faith.” Masih, page 37."

Mr. Masih's lack of knowledge on the above has been answered here. Adding to it, the BRHADARANYAKA Upanishad is one of the three primary Upanishads that date back to 800-900 BC or preceding Mahavira by 300-400 years.

So, that's that. This article has reached a 'truce' on further editing that favor either of the two sides (this is not the same as a consensus, but something like a ceasefire). That's why Cromwell, Masih, are cliche here. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The early Upanishadic writers did not describe themselves as "Vedantic." The early Upanishadic movement, which the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad is part of, is classified by scholars as shramanic, not Vedic. Though they make reference to the Vedas, the ideas are new. See the Werner quote you removed. It is a complicated picture I admit. The point is that the new ideas were "shramanic" and came from the shramanas. Regarding your personal response to Masih, he finds the ideas not clearly spelled out in the BH, not absent. Mitsube (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whhhatttt ???? Brhadaranyaka Upanishad is Shramanic ? Probably in your own invented history. So now Jainism is laying claim to even the Upanishads ! Great.

Dude, I hope that you do realise that if you are postulating that Upanishads are Shramanic, you are nailing the claim that Jainism is independent, because then it would invariably prove that Jainism is a direct outgrowth of the Upanishadic thought --- or in other words, from the precursor of classical Hinduism. And the Upanishads accepted the full authority and reverence of the Vedas. AnishShah19, Manish Modi & Co. will lunge for your throat then.

Vedanta is synonymous with the Upanishads. If you still claim what you do, back it up with a source, like I did just above to counter this claim.

Masih clearly said that the ideas are not clearly spelled out in the Vedas, and are absent in the Upanishads. This subjective claim can be dismissed even if you read the passages of the Upanishads that I've mentioned. There is mention of Karma, Dharma and life-cycle is crystal clear. So, Mr. MH's opinion of the B. Upanishad is easily retractible by anyone. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have it reversed. Read the Masih quote. He says the ideas are absent from the Vedas and not clearly spelled out in the Upanishads. Clearly they are mentioned in the Upanishads and are mentioned there first. However scholars are saying that the ideas are shramanic. The Upanishads are where Vedic thought and non-Vedic thought (shramanic thought) meet. They are an attempt to make the Vedas relevant by making them shramanic. I'm not in conflict with any Jains. The Upanishads, Jainism, and Buddhism all came out of shramanic thought. That's what the modern, specialist sources I've quoted say. Mitsube (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No sir, that's not what the scholars you quote say, but what you alone conclude. Read the next section where I've replied in detail.

Mr. Masih must take the trouble of walking the talk and not make grandiose pronouncements out of his arm-chair. Dharma, Karma and rebirth are explained in conversations in those sections of the Upanishads that I wrote. Dharma and Karma also find a fleeting pass in the Vedas too. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that.......whether historical Vedic religion and Hinduism are the same thing or not I am not concerned. In fact I suggest you guys sort out this fundamental thing. Many editors seem to suggest that Hinduism and historical Vedic religion are the same. But one thing that i do know that Buddhism and Jainism were never a part of historical Vedic religion (or Hinduism or whatever you may call it) and emerged from Sramanas. --Anish (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian-based Religions are 'Dharmic Religions'
These quotes should be added to the article to describe the common root of Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism, compared to with religions of foreign origin:
 * "Both Buddhism and Hinduism belong to the dharmic religions, where dharmic refers (1) to the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence, that is, to the divine law (2) to the conformity of one's duty and nature."


 * " Dharmic religions all originate from India, and they are Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.164.208 (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, what you've said is perfectly true. However, the sad truth is that in India you can't speak all this without ruffling political feathers the wrong way. That's why you find only western authors writing all this. The only strings the Jain editors here are precariously clinging on to are the references from some credible western authors who have likened Jaina/Buddhist practitioners --- and not religious beliefs --- of the Vedic period, to those from the actual period of Mahavir and the Buddha. This reinforces their dogma that Jainism transceds all time, etc. etc.

This article still hasn't reached consensus but is in stasis, so to speak mildly. The current status quo is indefinite. Anyway, good try. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This point has been debated to death. Check out the link here Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion. The term Dharmic religions is an obscure neologism and is disfavoured in scholarly circles. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a personal blog to put up personal orthodox beliefs.--Anish (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand the controversy about the term. Is it because the word is Sanskrit, and there is a misconception that Sanskrit is a "Hindu" language? There are many Jain and Buddhist texts written in Sanskrit. Mitsube (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are indeed Buddhistic and Jain texts written in Sanskrit, although the Vedas predate them all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.164.208 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the word is apt, because it indicates the similarity of the four religions, distinct from other groups of religions. Trips (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You will understand the "controversy", and the decision reached, if you actually read the discussion at the link provided. Everyone will thank you if you stop bringing it up without actually presenting new evidence. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The National Geographic quote
First of all, National Geographic? Really? Second, there was no such thing as "Hinduism" then. I have produced a scholar even saying that we should view the early Upanishads as shramanic. Third, the Buddha rejected the primary doctrine of the Upanishads (atman), so the NG statement is misleading. Mitsube (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not the first o discover that "there was no such thing as Hinduism back then". It is well known that even the word 'Hindu' appears not once in ANY of the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata. What is indeed universally accepted is that all of this were indeed the foundation stones of what was to later evolve into classical "Hinduism".

What is 'Hindu' ? Nothing more than a stamp given to us by Persian invaders. According to Swami Vivekananda, our technical definition should be 'Vedantists' or 'Vedantins', meaning those who uphold the Vedas and Upanishads. 'Hindu' is nothing. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * um, the Upanishads are, of course, part of the canonical circum-Vedic corpus of texts, even though they are (with a few exceptions) post-Vedic. The Upanishads present themselves as in the Vedic tradition, and as revealing the "secret" meaning of the original Vedas (hence, Vedanta). Yes, that "secret meaning" pretty much amounts to shramana, this is the whole point. The Upanishads do indeed discuss Vedic rituals, only, in these discussions they cease to be literal rituals and become symbolic, for example, the Ashvamedha isn't "really" about killing a horse any more, it's about "connecting to the Inner Sun", etc. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hinduism is a mixture of Vedic and shramanic thought. The shramanic thought was a parallel tradition that produced the ideas of karma, reincarnation, samsara, and moksha. These ideas were adopted by the Brahmins. I have actual sources saying that. IAF, you have National Geographic. Please stop this revert warring and give a counter suggestion as to how my sources should be used. The sources are legitimate unlike National Geographic. I don't insist on my version but you can't just write this article without good sources to suit your POV. Mitsube (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, you are arriving at your own conclusions based on heresay by authors that have been thrashed here before (Crawford and Masih). Take the trouble of reading the talk-page will you ? It has all been discussed and thrown out of here. You are not bringing any new reference to the table.

The crux of all your argumentations is your unfounded, unreferenced personal view that the Upanishads were shramanic and so Hinduism now is a so-called "mixture" of Shramana and Vedic thought. What you conveniently forgot is that the Vedantas are also subtly termed as Brahmanas, which in words means the word of the Brahmins.

Brahmanas from Brittanica Encyclopaedia :- Brahman.a (is) any of a number of prose commentaries attached to the Vedas, the most ancient Hindu sacred literature, explaining the significance of the Vedas as used in the ritual sacrifices and the symbolic import of the priests’ actions. The word brāhmaṇa may mean either the utterance of a Brahman (priest) or an exposition on the meaning of the sacred word; the latter is more commonly accepted by scholars.

More from here : A common designation of the priest is brahman (nom. brahma), originally denoting, it would seem, "one who prays, a worshipper," perhaps also "the composer of a hymn" (brahman, n.); and the same term came subsequently to be used not only for one of the sacerdotal order generally, but also, and more commonly, as the designation of a special class of priests who officiated as superintendents during sacrificial performances, the complicated nature of which required the co-operation of a whole staff of priests, and who accordingly were expected to possess a competent knowledge of the entire course of ritual procedure, including the correct form and mystic import of the sacred texts to be repeated or chanted by the several priests.

So there goes the vision of Upanishads being Shramanic. Or not, if you are further willing to gamble on the Brahmans themselves being ascetic vratyas or munis (earliest [Shaman]s mistaken as ShRamanas) in garbs.

And contrary to your view, your very quotations from Masih, Crawford and Crmwell have been muffled out of this article on this very talk page by McEvilley, Flood, Chapple and later edits [ here] by Torkel Brekke, Victor N. Davich, and James Bird........ and of course, good ol' National Geographic. So, I'm not edit warring, but you have barged in and introduced all that was painstakingly removed from the article. That's why you have to go through the talk-page and see why your edits have already been boxed out by months of discussions. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't read the Werner quote, you didn't respond to the fact that you misread the Masih quote, and you didn't understand my point. The new ideas in the Upanishads were shramanic. I've said that. Even if you refuse to accept that and somehow find a good source contradicting Masih (you are not one), it does not follow that the new ideas were borrowed by non-Vedics from Brahmins, which seems to be your wish. What is wrong with Cromwell? I see no source provided that contradicts him. Mitsube (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

IAF, you have gone off on a tangent once again and you have put up some irrelevant definitions and comments on Brahamans which have no bearing on the current debate. I see a déjà vu here with shamana and all that. Anyway coming to the point…..I will not say that Upanishads were work of sramanas, but they were definitely influenced by them deeply…The brahmanas borrowed the karma, reincarnation, transmigration, moksa and mainly Ahimsa from the sramanas and moulded it in their own way to differentiate themselves. This fact is testified by the Upanisads themselves. The karma theory was borrowed from outside by the brahmanas. The verb Karma occurred in the earlier upanisad more as an action and rituals rather than in connection with reincarnation, transmigration, moksa and good/bad deeds. Brhad. Upanisad (BU) 6.2.2-8. In a dialogue between Pancala King Pravahana Jaivali on one side and the young Brahmin Svetaketu and his learned master Gautama or Udalaki Aruni on other, it is revealed that Brahamans are not aware of the unorthodox ideas like – Karma, rebirth and transmigration. In another section, BU 2.1.15 admits that Gargya the Brahmin comes to king Ajatsatru to learn the unorthodox ideas from the Ksatriya caste. BU mentions that Brahmins have learned the unorthodox ideas from the Ksatriyas in a role reversal. The same class to which Buddha, Mahavira, Pasrva and the 24 tirthankara belonged. King Ajatsatru was a disciple of Mahavira as well as Buddha. In Chandaogya Upanisada, (CU) 5.2.7, clearly says : “The knowledge of the karmas had never reached the Brahmanas, as a result all the power to rule rests exclusively with the Ksatriyas.” Thus Karma evolved in Upanisads only in the latter sections by the time the sramana teacher well established. Now let us what the scholars say:

Oh no you don't AnishShah19. There is no need to refurbish stale references that I've already discarded by proving them inaccurate, and even so glibly pathetic that I didn't even bother to reply to Mitsube pointwise when he tried to recycle Messrs Masih all over again. Talk about taking over the baton from you.

And no, my locus standi has a pertinent standing on this whole debate. If you don't, or rather refuse to distinguish shamans from sramana -- ironically brought to us by your own sources, McEvilley and Flood -- then I can't help it. Convenient ignorance I do not entertain; be like that at your own risk. Besides, since when did Upanishads themselves "testify" to have borrowed from sramanss ? This, when your protege Mr. Mitsube has rightly said that sramanas don't even find a mention in the Upanishads. Or are you brewing yet another theory once more, this time by saying that the Kshatriyas were sramanas ?

Here, read this book :- "Philosophy of the Upanishads", by Paul Deussen. Pg. 209 states the clear transition of man through Kama, Kratu and Karma desire, discernment and deed or action (Brh. 4.4.5; see the footnote). No clearer exposition can be given than this. In II.IV, good karma and bad Karma is told about. Pg. 330 explains the basis of the transmigration theory of the Brih. 3.2.13 and says further that, "In the last words, the motive which lies at the doctrine of transmigration is clearly expressed". So how are you saying that transmigration and karma theory aren't elucidated in the BU ? Now, I have a professional scholar too who also says th opposite of this.

Paul says in Pg. 329 (referring to BU), "This so-called chief text teaches a double retribution, once by reward and punishment in the other world, and again by rebirth upon earth." This is also hinted at in the Rig Ved, according to him.

As for King Pravahana, on Pg. 18 he points out to his learned courtier Gautama, that he pleaded ignorance about a soul's transmigration and admitted that he had learned it from the 'warrior caste'. Deussen then explains how most of the Brahmans earlier concentrated only on the ritual, whereas the kshatriyas fostered the original Rig Vedic teaching of transmigration amongst their own clan, and shielded it all from the Brahmans (although the credit for it's originality goes to the Rig Ved/Brahmans themselves). The ignorant Brahmans, when enamoured of all this, later claimed it as having been their own all along.

Now this does not mean that Kshtriyas were sramanas. True, Mahavira and Buddha were also kshatriyas, but they renounced this world to run full monty in the jungles. So how are you linking kshtriyas and sramana ? Serendipity, I would say. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Y. Masih (2000) In : A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidass Publ : Delhi, ISBN 8120808150 - “We know only this much that the doctrine of karma-samsara-jnana-mukti is first seen in the clearest form in the shramanic tradition. It is now even accepted by orthodox bhramins. This doctrine is not clearly spelled out in Rgvedas and not even in the oldest parts of Upanishads called chandogya and Brhadaranyaka.” Page 149

Y. Masih should probably read Paul Deusson above. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gavin D. Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University - Press : UK ISBN 0521438780 - “The origin and doctrine of Karma and Samsara are obscure. These concepts were certainly circulating amongst sramanas, and Jainism and Buddhism developed specific and sophisticated ideas about the process of transmigration. It is very possible that the karmas and reincarnation entered the mainstream brahaminical thought from the sramana or the renouncer traditions.” Page 86

"Very possible ...that it entered". Just "very possible", but not true as seen above. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Padmanabh S. Jaini 2001 “Collected Paper on Buddhist Studies” Motilal Banarsidass Publ 576 pages ISBN 8120817761 : The Upanishadic doctrines of Brahma and Atman can be consistently traced back to their original sources viz. Vedas and the Brahmanas. But the doctrine of transmiration (punarjanam), action (karma) and emancipation (moksa), the doctrines fundamental to the sramana religions and at a later stage to all Indian religions, do not follow with equal consistency from vedic tradition. Page 50
 * Yajnavalkya’s reluctance and manner in expounding the doctrine of karma in the assembly of Janaka (a reluctance not shown on any other occasion) can perhaps be explained by the assumption that it was, like that of the transmigration of soul, of non-brahmanical origin. In view of the fact that this doctrine is emblazoned on almost every page of sramana scriptures, it is highly probable that it was derived from them. Page 51

"Highly probable" yes, but can never be proven. Proven that ksatriyas were sramana ? No. In fact the buck stops when Pravahana admittedly gave a copyright to the warrior caste, and try as much as you might, NO historian has even contemplated linking the kshtriyas to the sramanas. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Robert J. Zydenbos - In the view of so many basic differences between the two traditions, [Jain and Vedic] it is amazing that there are still people who speak of Jainism as a “heterodox sect of Hinduism” An Impartial study of the literary evidence, both Jaina and Brahamanical, leads to a conclusion that the latter offshoots of the vedic tradition have borrowed a lot from Jainism : the theory of karma and re-birth, the vegetarianism of the higher Hindu castes, perhaps also temple worship. Page 59


 * Govind Chandra Pande, (1994) Life and Thought of Sankaracarya, Motilal Banarsidass ISBN 8120811046 : Early Upanishad thinkers like Yajnavalkya were acquainted with the sramanic thinking and tried to incorporate these ideals of Karma, Samsara and Moksa into the vedic thought implying a disparagement of the vedic ritualism and recognising the mendicancy as an ideal. Page 135


 * A History of Yoga By Vivian Worthington 1982 Routledge ISBN 071009258X - The Upanishads were like a breath of fresh air blowing through the stuffy corridors of power of the vedic brahminism. They were noticed by the Brahmin establishment because the yogis did not owe allegiance to any established religion or mode of thought.. So although, the Upanishads came to be noticed by Brahmin establishment, they were very largely saying what may well have been current among other sramanic groups at that time. It can be said that this atheistic doctrine was evidently very acceptable to the authors of Upanishads, who made use of many of its concepts. Page 27. This ethical doctrine [of karma] seems to have been fairly common amongst all the sramanic disciplines in pre-vedic times, but has come down to us in its clearest form with the Jains. 32
 * The idea of re-incarnation, so central to the older sramanic creeds is still new to many people throughout the world. The Aryans of the Vedic age knew nothing of it. When the Brahmins began to accept it, they declared it as a secret doctrine. […] It will be seen from this short account of Jains, that they had fully developed the ideas of karma and reincarnation very early in history. The earliest Upanishads were probably strongly influenced by their teachings. Jainism the religion, Samkhya the philosophy and yoga the way to self discipline and enlightenment dominated the spiritual life of Indian during the Dravidian times. They were to be overshadowed for over thousand years by the lower form of religion that was foisted on the local inhabitants by the invading Aryans, but in the end it was Sramanic disiplines that triumphed. They did so by surviving in their own right and by their ideas being fully adopted by the Brahmins who steadily modified their own vedic religion…..35

I was not aware of all this myself. The evidence from the prose Upanishads that the Brahmins got the karma doctrine from the Kshatriyas is quite conclusive. "the yogis did not owe allegiance to any established religion or mode of thought" this is why Werner groups them in with the Shramanas as opposed to the Brahmanas, because the Shramanas were a much looser culture. In order to get a stable version I'm willing to keep out the now established fact that karma, reincarnation, etc were developed by non-Vedics. But we can certainly not put in the opposite. It is vital to note that the Buddha rejected the Upanishadic Atman which seems to be the only Upanishadic idea not borrowed. I believe the Jains have a very different version as opposed to the Upanishads though I know almost nothing about it. Mitsube (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

When you say, "Non-Vedic", by the admission of the Upanishads themselves, they were kshtriya at the most and even then, as Deusson established by quoted verses from the RV, transmigration and Karma were indeed present in the RV earlier, and later 'expanded' by the kshatriya caste. No matter how much you may try to maneuver the origin of Karma, Dharma and transmigration, it NEVER once does fall in the lap of the wandering ascetics of sramanas. At the most, it can only be surmised that it is so -- note that each and every one of the authors that AnishShah19 quoted right above, from Y. Masih down to Vivian Worthington are all cautious in their approach by disclaiming sramanic origins of all this by "perhaps" and "quite possible" and so on and so forth. Not one has proof, but only strong hints.

And about the last one, Mr. Worthington proves his worth when he says, "So although, the Upanishads came to be noticed by Brahmin establishment....". The guy must be told that the Upanishads were written down by the Brahmin establishment itself and so the question of'noticing it' doesn't arise.

'''On the other hand, it is of the utmost academic interest to note that Paul Deusson's book, "Philosophy of the Upanishads", from which I put up extracts above in my reply to AnishShah19, has NOT A SINGLE mention of yogis, or wanderers and least of all any sramana influence. It doesn't even contain the word 'sramana' or 'shramana'. The e-book is right here'''

So, at the most I can allow you to add something like, "it is theorized that the earliest Upanishads may have been influenced by the sramana clan, although from the conversational accounts by the Brahman authors themselves, they seem to have expanded on Karma and transmigration from the dominant and powerful kshtriya caste, who were initially reluctant to share this with the former. This, despite that the Vedas themselves were the origins of these seeded theories" After this, you can cite your references.

I won't be reverting anything this time around. You take your time to chew on this, and post what you think here. Then we'll converge on a solution.Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your Deussen book is 100 years old. The research that Anishshah and I have brought here is actually modern. Your theories are quite outdated. Modern scholars say that the ideas in question (reincarnation, karma) are not Vedic. The weight of evidence is definitely on the side of the argument that these ideas were developed by yogis/shramanas who were not concerned with Vedic ritualism. Worthington's quote is true because the Brahmins were not a monolithic group. It took some time for Vedanta to push Vedic sacrifices off center stage.
 * "the motive which lies at the doctrine of transmigration is clearly expressed." That doesn't make sense. Did you copy it correctly? Or is this ancient book written with an archaic English dialect?
 * If you're trying to put words in my mouth, I never said Brahmins = Vedic, Kshatriyas = Shramanic. But the most influential shramanas were Kshatriyas. Also in the Pali Canon in addressing people concerned with spiritual matters the Buddha always says "brahamanas and shramanas" because there were two distinct groups. Many brahmanas did become shramanas and in fact most of the Buddha's early disciples were brahmin converts.
 * The current version doesn't assign credit for the karma, reincarnation theories. I'm fine with that even though credit is due to the shramanas. Not being a shramana I'm not so concerned. Also the Buddha accepted the clothing doctrine and did not run around full monty. Mitsube (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh ? What's up with the "Your Deussen book is 100 years old" ? In a day and age when a 19th century linguist and historian Max Mueller is still standard, how do you exactly discount Deussen ? He was Mueller's contemporary. All of the ancient Vedic/Vedantic texts were translated and done with way before the 20th century, and which prompted Nehru to write his magnum opus "Discovery of India" (that also contains refs to sramana).

And, no neither shramana nor is it's possible link to Vedanta is a late 20th cen. discovery by historians. Sramana has been known since ages. Besides, I can bet that your comrade AnishShah19 was posting stuff from Deussen's book itself, after garbling it - the same book that you call "outdated". One boat and two rudders.

You should get your 'isms' right first. You can't use 'Vedic' and 'Ved-anta' interchangeably. What your refs are saying is that sramana people "could have" or "perhaps have" been originally responsible for much of later Vedanta's content (note the fine-print : emphasis on likelihood, probability and never certainty). This does not mean, in as much as that wasn't said by Masih & Co. that "we should view Vedanta as shramanic", like you said 2 days back.

Till yesterday, you were peddling Masih's bunkum as gospel, which was [roughly] "...the doctrine of karma-samsara-mukti is not clear in the Rig Veda and not even in the earliest Upanishads". This was put paid by Deussen's exclusive and volumnous book on the Upanishads along with the necessary references that, "In the last words the motive which lies at the basis of the doctrine of transmigration is clearly expressed." I too independently quoted from the Brih. Upanishad itself to show that BU is quite lucid in it's explanation contrary to what Masih would like us to believe. About samsara, here's what this page has to say, "The origin of samsara must be credited to Hinduism and its classic writings. It cannot have appeared earlier than the 9th century BC because the Vedic hymns, the most ancient writings of Hinduism, do not mention it, thus proving that reincarnation wasn’t stated yet at the time of their composition".

And by what pretext do you quote relative unknowns like Masih and Cromwell while ignoring dismissing Geographic ? The NG reference states, "The essential tenants of Buddhism and Hinduism arose from similar ideas best described in the Upanishads, a set of Hindu treatises set down in India largely between the eighth and fourth centuries. " This is perfectly accurate. Even if there was no "Hinduism" then, you very well know that it is still the sacred text of what today is called "hinduism" and nearly all of this "Hinduism" draws from this, besides epics and Puranas. So a word-play on "Hinduism" is not of the order. That 'Atman' thingy (though not ignorable) does not mean that the rest, or almost all of of Buddhism was not impregnated by Upanishadic thought, and this is exactly what NG states. As per McEvilley, even Mahavira abandoned the cult practices of his predecessor Parshva (now the 23rd Tirthankar). This does not mean that Parshva and Mahavira did not essentially belong to the same stock.

Let's take Zydenbos who writes, "....leads to a conclusion that the latter offshoots of the vedic tradition have borrowed a lot from Jainism : the theory of karma and re-birth, the vegetarianism of the higher Hindu castes, perhaps also temple worship."

Karma and rebirth due to that (kama, kratu, karma) appear in the BU first, by way of Yajnavalkya's descriptions -- a decent 3 centuries before Jainism even began to show signs of being. This is said  here, besides Deussen's extractions that I copy-pasted above. And these verses from BU and Chandogya are not one off exceptional extractions like a candle-in-the-wind sort of way. BU and Chandogya considerably deal with all this throughout their respective texts.

Take Padmanabha S. Jaini, (note Jaini) "Yajnavalkya’s reluctance and manner in expounding the doctrine of karma in the assembly of Janaka (a reluctance not shown on any other occasion) can perhaps be explained by the assumption that it was, like that of the transmigration of soul, of non-brahmanical origin." This portion is likely to be true, because that was pilfered from Kshatriyas, by the king's own account. Historians like Maurice Bloomfield also take it further by saying here that, "it is possible the germs of this belief to have filtered into the Brahmanical consciousness from below, from popular sources, possibly from some of the aboriginal, non-Aryan tribes of India." It is undoubtedly clear that these tribes that were called by names like Vratyas and Munis in the RV, and which are INCORRECTLY presumed to be sramanas. Practitioner line predating sramanas yes, but not sramanas themselves.

As McEvilley has shown, what came to be later known as sramanas, probably inherited from this mendicant society, and so sramana is therefore its successor. That society at that time was NOT sramana, but were only Munis and Vratyas -- naked outcasts in and around Aryan settlements. But all this prompted AnishShah19 to excitedly say that Jainism is even older than Vedanta and rivaled Rig Ved in time.

Now, sramana's time period is well defined. According to the "Passage to India" series of articles by Indiana Univ. here, Sramana "..began to appear around 600 BC...and were engaging in the same sorts of speculation about the Self or Soul that we noticed in the proto-philosophical Upanishad-s of the Indo-Brahmanical tradition." The earliest Upanishads are regarded as post-dated attachments to the Vedas themselves, and so the period of the primary Upanishads did definitely precede the formal 'beginning' of sramana. (All this I'm repeating for the nth time because you didn't scroll up to read previous talk).

We can definitely say that the later Upanishads and sramana were indeed symbiotic. Latter Upanishads that were composed down in parallel to the rise of Buddhism or Jainism were quite indistinguishable in content with sramanic ideals. It is in this overlapping portion that historians like Masiha goof up in by saying that even the earliest Upanishads could have been sramanic because, "this doctrine (of karma etc.) is emblazoned on almost every page of sramana scriptures". They must be told that sramana began atleast 300 years after the first Upanishads are estimated to have been recorded. The Vedic-brahmanism-was-parallel-to-sramana applies only to 600 BC onwards when the non-primary Upanishads were being written.

That's why Bloomfield is bang on target, because he rightly attributes the borrowed ideas to possibly the aborigine tribes, which undoubtedly were the Vratya-Muni-Kesin-Yogi consortium depicted in the Rig Ved. This is exactly what Werner has said (she discusses their description in the Rig Ved), which is that these groups lived outside the mainstream and later came to be called sramana. This reached it's peak during Jain-Buddhist movements. The sramana-was-throughout-all-time theory has gained credence only very recently.

Now Jaini further writes that, "the doctrine of transmigration (punarjanam), action (karma) and emancipation (moksa), the doctrines fundamental to the sramana religions and at a later stage to all Indian religions, do not follow with equal consistency from vedic tradition." Fine, they don't "follow with equal consistency" in the Vedas, and may be "emblazoned" in sramana pages. Still that does not negate the observation that the Vedic tradition no matter how "inconsistent", was originator of these and that sramana which came about much later only fed on and expanded on it.

So, the references by Masih, Jaini, Worthington and other worthies have gotten it totally wrong, and must be removed. What I'll allow is a line something like, "..the earliest Upanishads had descriptions of good/bad karma, transmigration and rebirth, which may not entirely have been due to original authorships of the Brahman caste, but also of the ksatriya caste according to the accounts in the Brih. Upanishad itself. Some historians like Maurice Bloomfield are also of the opinion that they could possibly have been 'germinated' from other classes of society, including the aborigine tribes that lived in the periphery of Brahman society..." and "...sramana began to appear around 600 BC, which essentially had descended from the penance-emphatic aborigines of Vedic period. This movement reached it's peak during the time of Buddha and Jain leader, Mahavira (ref. Werner). They took Brahmanic/vedic views that were established earlier (including Atman and karma) and extended them much further (ref. NG)..." Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thorough post. We give precedence to more recent scholarship. The shramana/vedic dichotomy is more modern as you say (in terms of analyzing a specific time period; it is there strongly in the Canon already as I mentioned). I am willing to concede that the term shramana is also not so ancient. But that is just a matter of labeling. The culture was a continuous stream and that's the point. Some scholars use the word in a more general sense than others. The point is that there was a culture from the ancient times that was non-Vedic and had successors as Jainism and Buddhism (and Vedanta!). If you want to put "shramanic period" in between I don't care and it doesn't affect the point. Nothing in your post contradicts this. The word choice you have attacked only. Fine we can be more careful with the word "shramana."
 * It is undoubtedly clear that these tribes that were called by names like Vratyas and Munis in the RV, and which are INCORRECTLY presumed to be sramanas." I don't understand the point of this. I never cited the RV at any point. You are trying to rebut an argument that I didn't make.
 * I admit that the Upanishads are the oldest scriptures containing the yogic ideas. However that does not imply that the ideas originated in the Brahmanical tradition. You certainly agree to that. The people they got the ideas from weren't as big into scriptures. I am not sure what to make of the idea that Jainism is as old as the Vedas personally. I believe that the yogic ideas were developed by the Dravidians before the Aryan invasion/migration (like the proto-Shiva on the Harappan seal). Whether or not the doctrines were anywhere near crystallized into Mahavira's beliefs at the time of the invasion I certainly doubt. I believe also that the Buddha founded Buddhism himself. It is the Buddhist belief that the Buddha is the first Buddha of this age anyway. It is also true that the "Upanishadic" ideas "impregnated Buddhism." But the Upanishadic ideas were taken from the earlier source. Upanishads is when Brahmans started to get into meditation and asceticism. It would be better to say that the yogic ideas (taken from let's call it proto-jainism or early yogic culture) were written in Upanishads in rough form and greatly influenced the Buddha and later Hinduism. Any other formulation would be misleading and superficial. Especially misleading because the main doctrine is atman and the Buddha attacked the idea of conceiving of any permanent "self" quite vigorously. That's why we don't use photography magazines for religious articles. Much of the meditative technology the Buddha did not develop from scratch. The shamatha techniques he learned from the shramanas. Mitsube (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Look dude, I'll gently walk you through the history of a certain peoples. The Vratyas, kesins and munis of the RV were shamans and not shRamanas. (In fact, Kelly Werner's paper itself is titled, "Longhaired mystic of the RV : Shaman, mystic or Yogi" ? here ). OK ?

Now this little-recorded myriad group gave rise to many other successor groups like Shaiva, Samkhya, Ajivika and Jaina and Buddhist. Note that Lord Shiva of the Shaivas is shown with a snake-skin, long hair, and if not found dancing on mountain tops, is found penancing --- just the description of munis/Kesins in the RV. Even todays naga-babas (Hindi : naked seers) at the Kumbh Mela can be said to be direct practitioner descendents of these people of nearly 3 millenia back.

Now, the others who also shared the mantlespace along with Shaivas were the Yogis, the Samkhyas, Ajivika, Buddhist and Jaina traditions. Only the last 3 were shramana. So, shramana was just of one of the many descendents of the Vratya-muni outcasts described in the RV. By lifestyle and dress sense, you couldn't distinguish the Shaivas with say the Jaina monks or Yogis, but by ideology the Shaivas, Shramanas and Yogis were all in different worlds. According to Indiana Univ. article the specific shramana branch began only about 600 BC and ended about 300 BC, while peaking during the times of Buddha and Mahavira (Werner also says that the Kesins and Yogis of RV broke out into the Shramana movement which peaked during these times).

What is most important is that this period is way after the last of the RV portions and the earliest of the Upanishads were crystallized. As the Indiana article rightly says, " [the shramana groups]....and were engaging in the same sorts of speculation about the Self or Soul that we noticed in the proto-philosophical Upanishad-s of the Indo-Brahmanical tradition."

Now, Bloomfield is right that the copyright of some portion of the "Religion of the Veda" and "Brahmanical religion" including even some gods in the Rig Veda were due to the "non-Aryan aboriginal tribes" of that time. He is unmistakably referring to the kesins, munis and Vratyas of the RV. Werner (1989) also says the same thing that whatever mysticism one comes across in all the Vedas is due to these non-Aryan shamans, who later came to be called sramanas (in fact, only one tributary was sramana; Shaiva, Yoga, Samkhya besides others were the other branches of this).

So, even if the Brahmanas of the earliest Upanisads were caught copying by Kings, we can write that [as Bloomfield said] "...they borrowed from many other lower classes of society, possibly also from the aboriginal tribes of the time..." About Jainism and Buddhism, we can write the second line that I suggested earlier. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I re-read your last post that you edited just now. As Bloomfield and Werner from 1989 have said, the Upanishads were influenced possibly by aborigine tribals of the society, besides others too, most notably the ksatriyas. These tribals were NOT shramana, and the ksatriyas, were definitely not too. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said that the shramanas were descendants of the "this little-recorded myriad group." This is a straw-man argument. I'm just reporting what the sources say. I'm not trying to tie my argument to vague references in the Rig Veda. You said "Now this little-recorded myriad group gave rise to many other successor groups like Shaiva, Samkhya, Ajivika and Jaina and Buddhist." I will say that there was some loose non-Vedic culture that gave way to these groups, but I never said anything about tribes in the Rig Veda and neither did the sources I have brought. Your argument seems to be (and I might be wrong), "you're claiming these groups thought of yoga, but they were actually just shamans, so they didn't think of it, so the (also Aryan) Kshatriyas did." I never said that. Also there is no way you would be able to show that those groups mentioned in the Rig Veda did not develop the yogic ideas (not that I'm saying they did). Karel Werner also says that the long-haired mystic should be taken to be a yogi, and an interesting example of Brahmins showing respect to someone who did not believe in their ideas. The current secondary sources are all in agreement and they say, basically, that yoga is non-Vedic in origin. You are seeing everything through a certain lens. Why does every sentence have to have the Brahmanas as the grammatical subject? Why do they have to be the dynamic force doing things and thinking of things? The facts show that it was non-Vedics who came up with the core ideas, and even the also Aryan Kshatriyas were more interested in spiritual advancement. The Brahmins were the last ones to come on board with yoga. Being the keepers of orthodoxy you would expect that. This is what the facts say. The article as it is now doesn't even put credit where it is due and I'm willing to accept that because this article seems to get people upset. Let's keep it calm here. And let me say yet again that I'm not claiming that there are references to "shramanas" in the Rig Veda. It may well be that groups mentioned there were the proto-yogis whose culture developed karma-reincarnation-samsara-moksha for all I know but that doesn't affect my argument either way and I don't have an opinion about it. You and anishshah can argue about the age of Jainism without me. Mitsube (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IAF You can keep your bad taste comments like full monty etc to yourself. These sort of comments will come up and get you in trouble. Even when I am not talking of Shamanas, but Sramanas, by some clairvoyance or maybe hallucination you feel that I am talking of Shamanas. For the nth  time – I am talking of Sramana and not Shamanism. You keep your red herrings to yourself. And do not waste time and space by filling up irrelevant stuff. At least I am quoting some scholars – you keep on peddling discredited sources like Stephan Knapp (that have preposterous claims that ancient western civilizations are offshoots of Vedic religion). Now you scourge the net to pick sources like www.comparativereligion.com which is a proselytizing Christian site and has sections like “Possible difficulties in the philosophy of the Bhagvat Gita”. Just to prove your point, you have no scruples to pick up a site that discredits even a magnum opus like The Geeta. Now let us take the National geographic quote that you are tom-tomming about – “The essential tenets of Buddhism and Hinduism arose from similar ideas (Only similar, not the same ideas), best described (emphasis on best described…it does not talk of origin or first described) in the Upanishads, a set of Hindu treatises set down in India largely between the eighth and fourth centuries B.C”  So this can also been mean the other way round – Hinduism is offshoot of Buddhism as Upanishads may well be best describing the ideas of Sramanas. Now another exposé – Check out this article here in verbatim –. The NatGeo ref. seeks to confuse readers and give wrong impression. This reference gives an impression that NatGeo has done some serious study on origins of Buddhism and arrived at some conclusion to suit IAF & co. But it is simply an article on Ajanta and Ellora caves and an off the cuff remark to link Buddhism and Hinduism, without any serious study on the historical origins.

I am glad you brought up the point of Munis, Vratyas etc. You have a one-point agenda. For you they were outcasts or non-vedics of Rgveda or whatever, anything, anything, maybe even Romans blah…blah … anything but Sramanas. Why? Because Sramana survived by Jainism and Buddhism are a big threat to your pet offshoot theories and that by crediting RV non-vedics to some now defunct tradition you can wish away the problem. The problem for you is Taittirtya Aranyaka [2.7.1] of Black Yajurveda says – Vatarasana Rsi’s were Sramanas and celibates – check the transliteration here – Page 45. Vatarasana are clearly described in Rgveda 10.136 as Munis and Kesins. Hence various scholars like Valerie J. Roebuck have mentioned that Vratyas of AV were a precursor of Sramanas pg. 501 “The Upinashads” Penguin Classics ISBN 0140447490.

Now once again you are selectively rehashing the Indiana site without giving the full picture. Let me repeat what it says once again - MODULE 6: THE JINA AND THE BUDDHA ( http://www.indiana.edu/~isp/cd_rom/mod_06/mod_06.htm ) which says : “As mentioned earlier in our brief summary of the religions of India, the Jain tradition is one of the oldest traditions in India and may go back as far as Indus Valley times, that is, to the second millenium Before the Common Era (2000-1500 BCE), although the precise origins of the tradition are not yet fully known.” MODULE 11 itself admits that: “With the Indo-Shramanical layer, which may well reflect the resurfacing of pre-brahmanical traditions.'” 

Brahmins were authors of vedas. If they were not aware of Karma, Samsara and Moksa…then how can these things enter vedas??? Plain and simple logic. How did Ksatriyas know these unorthodox concpts if not taught byvedic teacher. Obviously from Sramanas. These is what the scholars are shouting from the rooftops.

I am not interesting in repeating the same arguments. I am not interested in proving that Jainism predates vedas or age of Jainism. For now I am happy with the so called truce that says that – ‘Jainism is said to have been established by a lineage of 24 enlightened beings culminating with Mahavira.’although it is not the entire picture. Even if Buddha was founder…it had nothing to do with vedism or anti-vedism. He was influenced by the ancient Sramana teachers. Hence Buddhism is not offshoot of any religion or tradition. The point here is the Sramanas, not Jainism or Buddhism…. The point here is as Mitsube says of crediting the proper traditions. IAF’s pet offshoot theory that first targeted Jainism and is now targeting Buddhism. Too bad! Indoctrination of certain people is so strong that they refuse the accept the obvious truth provided by the scholars. It's as if, acceptance of some sramana influence is going to shake the very foundations of vedism. It's pathetic to see that some people believe in grandiosity of their own religion by belittling the other traditions.--Anish (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting that the predecessors of the shramanas may be mentioned in the Vedas. This should be explored, but in other articles. Karel Werner finds the same thing actually about the long-haired ascetic. He says this is Brahmanas paying respect to non-Vedics.
 * The whole problem has been seeing all of Indian history through the Vedic lens. So everything must be "Vedic" or "anti-Vedic" and even the anti-Vedic things must have their origins in Vedism somehow. This is a religious belief about history, nothing more. Many non-Hindus likely believe it as well. Dbachmann was saying things like that for a while but he seems to have come around. I am intrigued to know why Hindus feel the need to believe this. I don't understand it. Why must Buddhism and Jainism be off-shoots of Hinduism for Hindus to be happy? Can someone explain it to me? Is it because the Hindu myths actually say this? Is it because Indian Hindus want to equate "Indianness" with "Hinduness" for nationalist reasons? I am very curious to know the answer. Mitsube (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not for nationalistic reasons. Jainism and Buddhism is considered Hindu in Indian nationalism. Though of course Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese Buddhist sects, which incorporate a lot of local mythology, is not. Trips (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mitsube, you have raised a very pertinent question. Why is this happening? It’s a lot of cultural and a bit political thing. You need to be an Indian to understand this problem. I am tempted to agree about the nationalistic and ideological part……but it is just one-tenth of the problem. The Hindutva fanatics are just at the fringe of the tolerant Indian society. The problem is the basic indoctrination of the laypeople. In a population of one billion, you find atleast a million holymen, gurus and babas. (religion is the opium of masses. You must have heard of this.) With due respect to their holiness, scholarship and history is not their forte and these holymen attribute everything good in this human civilization and world to the Vedas. This is lapped up hungrily by the laypersons who really believe that their religion is literally Sanatan Dharma or eternal. Since there is no prophet from whom the authority can be derived, the authority is derived from the ancientness or the antiquity of the Vedas. Whatever is the oldest is believed to be the best. I have read many such so called scholarly papers that push back the date of Vedas to 9000 BCE and that of Sankaracarya to 5th or 6th Century BCE. Checkout this one interesting article on antiquity frenzy that has gripped these people. --Anish (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Trips comment above is a good example of indoctrination and how he views everything with his religious blinkers. You give them testimony from 100 scholars, but nothing is good for them. Nothing should shake the antiquity of the vedic foundations built on the offshoot theories. --Anish (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This explains it. Hindus need some certificate of authenticity for Hinduism so they make it antiquity. So then signs that the religion changed over time partially due to non-Vedic influence challenges that. Also yogic ideas must be old and Vedic, so then Jainism and Buddhism must be offshoots. That explains it. Mitsube (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its all a big bad Hindu conspiracy against the Jains. My statement earlier doesn't mean that the independent Jainism and Buddhism falls within Hindu dharma, but that the word Hindu in Indian nationalism refers to native religious traditions of the Indian subcontinent, of which even Mr Anish Shah would agree that Jainism is one. And of course the inter-religious influence over millenia is undeniable. Trips (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Trips, your statement is contradictory. First you start out with - It's certainly not for nationalistic reasons.  Then you contradict and say -  Jainism and Buddhism is considered Hindu in Indian nationalism. Get the fundas clear my friend. The word Hindu cannot be equated with Indian. The terminology Hindu  belongs to the category like – Muslim, Christian, Jain or Buddhist. Ditto for Hinduism. Indian falls in category like – American, Pakistani, British etc. For. eg. American cannot be equated with Christianity. Jainism is as Native Indian as Hinduism, but your statement Hindu in Indian nationalism refers to native religious traditions of the Indian subcontinent is totally wrong. I hope that you get the idea now.--Anish (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, read it again so you understand. It's becoming harder to take what you say seriously. Trips (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm....Too bad....So I was right about the indoctrination and blinkers part.--Anish (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So Hindu nationalists use a different definition of the word "Hindu." So for them "Hindu" means "Indian." They believe that Hinduism is totally ancient and unchanging, and Jainism and Buddhism couldn't possibly be complete rejections of the eternal truths of Hinduism. Mitsube (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hinduism is totally ancient and unchanging, and Jainism and Buddhism couldn't possibly be complete rejections of the eternal truths of Hinduism.", Hindu nationalism is not Hindu dharma centric, as you are implying. Hindu nationalism would have nothing to do with classifying Jainism and Buddhism as Hindu offshoots, it's probably mostly attributable to sources that breifly skim the topic which do so out of ignorance. Trips (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube, Tripping Nambiar, I made major revisions to Mitsube's edits, keeping in line with what I presented and backed up with sources. They were related to mainly dates of the Vedanta era. Now this sentence, "The Shramanas were wandering ascetics. Buddhism and Jainism are a continuation of the Shramana tradition, and the early Upanishadic movement was influenced by it," must be changed roughly to, "In parallel to the Vedic society, there did exist a non-Aryan aborigine society of recluses and outcasts. They were a shamanic people, the extremities of monastic or penance-centric people. It is very probable that this class of people had an etching and irreversible influence on the composition of what came to be known as Vedanta. Later on, this group were later came to be known as sramanas, and which through the same line of thinking gave birth to many orders prominent being Buddhism and Jainism, and Shaiva, Ajivika, Samkhya, Yog amongst others.." Add a ref to Werner and Bloomfield. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Next round
IAF - I appreciate your collaborative approach. the problem is that with your new edits you are placing the development of the yogic ideas into the post 900 BC period. I haven't seen a source for this. In fact the sources seem to say that these ideas are quite more ancient. The other sentence wasn't a complete sentence so I added what it needed.

With your proposal, this sentence is not best: "They were a shamanic people, the extremities of monastic or penance-centric people." For one I'm not sure exactly what it means. Also they were a yogic people. The refs say they were more like Jainism if anything. What does shamanic mean in this context? They were not monastic (monasteries were a late development I believe) and do we have a source saying they were penance-centric? Also "It is very probable that this class of people had an etching and irreversible influence on the composition of what came to be known as Vedanta." It would be better to say "it is very probable that key concepts in Vedanta were originally developed by this group." Mitsube (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've already said 3 or 4 times earlier, the sentence is based on the topic of Karel Werner's paper here. She discusses at length the kesins, munis and yogis that find a good amount of mention in the RV, who she says were shamans and mystics. Shamans are like Australian aborigines, Red Indians, African rain-men, etc., you know the kind of god-men who try to communicate with the "other world" by ho-haa, magic etc.

Werner says that it was only over time that these people together came to be called sramanas. McEvilley further says that not only sramanas, but also Shaivas offshooted from them. In fact, just look at here. This diety fits the description of the kesins and yogis of the RV to the t. Besides Shaivas, McEvilley says that Samkhya and Ajivika and numerous others splintered off from the original shamans of the RV.

Note that Shiva also sits in a manner very similar, if not the same, as the Jain meditating stance/posture. McEvilley says that all that was done by the vratyas and Munis of the RV was almost the same as what later came to be done by the naked Shaivas, Yogis, Buddhists and Jains. The nudity, renunciation and all that was characteristically muni culture, had by 600 BC, become sramana culture. The Atharva Veda says that the naked munis used to stand motionless for a year -- McEvilley likened this to what Mahavira and Parsva were later said to have done. In fact, he also found great parallels between the Jain kayotsarga posture, the yogic posture of Veds and Indus valley edicts, and some depictions in the rock edicts of Mesopotamia, suggesting that there could have been cultural contact between these civilizations. The bull Rishabh, which was an important character in the Rig Ved, later came to be called as a Jain Tirthankar. Such a hybrid man-bull being was also shown in the figurines excavated in the sites of Sumer. Siva, has a counterpart in the "cosmic dancers" of Greece.

'''What Bloomfield called non-Aryan aborigines, McEvilley called ascetic outcasts/shamans and Werner has called shamans/mystics. All these were one and the same, and the source from which all this was inferred by these three authors, were the Atharva Ved and Rig Ved.'''

Coming to your queries :

The refs say they were more like Jainism if anything. Let's be clear about this. Only their stances, poses and dress sense were like latter day Jainism and Shaivism. They themselves weren't Jain (don't make the same mistake that AnishShah19 made). McEvilley and Indiana.edu also say that Jain postures as well as Shiva-Devi figureheads can be linked to even Indus Valley figurines. What does shamanic mean in this context? Shaman is exactly what McEvilley and Werner have attempted to classify the RV and AV aborigines/mystics as. Technically, they were shamans. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All this is fine with me. Worthington says that these people were Jains, but we can leave the issue of whether or not they were out of the article. Mitsube (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate Mitsube and IAF’s attempt to bring about consensus. Some finetuning is required to make the sentences NPOV. For eg. Just because something does fit in ones limited perspective, it does not become orthodox views. Following are my further observations:
 * Muni, vratyas were outcasts, but only from vedic viewpoint. I agree with Mitsubes edits which makes the sentence NPOV as saying “outside the caste system.”
 * The date of Upanishads – 1000 BCE -900BCE does not match with the references – 9th Century is 800 – 899 BCE and 8th Century BCE is 700-799 BCE. So 8th or 9th Century means 800 -700 BCE. So changing 500 BCE to 1000BCE is taking a lot of liberties even with these references.
 * I have added one more reference from Indiana University on Jainism.

A matter of strategy
Our recent encounter with the disruptive anon has shown us that if we explicitly state that the yogic ideas were developed by non-Vedics, it is almost certain that one of the hundreds of millions of Hindus that has other ideas will quickly object to it and remove it. We could do something like I had before IAF's last edit, which didn't give credit to anyone. That version would probably be a lot more acceptable to people. IAF and others, what do you think about that idea? Mitsube (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * don't worry about the disruptive anons -- we have semiprotection for that. --dab (𒁳) 07:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandal Mitsube, do you really think you can hide the truth from the world by locking up the article? THIS IS WHAT DICTATORS DO WHEN THEY WANT TO HIDE INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC. CLEARLY YOU ARE AGAINST SCHOLARLY CONSENSUSES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.165.168 (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a dictator, so this is appropriate. Mitsube (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

user Anishshah19's vandalism
User 'Anishshah19' will not allow any difference of opinion. He persists on references that claim Jainism may have IVC roots but then will not allow any references that counter that and depict Hinduism as the oldest religion in the world. - Nexxt 1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

Well are you willing to aqllow the references that say that -
 * Jainism is the oldest religion.
 * Jainism is a pre-vedic religion.
 * All Hindu philosophical concepts are borrowed from Sramana philosophy.

All these are well referenced, edits from leading top-notch scholars. If you are will, then I ahve no problems with your edits. All these scholarly references were roughed up by IAF as he was pursuing his pet off-shoot theories. Ultimately (over a period of more than 1 year) we had reached a truce. Now I am not going to allow any one to push POV on this. If you insist on HIndu POV then I insist on my references to keep the article neutral. Its as simple as that. Your reply will determine whether you are interested in facts or POV. I will formulate my response on taht basis.--Anish (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jains keep Hindu names
Jains keep Hindu names. User 'Anishshah19' claims it as a separate religion but can't explain the fact of why they keep Hindu names. - Nexxt 1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC).
 * In what sense is his name only Hindu? Mitsube (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You jokers claim everything of ancient India is Hindu!!! It is right-wingers like you that are the problem with India. Jains keep Indian names that are derived from Prakrit and sanskrit. Your removing the edits of Jainism from the lead and putting the Hindu orthodox views on the lead betrays your sinister right wing motive. Cut the crap about worlds oldest religion. Sramanas were there before the vedics. If anything, worlds oldest can be claimed by sramanas represented by Jainism and Buddhism. And I have another news for you that you will not be able digest - Karma, Moksa, Samsara, Ahimsa are sramana concepts borrowed by Hinduism. There are many facts here that I have not put on the main page but are there on the talk pages. I am merely adhered to the consensus as IAF was pusing his POV. Now take this as a warning and get it straight- This is not your personal blog. You make one wrong edit and the consensus will go. I will put up all my references (at least 25). I will pursue to its logical end...even if it goes for arbitration. In fact I was waiting for some trolls like you to breach this consensus. IAF - if you have any sense of fairplay, advise nexxt1 to behave and don't interfere. I am merely adhering to our consensus or truce, what ever you call it.--Anish (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well well, looks like you reveal your true face. You have no proof the Srahmanas were there before Vedics. Why were there no texts? The first Sanskrit texts are Hindu. You have no consensus. But why do Jains keep Sanskrit names in the first place. All Jain figures and all Jain ideas are derived from Sanskrit Hindu ideas. Why does almost every single religious studies scholar believe that Hinduism is the world's most ancient religion? Why do they also believe that Jainism borrowed from Hinduism? - Nexxt 1
 * The first Sanskrit texts are manuals for animal sacrifice. Modern Hinduism is much more like ancient Jainism than it is like the religion of the Vedas. That is a fact. Buddhism is also non-Vedic though probably not as old as Jainism. But why does age matter? Doesn't only correctness matter? Age only matters if your only claim to truth is age. Not a very strong claim then. If there is any borrowing of key ideas, it is from Jainism, not by Jainism. Also you should be aware that Jainism and Buddhism are Indian religions, and so the adherents used Indian languages, which are not now and never were inherently Hindu, and that includes Sanskrit which was used by non-Hindu philosophers for centuries. The most important Mahayana texts were originally written in Sanskrit. Mitsube (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you know Hindu texts, you know very well that the Vedas do not describe animal sacrifice. The name usages of animals are merely metaphors. The Atharva Veda describes this misunderstanding. "For example, 'Rice' is named as 'cow' and 'sesame' is named as 'calf'."  Also, modern Hinduism is not like Jainism, but Jainism like Hinduism. Upanishads were before the establishment of Jainism by Mahavir.  Furthermore, any viewer can clearly see that the IVC seals depict Hindu-like traditions. - Nexxt 1
 * If you'll believe that, you'll believe anything. Mitsube (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again user 'Mitsube', you're a sourceless person. Where's your credibility? - Nexxt 1 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Compared to "The True History and the Religion of India" By Prakashanand Saraswati I have little credibility, that is true. Good thing this article is becoming a list of the ideas in that book. Mitsube (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of Nexxt's sources are pretty bad, and if he keeps reverting he'll be blocked for WP:3RR. I'm pretty dubious about 'The True History and the Religion of India' as a definitive source though, as it seems to represent only a particular viewpoint. Doug Weller (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the bloodbath taking place here today. All in all, I agree with the crux of Next1's edits, though at some places they need to be pruned.

I think Next1's edits are not pushing any POV -- his edits only rephrase the gist of the cited refs in brief. Now, there is this counter edit by AnishShah19 on the premise that if Next1's edits be allowed, then why shouldn't his ?

On the face of it, it appears "fair", but Masih and others are just speaking gobbledook. Now, a neutral observer will obviously question as to how we know that Anish19's edits are wrong, while Next1's are right ? Well, I just know it and am content with that (those who've read my edits on this talk page, I hope should also agree).

"Classical Hinduism" is the term given to the mainstream, and thus, the most popularly known religious affairs of most Hindus. Stuff like Ganesha, Diwali, Dussehra, Hanuman and Ram-Setu. Strictly and anthropologically speaking, this term includes within it's fold every cult of the subcontinent that involves idolatory, nature worship and polytheism. So the tribals of Orissa, who may never have even heard of Lord Indra, Gokul Ashtmi or Onam, but who worship the local village diety and throw vermilion to the local hill-god, too are technically Hindus. This is because what they do is inimical to Hinduism and none else. Even "mainstream" Keralites never celebrate Chhat puja, and Gujaratis don't know Pongal.

However, all of this derives from the Vedic practices that were laid down over time by the Vedic Aryans, upto 900 B.C. (the beginning of Vedantic period). The Rig Ved is most probably the diary account of the conquests of Aryan tribes (the heroes in it like Indra may possibly have been victorious tribal chieftains). These gods and various revered elements of nature like Varuna, Agni, the cow, etc. were invoked by fire rituals, that were mediated upon by a priest who recited the shlokas (incantations then) and often accompanied by material offerings into the fire. Sometimes, this also included animal sacrifice. It is this form of worship that has remained largely undiminished through the ages, and is still followed today in much the same manner that it was all those millenia ago.

To the primary charter, the Rig-Ved, followed the other 3 Vedas. While RV was full of praise and descriptions of the exploits of the gods, the Atharva Ved contained hymns for magic, the Samaved contained hymns to be performed while conducting rituals and fire sacrifices. These hymns and mantras are recited even today (along with the accompanying fire ceremonies), though it can't be estimated exactly how many of those have survived today. At some places, goats are also sacrificed, but the sacrificial part has largely been done away with now.

Vedas also have sublime mentions of life after death, life amongst the immortal gods, and a sort of judgment day too (Deussen). This was later expanded upon by the Upanishads, in the form of the 'atman' theory. Now as per the conversational accounts in the earliest Upanishads themselves, atman theory was most probably developed by the kshatriyas and not the Brahmans themselves. According to Werner and Bloomfield, the 'yoga' or yogi stuff in the RV itself probably came from the aboriginal peoples, that were -- nearly 800 years later -- be offshot into sramana, besides Samkhya, Yogi, Saivas and others.

Now it is modern mythology that Sramana is as old as IVC and it ran alongside the Vedic age and even the early Vedantic age. The Sramana movement was merely a much much much latter-day subset of the descendants of an aboriginal peoples who were never fully accepted in ancient Vedic society (6th cen. BC to be precise). People like Vratyas, Kesins and Munis were some of these aborigines.

I still don't buy that transmigration, atman and karma are even aboriginal, let alone sramana. They were buds in the primordial Vedas themselves and were reared in the earliest Upanishads -- even if by kshatriyas and not Brahmins. Though latter day sramanas like Buddha and Mahavira were ex-Kshtriyas, there is no evidence to establish a pattern that all sramanas were kshtriyas or vice-versa. Besides, Mahavira and Buddha were the exceptions and not the norm. Ajinkya, Parsva and scores of Yogis are not known to have any kshatriya record. As a popular source describes them, they were

But I can accept what Werner says, that Yoga is indeed non-Vedic and non-Vedantic. Once again, when Shiva and latter Hindu dieties are seen doing yoga, they do so in characteristic muni style as described in the RV. Yoga is an edifice of modern Hinduism and this indeed has non-Vedic origins, though it was included in RV and much more in the Upanishads that were to follow. It's movement was large enough to spawn an entire school of Yoga. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * About Nexxt's edits, the problem is that he is using sources that are outside the field and thus have no standards regarding history of religion. No surprise then that the statements he's taking from them are problematic. About your post the only thing I would say is that I haven't seen anything linking the atman theory to non-Aryans. That might have been an Aryan invention. Mitsube (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would change your last line to, "...that might have been a Vedic invention". That's because Aryan and Vedic are used interchangeably. Besides, most of Jainism and Buddhism stems from the atman theory itself (transmigration, after life, etc.)  Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the atman theory I mean the idea that there is an unchanging personal essence. That is different from the idea that an individual is reincarnated. Mitsube (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sramana philosophy is not just identified only by rebirth theory. Eternal emancipation or "salvation" and ways to attain it are also central to it, and which are found first in the transmigration / atman concepts in the oldest Upanishads. Besides, per Deussen pg. 330, Brh. Upanishad already discusses rebirth in detail in Yajnavalkya's speech (Br. 4.4. 2-6), like how after a man's death, his "soul" enters another being etc.

Another point to note is that the latter Upanishads or the 'non-primary' Upanishads that were recorded or composed in parallel with the Sramana movement later on, have nearly identical ideas as those propounded by the Sankhya, Jain and Buddhist movements. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * IAF, Whether you don't buy that that transmigration, atman and karma are sramana or not, does not matter in wikipedia. We have to go by what scholars say. For you everything that is good in human civilisation including theory of relativity has bud in the primordial Vedas/upanishads. Others, it seems, were simply cutting grass. Mitsube, you are right, by Atman, vedics simply meant personal essence. They were not aware of transmigration, karma, and moksa, Ahimsa which they borrowed from sramanas.--Anish (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Existence of concept of atman, iva or soul, whatever you call, does not indicate existence of Karma, transmigration, Moksa etc. For eg. Christianity, postulates soul, but does not believe in karma. --Anish (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yajnavalkhya does mention "Good" Karman and bad karman. I've said this before. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nexxt1's dubious references
Nexxt1, you are using dubious and unreliable sources like medical book, geography, telecommunications books, encyclopedias, compediums etc. to comment on Indian religions and push your POV. I can understand your psychological need to claim Hinduism as the world’s oldest religion, but this is not your personal blog. Here we use reliable sources. I have analysed your sources below and none of them are reliable.

Now that your agenda is exposed, stop the vandalism of the article.--Anish (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Status of Jainism as a "separate" religion
There are Jains that believe in the concept of the Brahm(an). This is why Jainism was also known in ancient times as a "Brahma-path" (Path to God). Paul Dundas writes, "However, the earliest censuses of India suggest that many Jains and members of other religious groups saw themselves as in fact constituting varieties of Hinduism and, according to the Census Report for the Punjab of 1921, 'in view of the unwillingness of large number of Jains and Sikhs to be classed separately from Hindus, permission was given to record such persons as Jain-Hindus and Sikh-Hindus" .'''Atheistic/Non-theistic Jains are a different religion from the Jains that believe in the Brahm(an), worship Hindu figures, go on Hindu pilgrimages, etc. There are Hindu-Jains and non-Hindu-Jains. Hindus aim for Brahm-Nirvana, whereas the atheistic/non-theistic dharmic religions do not.''' - Nexxt 1


 * There are Muslims who participate in Ganapati festival and there are Hindus who go to Haji Ali Dargah. So is Islam a part of Hinduism or vice-versa?--Anish (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The concept of Hindu-Jains and non-Hindu Jains is ridiculous. Now you will come up with concept of Muslim-Christians nonmuslim-Christians. --Anish (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are Muslim-Christians or Christian-Muslims, they are the Syraic Druze.  Although these Hindu-Jains I am writing of, not only perform Hindu practices (e.g., worship) but accept the idea as a God and their faith is centered around God, contrary to the atheistic/non-theistic Jainism practices but other Jains. Thus these Jains are followers or the Brahma-path - Nexxt 1

Edit war?
You guys are headed down the edit war path toward a 3RR block. Perhaps you should consider the steps in the dispute resolution process. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal user 'Anishshah19' (his sock 'Mitsube' as well) wont even allow a single scholarly source to mention Hinduism is the most ancient religion, but however does insist on his own source of Jainisn being the oldest. - Nexxt 1


 * User Nexxt1 is leveling a serious charge against me namely:


 * I am a vandal, inspite of my adhering to truce and consensus with IAF. If I wanted I could have added back the scholarly sources deleted by IAF.
 * Mitsube my sock ??? This is a serious charge and needs to be investigated.
 * I have not made a single edit on page of Indian Religion that says Jainism is the oldest religion.


 * In short Nexxt1 is lying indiscriminately.


 * Nexxt1 wake up others are not fools. Your sources from Medical and geographical texts books and almanacs have already been discredited here.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_religions&diff=243385715&oldid=243371039] You have not been able to give a single reply as to why you are using medical and geography books as references for Indian religions.
 * I request admins to take strict action against nexxt1. He removes all the warnings and blocks from his page. He is trying to hide the fact that he has been blocked many times by admins. He has been warned by admin Doug Weller here but he still persists on his disruptive behaviour.--Anish (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Article protection
Protected for 3 days for this to be ironed out. I'm happy for any other Admin to remove the protection earlier if that seems sensible. Doug Weller (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Simplification?
AFAIK (a) Almost no Sikh or Buddhist considers himself to be Hindu or part of some "Hindu fold," though they do recognize philosophical linkages (b) Buddhists and Sikhs are both offended at their faiths being labeled an "Indian religion" (c) The whole tone and title in this article reinforces the "Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan" ideology of the RSS, i.e. only Hinduism+S+J+B are indigenous and Christianity and Islam are "foreign" to the essence of India, and the idea that dharmantaran = deshantaran (change of religion = change of nationality) (d) AFAIK Taoism didn't really co-develop with these religions so the idea that somehow there is a larger set called Eastern religions of which there is a branch called Indian religions seems to indicate a much larger phenomenon than actually exists.

I don't actually understand (even after reading the discussion here) what the issue is with just calling them Dharmic religions - it's preferable to the current name. Just because it's relatively new doesn't mean much. Dalit is a relatively new term as well, but the alternative (Untouchable) had strong negative connotations (cf the n-word) and so people abandoned it. There are definitely more and more references to Dharmic religions just as there are to words like "Desi," which now means something completely different from what it did 15 years ago. Pakistanis are never ok being called Indians, but they are OK being grouped together as Desis. The term "Dharmic religions" also makes *conceptual* sense to me since I read "Lila" by Robert Pirsig in the sense that these faiths tend to be less book-based.

Coming clean note: My personal view is that all religion is bunk, there is no god, and all prophets/incarnations/children of gods were either non-existent or deluded or liars. I agree with Dawkins completely on this. What is ultimately being organized here is a bunch of gobbledigook that is the foundation for concepts/conjectures and serious social human phenomena.

I hope I haven't added to the jangle here. One person's view. (yes, I know I haven't edited 600K articles on WP, but I lurk baby, I lurk. no, I swear by all that is holy - not much for me, as you can tell, but still - that I am not a sock for anyone that has posted here in this discussion.) -- Cookmughlai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookmughlai (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

-

Sorry, an addition. I wanted to quote Asghar Ali Engineer, whom I find to be very incisive in analyzing religio-social issues in India (you may not, but this is what I think). He said it exactly right (http://ecumene.org/IIS/csss48.htm) - This is really my point. I think it is very bad to endorse in an encylopedia that is referenced by millions the concept that Christians and Muslims are unnatural aliens on Indian soil. This is *precisely* the RSS ideology. Much, much better to just go with Dharmic Religions, which is region-neutral. I think the dharmic-adharmic point is spurious - like the pro-choice pro-life nomenclature in the US. Imagine if the two sides were "The Americans" vs "The Abortionists" (or the other way round).
 * Guru Golwalkar who succeeded Dr. Hedgewar, treated Muslims and Christians as ‘foreigners’ and ‘aliens’. He wrote that they (i.e. Muslims and Christians) came to this country as ‘guests’ and that guests should not overstay and go back to their own countries. The assumption here is that all Muslims and Christians came from outside as invaders and rulers.
 * The RSS totally rejects the concept of freedom of conscience, as it requires every Indian citizen to adopt Hindu religion and Hindu culture or Hinduised form of Islam or Christianity. One cannot make artificial distinction between what the RSS calls religions of Indian origin and religions of foreign origin.
 * In a democratic secular country like India every one has the constitutional right to preach ones religion. No one can be deprived of this right. One can convert to any religion of ones choice, to Hinduism, Islam or Christianity. The RSS accepts right to convert only to one of what it calls ‘Indic religions’ like Buddhism, Jainism or Sikkhism. Such attitudes will create conflict in the society.
 * For the RSS to become acceptable to minorities it will have to change drastically. It will have to give up its doctrine of Hinduising religious minorities. It is quite undemocratic. It should show equal respect to Islam and Christianity. It should give up its theory that these are foreign religions and hence un-Indian and inferior compared to Indic religions. Both Islam and Christianity have existed in India for centuries and have richly contributed to Indian culture and Indian religious thought.

Additional - "South Asian religions" is even worse as it certifies the RSS claim that Pakistan is Hindu territory under alien occupation. RSS maps always show undivided India as "Akhand Bharat" with Durga standing in front of it. Nathuram Godse's ashes still haven't been consigned because they're waiting to reannex and convert back Pakistan to Hinduism -- ''"May my ashes be immersed into the river Indus when she flows under the shadow of our flag." (http://vedantam.com/Godse01-1998.html)'' Cookmughlai (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your point cookmughlai. The article is about religions that originated in India, and it should contain descriptions about those religions. There is another article Religions of India which deals with all the religions that exist in India today. Are you suggesting that because the article excludes Islam, Christianity, Zorastrianism, etc., it is defining them as the 'other' and is thus serving the purposes of the Hindutva people? Or, is it your contention that the text of the article is explicitly defining the 'other' as being unIndian? I think that extending the article to South Asian Religions is probably better because Sikhism in particular grew as much, if not more, outside India's current boundaries as it did inside (even though that may further the aims of the RSS). If you could perhaps clarify what specifically you object to, or wish to simplify, that would be helpful. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 18:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the text too - but primarily the title of this article is concerning me. The Hindutva thesis ultimately is - "India, correctly defined, encompasses all of South Asia. Hinduism (for which Vedic, Aryan religion, etc are just synonyms), and allied religions, are the native religions of this land. They originated, much as the people (read: Aryans) did, in this Greater India. Islam and Christianity are alien presences among the indigenous faith systems of (Greater) India."


 * Creating a category called Indian religions or South Asian religions is automatically calling religions outside it non-Indian religions / non-SouthAsian religions. This is enshrining verbatim what the RSS has been saying for 100+ years. Muslims and secular thinkers of every ilk (including Hindu, of course) have been fighting the alienification of Islam inherent in this terminology for the same 100+ years. I am not an expert on Indology, but I can see the implications of this. I can easily see an 11-year old Muslim/Christian child finding "Indian Religions" on wikipedia and feeling a sense of displacement. And I can easily see Hindutva fanatics linking repeatedly to this article to drive home this indigenous-alien divide. To top it all, AFAIK many elements of Hinduism may not even have developed in South Asia - how does it qualify as a South Asian religion, when Islam (where also evolution and sect-branching have happened in India) does not?


 * I hope that clarified my view. Given what Hindutvavadins want to accomplish, anything that creates an Original Indian/SouthAsian = Hindu equivalence is a very bad idea. I am less opposed to Dharmic/attribute-based name because (regardless of what the fanatics hope it will achieve), it eliminates this linkage and I don't think that 11-year old could care less that some group thinks it is dharmic and the others are not or whatever. Everyone knows that religions are constantly singing their own praises anyway (Khalsa = Pure, Sanatan = Eternal, etc). To use an analogy, Ravi saying he is excellent and Arshad is not makes me think Ravi is stupid. Ravi saying he is Indian to differentiate himself from Arshad is completely different.


 * Again, one person's opinion - but Hindutvavadins aren't the brightest lot and I feel that, in this case and in this one tussle on wikipedia, simply pulling in the opposite direction to these fruitcakes is, inadvertently, very much the wrong thing. Cookmughlai (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, realized that the RSS was only founded in 1925, so it can't be "100+ years" - more like "80+ years". My mistake. -- Cookmughlai (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection template
Although the article's protection is indefinite, the protection template has an expiration date of three days after the protection (10 October). Please someone remove this date, probably added as a result of a Twinkle malfunction. Waltham, The Duke of 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the protection was intended to last only 3 days. I've unprotected the article now, but if there is edit warring again will re-protect it. Doug Weller (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of it. Waltham, The Duke of 16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Improvements
Can anyone please tell me what improvements are nessecessary in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanjanaG (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't look bad. Like many related articles, it is plagued by the "Shramana vs. Brahmanism" pissing context, but I think this is reasonably under control. Also, people tend to ramble about the Vedas. I thnk the global ambox can be removed, and problem spots can be tagged inline instead. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism
'Anishshah19' has been repeatedly vandalizing this article trying to get it his way, hiding referenced material from viewers.

Someone tell him to read a book.

It is well known that the Rig Veda discusses Karma, Samadhi, Moksa, Tapasya, but this faker 'Anishshah19' keeps deleting material.

Gradiation Scheme —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC).


 * You are misinformed. Though you may have enjoyed what you read in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy," that material is not appropriate for wikipedia and is, if you have quoted it correctly, false. Please read about these issues in reliable sources. Mitsube (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are very misinformed. You believe what you want to. The Sramanas who opposed the Veda came after the Veda. In the Veda, Sraman is one of the words used to describe a renunciant, not a heterodox. It is Sanskrit.

Further, if the ideas of Karma, Samadhi, Moksa, Tapasya were practicd by so-called 'non-Aryan lower-castes', then why were only the higher-castes allowed to perform penances? Further all these spiritual terms are in Aryan Sanskrit. If truly tese were the ideas of non-Aryans then why do they not have a soingle Aryan title?? (e.g., 'Karma' is only Sanskrit "Karma", not 'jutjl-iul-oik'.)

GradiationScheme


 * Perhaps you should bring your linguistic arguments up in academic circles to get the scholarly community to change its mind. Mitsube (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A caveat on nomenclature
Dharmic Traditions such as Sanatana Dharma, Jaina Dharma, Buddhadharma and Sikha Dharma, for example are traditions of Dharma. Often glossed Indian religions by Western discourse, where the term 'religions' is understood as an acculturation and culturally colonizing attribution following post-colonial discourse. In addition, to categorize Buddhadharma a 'religion' is culturally insensitive and incorrect given it is at core non-Deistic and non-Theistic. There is a need for meta-analysis on core assumptions. There is, and has been, and continues to be; an agenda in the -isms and the obscuration of the relationship of the manifold traditions of Dharma.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to those views but wikipedia is the wrong place to air them. Kindly self-revert the unsourced commentary and disclaimers you added to this article, and avoid unilateral article moves and edit-warring in the future. Abecedare (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thoughtform is key for those obscured. Moreover, "Dharmic tradition" is an inclusive auspice and to say that 'Dharmic' is a neologism is fallacious as it may be parsed into "Dharma" and the grammatical post-position "+ic" that follows morphological construction in English for a lexeme that ends in the phoneme "a".
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What absolute twaddle. Here's hoping this was parodic in intent and not somebody actually trying to sound educated. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)