Talk:Jainism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Smaller intro needed

The introduction to this article is way too long. I suggest we downsize it and move some parts around. I began on this already. --queso man 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jainism and Orissa/Kalinga

Kalinga (modern Orissa) had a rich Jain past. It was the state religion and many Jain texts also mention Kalinga, the Asokan war and Emperor Kharavela. The Khandagiri and Udaygiri caves were also built for Jain monks. Despite all this there is virtually nothing in the Jainism page about its association with Kalinga. I have added a para in the archaeology section which pretty much sums up what I know till now. Please collect and add more info on this.

Aamrun 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Did I miss something in the count?

In the section on the Nine Tattvas, there are ten listed. What's going on here?

• Fixed. Someobdy changed it to seven, which is technically true, but I changed it to the generally accepted nine. The same person gave a note as to why it is seven with very bad grammar, and I modified the note and left it. I also got rid of the atrociously horrific spelling notes. --queso man 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Split the Article Up?

This article is about double the preferable size. Could an experienced person split off parts of the article into new articles and add this template

Main article: Article name here

to link this page to them? For example, if the new main page is "Karma in Jainism", then the template should look like

Main article: Karma in Jainism

and should be in this article. --queso man 21:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Legalese 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) I tried to learn, and Wiki is easy. Splitted the page and did what was suggested here. More experienced users may please look for the aesthetics and etc. Will continue again, tommorrow.

Recent Changes

59.95.165.50 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Help Help ! SoS- Someone is trying to vandalise this page's contents. I have taken pains in assimilating the legal analysis, but someone tried to just delete the whole thing. Could something be done by a more experienced user?

Rishabh Sancheti- I am not a registered user, hence i cannot split the page.

I did not try to vandalize this page.

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (Wikipedia:Vandalism)

I deleted the whole thing because this is an article about Jainism and not about the Constitution of India. I agree that something should be done by more experienced users. --Danogo 06:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Danogo. :) I was a bit concerned because there is a lot of scuffle going on regarding this debate. I said so because I could not verify your bonafides. I agree the article is on Jainism, however the content posted has much to do about understanding Jainism. Though I also agree, that at a few places, it becomes too technical to fit in the basic page. But I hope you will appreciate that not being so experienced, and moved with the urge to bring this crucial information to light, I had to put the content on this page itself. I am now trying to make myself better versed with Wiki so that I can myself split it.

59.95.176.205 09:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC) THe recent legal debate on Jainism, is authored by Rishabh Sancheti, any comments are welcome. rsanchetiATgmailDOTcom. Copyleft! BUT "moral rights" reserved. :)

59.95.164.38 09:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC) I have added two headers containing information on the legal debate of the status of Jainism, and the illustrations brought before the Supreme Court of India discussing Jainism and other religions, specially Jainism and Hinduism. It is important to note that in one of its judgments, the Supreme Court had found that "in a philosophical sense, Jainism is a part of Hinduism" ( See Bal Patil v. Union of India, 2005, link available on main page). However, such a statement, with deference to the Court, was undermining the status of Jainism as a religion in its own right. Jainism, as the Jain tradition holds, has been continuing for an infinite number of years. Religious beliefs are not a matter of ascertainment of their factual accuracy, otherwise they would become FACTS first, and beliefs later. In any case, in a later judgment, the Supreme Court has given an opinion which holds that Jain religion is not a part of Hindu religion. In India, it becomes important to understand in the context that if Hinduism is taken as a culture, it could be found more or less in every religion. However as religions Hindu religion and Jain religion are fundamentaly and philosophically distinct. (with deference to Supreme Court, there are a few, who BEG to disagree).

-rishabh sancheti-

I have removed the mention of Hinduism in Universal History and Jain Cosmology.[1] Previously there was "unlike creationist Hinduism", then "unlike Hinduism" and then "like Hinduism". If someone wants to revert to any of these versions, then a citation would be appropriate.

Also I have removed "these notions of time and the universe conflict with various sciences, such as the aforementioned archaeologies. Also, for example, Darwin's theory of evolution does not exist in Jainism. The concept of infinite time with no beginning or end demands the notion that all actions, thoughts, events, relations and situations for and between all souls have occurred an infinite number of times." Presuming the intent was to imply that Jainism is not compatable with archaeology or evolution, then a citation would again be required. Addhoc 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

59.95.167.128 11:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC) I have changed the description of the Image. The person is not a shwetambar jain doing a "pooja", but is instead a Pujari who is doing the daily cleaning of the idols. Shwetambar jains would generally wear only white clothes [or light shades] while doing the Pooja. Also, the sheer absence of a "pooja thali" and other "devices-chandan [sandal paste] flowers" etc. in his hand go on to show that he is not a person doing pooja, and has to be a pujari, who can be regularly seen doing the same thing everyday.

More Vandalism

IP 70.90.145.29 posted a slew of nonsense and copied previous edit titles to make it look legit. I've reverted all changes (to Bakasuprman), but since this isn't my area of expertise, I'll have to ask the regulars to keep an eye out. Tirdun 14:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jainism, Orissa, Hathi Gufa, King Kharvel, Udaygiri, Khandgiri

Jainism, Orissa, Hathi Gufa, King Kharvel, Udaygiri, Khandgiri. Reader of this article are requested to add some suitable refercence in the main Article.

vkvora 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Elephant Cave

Location:-It is on the high Khandgiri hill at distance of 6 Kilometers from Bhuvaneshvar.

To the west of Bhubaneswar are the twin hills of Khandagiri and Udaygiriand The Udaygiri hill is just in front of the Khandgiri hill.

The inscription of the Elephant Cave here is regarded to be the oldest of all inscriptions. It has archaeological significance. It is nearly 2300 years old. They were the work of the first known Orissan ruler, King Kharavela, and probably begun in the first century BC. Kharavela was a king of the Mahameghavahana dynasty, who is known for expansion of the Kalinga Empire. A number of inscriptions and artistic idols carved in the caves here are very fascinating and spectacular. The ancient idols in the caves of both these hills are hardly seen elsewhere.

As you approach the site, Khandagiri, with its 15 caves and four Jain temples will be on the left and Udaygiri will be on the right. The 18 caves of Udaygiri include the famous Hathi Gumpha ('Elephant Cave') with its famous inscription of Kharavela. From the inscription, we learn much about Kharavela's military exploits, and also that his royal city had gate towers, bathing and drinking tanks, and was the scene of formally organized music and dance performances, as well as sporting and social events. The city, says the inscription, "was made to dance with joy". Kharavela was evidently a skilled musician, and it seems as if he created a remarkable center of the arts.

The history of this pilgrimage is believed to belong to the times of Adishvar. The Vedic people called the people of this place, Anarya Karakandu; the king of this place was a disciple of Bhagawan Parshvanath. He was a staunch follower of the Jain religion. In olden times, this was called the Kaling region. Many brave and strong Jain Kings ruled here. They inspired unbroken faith and devotion to the Jain religion Bhagawan Parshvanath often came here wandering about. There is a mention that the samavasarana of Bhagawan Mahavir was set up here.

All of the caves are small, and follow the natural configurations of the 'living rock'. The sculpture throughout exhibits a strong, lively folk element, which has been executed with a sure and confident hand. Already, the spaces are filled with animal, human, and divine personages and decorative details, showing at an early stage the love of the Orissan artist for richly elaborated scenes.

vkvora 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Article

This is a pretty good article I think that it has too many external links, do you think we could take some off.--Seadog.M.S 12:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well taken

Greatpenetration (Talk | contribs) (Sentence omitted which reflects distorted and subjective perspective on Hinduism.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalese (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Change

"Here Jainism is categorically different from Hinduism and many other religions". I'm adding this here, which does not give any opinion on other religions but only Jainism.

Perspectives on Santhara

Legalese 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)It will be appreciated if users discuss here first, their perceptions regarding the practice of Santhara and its legality, before writing anything they feel like in the main page. I found a user wrote "the practice of Santhara is illegal". On what basis did he or she arrive to this conclusion is questioned, since the matter is already pending before the High Court of Rajasthan, and it is not too wise to give a conclusive statement beforehand. Moreover, such blanket statements, which are not reasoned, hurt the religious sentiments of Jains, and the users must keep this in mind. While Freedom of Speech is a liberty, the Freedom of Conscience is an equally available right, and hence, keep in mind that the use of one does not curtail the scope of the other. in Solidarity, Rishabh

I like the replaced edit of the Santhara paragraph which states, "…where in the State of Rajasthan, a lawyer has filed a writ petition seeking the High Court of Rajasthan to hold that Santhara is an illegal practice." However, I have two suggestions:

First, WP:FAITH. No, I am not a Jain scholar but virtually every non-Jain source I've found on the current controversy says that the practise of fasting unto death (the core external element of Santhara) is technically illegal but that the laws are rarely enforced out of respect to the internal, religious aspects of the Jain practise.

The following passage from the Chicago Herald-Tribune is typical of dozens upon dozens of articles: "Hunger strikes are allowed to go only so far. In India, such strikes are a common form of protest. But if someone fasts to the point of danger, that person is sent to the hospital, given a feeding tube and slapped with a criminal charge." If you will reread my original edit you will find that the word, "suicide", did not appear. I did not state that Santhara was illegal as suicide, but that it was illegal in India to attempt to fast unto death. I do not think that my original post was inaccurate, misleading or unfair, but I agree that your edit is better.

Second, I propose that the debate over the legality, context and content of Santhara be moved to Santhara. The single paragraph, with your change, seems to provide an adequate summary that frames the debate in terms of Jainism (the subject of this article). The general content (if not, perhaps, the tone) of two paragraphs that follow it are more appropriate to the detailed article instead of the Jainism article.

I added the paragraph because Santhara has reached international news, and those seeking information about the practise within Jainism found nothing in this article that even mentions it. My perception, Rishabh, is that to ignore or minimise the controversy or to aggressively assert that the practice cannot be illegal (and especially to state that it is "not comprehensible" that anyone could see Santhara is illegal or that no question [can exist] regarding its illegality) is rather heavily POV. I recommend that those paragraphs be struck from this article, rewritten as NPOV and placed in the Santhara article instead.

As for your assertions about my ability to reason, my apparent motives, whether I am "learned", the effect of an open discussion on Santhara on the sentiments of Jains, and what all editors need to "keep in mind", I will address those issues on your talk page and mine where (I humbly submit) such discussion belongs. Kevin/Last1in 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sacrifice, Self Sacrifice, Jain Pooja and Yajna

Is there any difference between Pooja and Yajna? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.184.142.79 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Jain rituals and festivals

Folks working on this article might be interested in taking a look at that one. It could use some cleanup. I was also wondering it it ought to be a) merged into this article, b) noted as the "main article" for a section or two, c) split into 'rituals' and 'festivals'. Thoughts? --Alynna 08:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

external links

Do you think we could pare down the external links, or at least organise them? There's quite a few at present, and I'm not sure how many are necessary or relevant. --Alynna 18:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed some of the links. Needs more weeding. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 18:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think thats a lot look at buddhism, wow! never mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.164.7 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Animal shelter article

This article has only a minimum stub section on the good work that Jains do in terms of animal shelters. I have found one small source which indicates that they run several thousand animal shelters in Asia, but have found no specific sources indicating number of animals worked with, etc. Anyone who can contribute verifiable information to the Animal shelter on Jain animal shelters, and thus help the article reflect a more universal world view, is strongly encouraged to do so. Badbilltucker 16:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Why there is so much difference in Swetambar and Digambar?

There is so much difference in Navkar Mantra or Namaskar Mantra and about 35 mistakes of pronucation and writings of First Sootra and similarly about Birth and other matter of Mahaveer.

Can any body justify these gross negligences?

vkvora 07:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New additions (March 10 2007)

There were some new additions today - not sure about how relevant/accurate they are, however - being cautious - I've just cleaned them up (there was one paragraph in the intro that was duplicated in the "Beliefs and practices" section, I removed the intro copy) and tagged them with {{fact}}. I'll leave it up to others to fine-tune & verify the additions. Zarius 08:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Issues

Legalese 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)the following text appears in the article "Jains also keep fasts on religious festivals, in a manner similar to Hindus. Jains revere and pray to Hindu dieties including Rama and Krishna;however, not as reincarnations of God but as higher selves than them.Jains have also built various temples of these Gods and Goddesses" 1. Jain way of fasting is totally different, since Jains never take (fruits, milk, "sagaar" etc.) which are allowed in some Hindu fasts. Jains rather do "one time eating=ekashana" "two time=byasana" or no eating at all "upvaas" and the like. 2. Jains revere and pray Hindu dieties? We need more information on this. 3. Jains have built several temples of these? Well...if a "jain" does something, it doesnt mean it should always fall in "jainism"..this is not good logic..lot of hindus eat meat, that doesnt mean it necessarily becomes a part of "Hinduism" (which at places strongly advocates vegetarianism). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legalese (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC). (Legalese 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)sorry, fixed, thanks)

Legalese 18:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)"Diwali is celebrated by a lot of jains in a spiritual way by observing fasts or having celebrations in temples because it happens to be the "nirvana day" of the 24th Tirthankar Shree Mahavir" User zazaban found this strange? Views, and comments from others please...and Zazaban, please explain what did you find "strange" here?

Triva, poorly incorperated, not the best english. Zazaban 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Legalese 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Thanks for responding. 1. pl. suggest changes, 2. important fact on Jainism in the given section

On - Jains revere and pray Hindu dieties? This is true that son=me jains do pray Hindu Deities, but this is not sanctioned by Jain scriptures and should be taken as an exception. It is similar to Hindus praying at Haji Ali or Father Agnel shrine.--Anishshah19 06:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Another miscellaneous issue: the word "theosophy" is inappropriate to the section called "Jain theosophy." Calaf 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Call For Help

I'm looking for someone with some expertise in Jainism to take a look at the page Idol Worship. It says there that

The focus for image worship among many Jains is the icon of the Tirthankara in either a domestic shrine or temple shrine room. It appears that Tirthankaras cannot respond to such worship, but veneration of the image can function as a meditative aid. Although most worship takes the form of prayers, hymns and recitations, the idol is sometimes ritually bathed, and often has offerings of made to it; there are eight kinds of offering representing the eight karmas of Jainism.[1]

This form of reverence is not a central tenet of the faith, and there seems to be debate about the value of this form of worship.

This seems questionable to me: most worship with which I'm familiar is not worship of the object, but of the deity it represents or the indwelling spirit it houses.

Could someone with knowledge of Jainism take a look at this article and see if it's accurate?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. The article has been blanked an a redirect set up to Idolatry.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Best Educated-Revert

Legalese 10:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Regarding the edit by Wasserman, the following is available at the Census of India website (one of the PDF tables). Hence I revert that edit.

E. Literacy Status 18. Statement-8 presents literacy rate by religious communities as well as for the total population at the 2001 Census. Literacy rate for the population age 7 years and above for the country as a whole stands at 64.8 percent. As compared to this, the literacy rate among the Jains is the highest at 94.1 percent followed by Christians 80.3 percent and Buddhists 72.7 percent. Hindus and Sikhs have returned a marginally higher literacy rate than the national average. The lowest literacy has been recorded for ‘Other Religions & Persuasions’ at 47.0 percent. Muslims are the other religious community returning lower than the national average literacy rate at 59.1 percent.

"Jain" vs. "Jainist"

Could somebody explain why these two terms are used interchangebly and which is correct? Krystian 13:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jainist is incorrect. A follower of Jainism is simply called a Jain.

--Malaiya 19:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? I was always taught that Jain was correct as an adjective for Jain(ist) concepts and people, not just people. Since this applies to more than just this article, it would be best to move this discussion to WikiProject Jainism's talk page. --Qmwne235 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Upon rereading your edit I see that I agree with you. Sorry! --Qmwne235 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Āyāgapaṭṭa

There is no wikipedia article for āyāgapaṭṭas, but they are mentioned in this article. What are they exactly? In Pāli, that would translate to something like sacrificial tablet or slab. Is it basically just an inscribed slab made by a Jain votary? And are āyāgapaṭṭas only a Jain phenomenon? Lotus in the hills (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

The article is too long

The article has a lot of good information, but it is too long. It should be made more readable by placing some of the material in Jainism-related articles, of if needed, new articles. --Malaiya 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned how to do this above using certain templates. If you would like to take this on, go ahead; I don't think I can do it properly. --Qmwne235 16:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

INDO-ARYAN references

People ain't still flogging that dead horse are they?

[is there]Any way someone could include these mDNA results?

http://www.mitomap.org/WorldMigrations.pdf

80.7.195.184 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Stalinvlad, UK

Indo-Aryan is a linguistic category, not a genetic one. --Krsont 10:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Diwali and Jainism?

I removed the earlier reference to Mahavir attaining Nirvana on Diwali day? As a practicing Jain I am rather certain that no other practicing Jains consider Diwali of that special significance to Jains other than as part of the larger Indian tradition. Is there any reference to this material? It is also cited in greater detail on the entry under "Diwali" which also needs to be removed. It is perhaps part of the creeping entry found under Jainism on: Hinduism has so much in common, especially in social institutions and ritual life, that nowadays Hindus tend to consider it a Hindu sect. This is okay for a comment on how Hindus perceive Jains but not necessarily based on facts, "Jains are not Hindus." P Jain

Diwali is clearly mentioned in Jain texts as the day when Lord mahavira attained nirvana. The oldest known references to Diwali are found in Jainism.--Malaiya 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

recent edits

Quite aside from the pushing of the POV that Jainism has nothing to do Vedic Hinduism, the recent edits by user:Manish Modi have also violated some basic style rules/guidelines for editing, which is why I reverted them. Section titles are not capitalised, and neither are random phrases such as "religious minority"; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). There is also no call for adding a list of "Publishers specialising in Jain publications" - this section is pretty much just advertising, obviously not relevent or suitable for an encyclopedia. In addition, the rewriting of the section "Jain worship and rituals" was mostly unnecessary, as the three sentences that were added all say the same thing (and what on earth is "engrossed in their own souls" supposed to mean? I can hazard a guess, but I don't think the average reader would understand it). In my most recent edit you'll see I've fixed these style issues and removed the two redundant addition regarding Jinas, but I've kept the stuff in the opening paragraphs in the hope it might be rewritten with an eye towards a more NPOV by someone more knowledgable in the subject. --Krsont 12:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Diwali and Jainism?

It is historical fact that Diwali the Festival of Lights is being celebrated by all Indians is the day of Bgagavan Mahaveer's Nirvan Day,the last of 24th Jain Thirthankara a revivalist and propagator of Ahinsa principle. This occasion is marked as the -Veer avanta-begining of new shaka.This is the new moon day [Amavassya]and also beginning of new year according to Jain Panchanga. There is Historical reference in Jain scripture KALPA SUTRA-Stanza 126 as follows-

On the amavasya night, 16 gana-kings, 9 Malla and 9 Lichchhavi, of Kasi and Kosal, illuminted their Kalpasutra mentions that due to the presense of gods, the night was illuminated. It further says: "The light of knowledge is gone, we will make light of ordinary matter".

When Lord Mahavira came to Madhyam Pava for his last varshavas, it was the fourth month of the rainy season, seventh paksha, and krashna of kartik. It was then the last day of krashna of kartik. That night Lord Mahavira attained nirvana.

However according to Hindu mythology in coincidence with Diwali Hindu celebrate triumphant return of Rama.

(Jidnasu 01:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC))

The state of the article

The article is no longer useful to those who want to get quick information on Jainism.

A lot of the material should be moved to separate articles.

There needs to be a separate balanced article on the relationship between Jainism and Hinduism.--Malaiya 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Jain Nuns

Information on Jain nuns (aryakas, sadhvis) need to be added.--Malaiya 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hellenic Tradition

There is a brief mention of shared concepts with the Hellenic tradition. Is there any connection between the two, such as contacts with the Hellenic kingdoms of Asia, or does this seem to be mere coincidence? Maitreya 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is turning into a disaster

Can somebody please come to the rescue of this article (someone more professional)? There seem to be two major issues with the article:

1) People are editing with complete liberty, and seem to be pushing more strongly an opinion rather than something more nuanced. It is difficult to cite issues firmly on something as historical as Jainism which does not have complete record-keeping either, and many issues will remain unresolved (and will by definition be point of views) but if you look at other articles on other religions, they are more nuanced.

2) The article is simply too long and contains many sub-articles which really should not all be a part of one article.

As a novice I don't want to completely ruin years of hard-work by others, and we all would really appreciate if someone more professional can at least start with splitting the article, so then the different arguments over "point of views" can be carried on separately (and hopefully resolved more quickly).

P Jain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.250.155 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Overall, the article carries a "Written by Jains for Jains" tone; it is ever-so-slightly preachy, with the tone implying truth, rather than fact. Wikipedia is not interested in truth. This is a problem that dominates many of the Christian articles as well, and makes it sound less like an encyclopedia and more like a pro-Jainism essay. As for the length, yes, this article is enormous - it should be cut up into at least two or three articles. Glacialfury (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Article reorganization plan

1. History: condense and move details to separate article History of Jainism.
2. Sectarian traditions: move details to separate article Jain Traditions.
3. 24 Tirthankars of Jainism: move details to separate article Tirthankaras.
4. Lists of tatvas etc: condense and move to article on Jain Philosophy. (done)
5. Jain monks: add some general information on the jain monasticism, move list to a separate article Jain Monks and Nuns.

The article will then be cleaned up:

• It should readable by non-Jains.
• It should guide readers to more detailed information in other articles.
• Information would be edited to make it more accurate.

--Malaiya (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent initiative Malaiyaji !! I hope with your initiative, we can make this a featured article. Please do not hesitate if you require any help from my end.--Anish (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions; I suggest following content structure for reorganization:

    1 Beliefs
          1.1 Tirthankaras
          1.2 Philosophy
              (Jiva, Moksha, Karma, Ahimsa etc. -- the "Jain Philosophy"
              section should be merged here.)
          1.3 Creation and cosmology
    2 History
             (condensed; Main: History of Jainism)
          2.1 Origins
          2.2 Sources of history
          2.3 Spread and influence
          2.4 Persecution
          2.5 Modern times
                 (The section "Constitutional status of Jainism in India"
                 should be merged here.)
    3 Customs and practices
          3.1 Jain life
          3.2 Monks
          3.3 Fasting
          3.4 Prayer and worship
          3.5 Dietary laws
          3.6 Festivals and rituals
               ("Holy days" section should be merged here.)
          3.7 Religious buildings
          3.8 Holy places
          3.9 Symbols
    4 Sects/denominations
           (condensed; Main: Digambar and Svetambara)
    5 Religious texts
           (The section "Languages used in Jain literature"
           should be merged here.)
          5.1 Scriptures
          5.2 Other literature
          5.3 Interpretation
    6 Community
          (condensed; Main: Jain community)
          6.1 Demographics
          6.2 Community leadership
                (monks, priests, specialized religious roles etc.)
          6.3 Contributions to Indian culture
    7 Comparative study
          (condensed; Main: Jainism and Islam, Jainism and Sikhism, 
          and Buddhism and Jainism. The stuff about Jainism and Hinduism 
          should be moved to a new article "Hinduism and Jainism")
    8 See also
    9 References
    10 Further reading
    11 External links

The "Beliefs" section should come before the History section. All articles on religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc.) began with "Beliefs" section (or similar sections, e.g., "Principles of Faith") -- that's what the reader will be looking for first. utcursch | talk 05:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

sounds good, do go ahead. WP:MOS note: avoid capitalised titles. Titles should be Jain philosophy, Jain traditions, Jain monks and nuns. thanks, dab (𒁳) 11:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good improvement! Can we change "Sects/denominations" to one word, like "divisions" or perhaps something else? —Viriditas | Talk 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have started working on Jain Monks and Nuns. It will take a lot of work. Please contribute.--Bharatshah (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you do a MoS-violating move immediately after I pointed you to the relevant convention? dab (𒁳) 09:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rishabh or Rushabh?

They are both right. However Rishabh is found 158,000 times using Google, Rushabh 40,000 times.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A matter of preference. Wikipedia uses Rishabha (per WP:JAIN), and I would guess that that's the standard spelling for all Wikipedia articles containing his name. I was taught to say Rushabha, but for Wikipedia purposes I use Rishabha. --Qmwne235 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is ṛṣabha with diacritic marks using IAST protocol for transliteration of indic names.--Anish (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Remarkable claims without citation

This article contains many remarkable claims without citation. A typical example: "Jainism has been a major cultural, philosophical, social and political force since the dawn of civilization in Asia..." To the best of my knowledge, there was no Jain influence on the civilization of Harappa. Without a citation, this claim fails.

I would prefer to leave detailed cleanup to an expert, but even an educated amateur like me can see that the article is quite exaggerated.

Dave Kielpinski (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It still suffers from this. Glacialfury (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Boiled water?

I noticed that the article states that Jains obtain drinking water through boiling. I may be incorrect (though I doubt it), but I was under the impression that boiling water was immoral to the Jain as it may end the lives of whatever microscopic life inhabited the water. The preferred method, I believe, is filtration, as it allows the microbes to continue living. Also, fire by nature destroys life (one must kill a plant to obtain firewood, and insects may inhabit the fuel, or fly into a lit flame), AND fire is considered Jīva, thus unless one intends to boil ones water over McCains's tomb, you would have to end the life of the fire after boiling. Although I cannot cite sources I am ninety nine percent sure of this. If you would, it may be best for the article for someone to look into these matters. Thank you, (ahimsa) (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good questions. I was wondering the same thing about the death of microscopic organisms in boiled water. If that is a concern, cooking food would also be bad, wouldn't it?

As to your fire question, if water was to be boiled I think an electric stove, burner, or hot-plate could be used. Of course, that would have been impossible for Jains of long ago.

--Lance E Sloan (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And don't kid yourself; where do you think that electricity comes from? A long chain of environmental destruction and massive burning of fossil fuels, the extraction of which is hardly conducive to peaceful life. There can be no perfection, only the continual attempt to strive for it. Glacialfury (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Or the perpetual claim of continually attempting to strive for it. Contributions/76.95.40.6 (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Animal Milk as food or AaHaar for Jain Sadhu is Abhaksh

Milk is produced by Mother for her baby and baby only.

No mother will allow to use her Milk for others.

Use of Milk by adult as Food is against principle of Natural justice and law.

It is totally against the principle of Jain Philosophy.

जैन साधू शिशुका आहार दूध लेते है. अन्य धर्म में मानने वाले को जैन श्रावक जैन दर्शन का अहिंसा का सिद्धांत कैसा समजा सकता है?

vkvora2001 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vkvora2001 is Blocked in Hindi wikipedia

After approval of Administrator and members of Hindi wikipedia Vkvora2001 is Blocked in Hindi wikipedia --Jainjain (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Root vegetable confusion

There might be some contradictions in this section of the article:

"Many practice a lifestyle similar to Veganism due to the violence of modern dairy farms, and others exclude root vegetables from their diets in order to preserve the lives of the plants from which they eat. Potatoes, garlic and onions in particular are avoided by Jains. Devout Jains do not eat, drink, or travel after sunset and prefer to drink water that is first boiled and then cooled to room temperature. Many Jains abstain from eating green vegetables and root vegetables one day each week."

If the statements here aren't contradictory of each other, they certainly are confusing:

1. First sentence says some Jains exclude root vegetables from their diets.

2. Second sentence says that all Jains avoid potatoes, garlic, and onions. That would indicate that all Jains should avoid all root vegetables, unless some roots are more important than others.

3. Fourth sentence says that Jains avoid root vegetables once each week, but shouldn't they already be avoiding them altogether?

Could this be explained better? --Lance E Sloan (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

typo

The following appears to contain a typo unless the 23rd is thought to have lived for 3 centuries.

The 24th Tirthankar, Lord Mahavira lived in ca. 6th century BC. vs twenty-third Tirthankara (ford maker) in Jainism and is the earliest Jain leader that can be reliably dated.[6]. According to scholars he probably flourished in 9th Century BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.4.47 (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Medical Sitcoms?

I don't know anything about Jainism (that's why I'm here) but the bit under "External Links" that says Jains are forbidden to watch comedic medical sitcoms strikes me as possible vandalism. Any Jains out there want to weigh in? 128.171.9.14 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. I've never heard that before. I watch Scrubs occasionally, so that would greatly disappoint me. --Qmwne₂₃₅ 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

word Puja; Tamil origin

What is the source of this information? Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary derives it from root "puj" "to worship". albertbruns 10:25 AM 4/16/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertbruns (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chavundaraya.jpg

The image Image:Chavundaraya.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A decent forum would welcome a Jain.

Friends, I am a member of Non-Abrahamic Religions and Philosophies (NAR&P) Forum at http://iidb.infidels.org. We have christian, buddhist, and hindu members in the forum. We sorely miss a jain. It is a very decent and intellectual discussion forum. Would some jain like to join us or could you suggest to a suitable person to join us and give information on Jainism. People in the forum are interested in knowing more about Jainism. At the moment I am trying to substitute for jains (having been born in Rajasthan and lived among jains). Thanking you. Aupmanyav (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Relation between attaining Moksha and becoming a Tirthankar

These two terms are generally used as interchangable terms. But in unanonymous among all sects of Jains that all people who attain Moksha does not become Tirththankar but all people who become Tirthankar have had attained Moksha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namitmehta83 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bold Type

The following is in bold: 'Jainism is a religion in which all life is considered worthy of respect and it emphasizes this equality of all life, advocating the protection of the smallest creatures.' is this normal? it seems to me this might impart undue influence to that portion. Request clarification please Snideology (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

better translation for "right view, right knowledge,and right conduct"

Dear Authors,

I would suggest that "right view, right knowledge,and right conduct" be replaced with "enlightened perception/perspective, enlightened knowledge, and enlightened action. The words are translated from Samyag Darshan, Samyag Gnaana, Samyag Chartitra. From my conversation with Jain scholars, the word "Samayag" is a combination of the words "enlightened" and "rational", perhaps "enlightened being the stronger word if only one were to be used. I usually translate the word Samyag to "enlightened/rational", using the "/" mark.

"Darshan", I have seen translatied as a combination of "perception/perspective" again with the "/" mark. The word "Right" is an archaic translation that does not capture the meaning of the word "Samyag".

Thanks

Tushar Mehta MD CCFP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtat (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Tushar Mehta,

Thanks for your comments. They are useful and these debates often come up as the translation may not always be perfect.

As you have rightly mentioned, the English translation comes from the word "Samyag". The English translation used at the Ponnur Jain Temple site in Tamilnadu state, India is the word is "Right". Hopefully, interested Jain scholars in Sanskrit and Pali languages will be able to provide assistance. Agree with your comment that "enlightened" is perhaps not the correct word as the question of about "on what" is unclear. The word "rational" implies the results of sound logic built on axioms agreed upon and these three phrases are at the heart of them and in my view goes beyond them, with the conduct playing an important role in feeding bcak to refine the view / perception and knowledge.

I believe having one translated word for "Samyag" instead of combination will be effective as this slogan is at the heart of Jainism. Secondly the concepts behind these phrases from Jainism point of view are elaborated in the next sentence immediately anyway and there is also a separate page that describes these concepts and their inter-play for the English speaking readers.

Happy to discuss further to work this through.

Suresh Elangovan (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The following comes from Thich Nhat Hanh in his book "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" (p.11, footnote); it is copyrighted material, so please do not include it in the article itself - I post it only for the discussion.

The Pali word for "Right" is samma and the Sanskrit word is samyak. It is an adverb meaning "in the right way," "straight," or "upright," not bent or crooked. Right Mindfulness, for example, means that there are ways of being mindful that are right, straight, and beneficial. Wrong mindfulness means that there are ways to practice that are wrong, crooked, and unbeneficial. ... we learn ways to practice that are of benefit, the "Right" way to practice. Right and wrong are neither moral judgments nor arbitrary standards imposed from the outside. Through our own awareness, we discover what is beneficial ("right") and what is unbeneficial ("wrong"). - Thich Nhat Hanh, "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching"

The use of the word "Right" for samyag/samyak/samma, while some may chafe at its lack of linguistic precision, is proper because it is an established convention and commonly understood by those who encounter it in this sort of literature. For a general audience, who may *not* have that familiarity, the best approach is to qualify its use, NOT change the convention. If a word carries a meaning outside of the common vernacular in a particular context, simply explain that meaning in a footnote or aside. This helps direct the reader appropriately without confusing the issue. Glacialfury (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of knowledge from Jain Philosophy is yet to be published on Wiki.

Dear Authors:

As knowledge is infinite. We can try and put together some of the knowledge from jain scriptures.

In the current article we have covered current socio-structure, history, pilgrims, monks and some of the practices but nothing much on what Jain Dharma is all about.

I would like to reiterate other things which can be covered (as structured in Jain Scriptures). We can use the same structure as in Jinavani. They are divided as "Prathamanuyog", "Charnanuyog", "Karananuyog", "Dravyanuyog".

Any suggestion, how to proceed and include in Wiki. Lots of help will be required from all of you to source the Correct Material from various scholars & researchers.

To give a glimpse of what all we can cover, that can explain all (Ahinsa, Auterity, various practices in Jainism etc) very easily:

1. Karma: 8 primary divided further into 148.

2. Gunasthan: Levels of the soul with all 148 Karmas to 0 Karmas.

3. Marganas. 14

4. Bhavanaye. 12

And there is a lots of Mathematics (Karananuyog) behind all of the above; lots of example as in "Prathamanuyog"; Path & Practices from Charnanuyog, and about all Dravyas in the last.

We can have a thorough discussion on above before we can plan for contributing & publishing.

Suggestions? Please.

...SG Sharad G (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Organisation of this page is TERRIBLE!!!

Hello all. I have recently visited this page, and whilst the information featured on it is quite well written, this page is terribly organised. Just look to the page for Christianity, Rastafari, Wicca or Shinto for a better example. I am happy to work on this with you all, but it really must be done. Religious pages are typically structured thus:

• Beliefs > scriptures, philosophies etc
• Practises
• History
• Demographics
• Denominations

I look forward to working with you all for the improvement of the page. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC))

Midnightblueowl, please feel free to make the changes as suggested by you. I do agree that the organisation of this article needs drastic improvement. However, I do not agree with one of your edits that it was founded by Mahavira. This theory, though popular earlier, is now in disfavour within the scholarly circles.--Anish (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, agree with your proposal that the organisation of this page require work. However, the introductory para needs to contain elements of all in a summary form so as to provide factual information to time-poor readers. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sharad G (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC):

Guys: Thanks for what all you have done but it has in fact degraded the quality of the article. After reviewing the first section Principles & Beliefs, here are the few comments. Requesting you guys to please continue to improve upon it:

1. This section begins with comparison with other relegions which is not a good practice. The first few line in any article is usually what the gist of the section is. Here it is "Principles and Beliefs" and we should be talking about key principles from the scriptures rather than our interpretation.

2. The content of this section is not consistent: e.g. at one place while talking about "spiritual development through personal wisdom and self-control", we jumped into the abstract "triple gems of Jainism". Self-control is just one small part of the last Gem i.e. "true conduct".

3. There is no pace or flow in the content. The section begins with "How it differs from other reloigion" then "History" in next para followed by some abstract principles, then again history, then about the world. There is no continuity between subsequent paras.

4. The definition of "Brahmacarya, i.e. "monastic celibacy", is the complete abstinence from sex" is not how it is defined in the scriptures. It is even lot more than just "Sex".

I hope the above feedback would help in continuous improvements. Please continue to do the good work being done.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skg9h (talk • contribs) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Principles and beliefs Section

Can someone take a look at this section? It looks to me as if it may have been vandalised. I tried reverting but it doesn't seem to have worked. --User:Boreas74 ^Talk 18:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Holi hai

Do Jains celebrate holi? I don't know why, but I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Infant (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Input needed

Murder#Murder in religion needs input on non-Abrahamic belief systems. One or two paras would be a big help. Thank you. LeadSongDog (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of the term "God"

It seems to me that many supporters/followers of Indian Religions (Hindu, Jainism and Buddhism) tend to always use the word God. It is apparent to me that this is a way to confuse Christians into believing that this also the Abrahamical God. I guess this makes it more pallatable for the West?MPA 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Can you give some examples. The concept of God in Indian religions is quite different from that of Abrahamical religions. There is no question of impressing anyone. Can you rephrease your observation/query rather than passing some cryptic statements that leaves everyone guessing?--Anish (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no concept of 'God' in Indian religions, period. 'God', with capitalized 'G', is an English word which expresses the concept of the supposed transcendent creator, the efficient, but not material, cause of everything else -- a concept which is strictly Abrahamic, and is not propounded (so absurd it is) by any Indian system, even by Dualistic Vedanta, let alone by Jainism. Now it's true that uninformed Indians routinely misuse the term 'God' in order to express Indian concepts such as those expressed by such terms as 'Brahman', 'Brahma', or 'Ishvara', or even in order to express Indian concepts of the fully liberated state (moksha, nirvana, etc.). The discussed article was an example of such rampant misuse. Therefore, I edited it to replace term 'God' with 'divine', whenever it refers to the fully liberated state. Now 'god', without the capitalized 'g', rather than the also uninformed 'demi-god', is a good translation for 'deva', the ordinary, non-liberated inhabitant of the heavens, whereby the appropriate changes were made in the discussed article. :)Jsp722 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the driving force behind the misuse of the term 'God', it is much more likely that it is just standard British Judeo-Christian ideological imperialism through linguistic colonization -- an attempt to make non-Christian Indians to think of their supreme goodness by means of the Judeo-Christian term and associated concept of 'God', with capitalized 'G'. Jsp722 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions about use of swastika

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism#Same problem with the swastika on Jainism articles. Thank you, IZAK 09:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Should there be any question? WWII ended some time ago, but the Hitler God obviously live on 80.7.195.184 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's not marginalize one of the oldest (if not the oldest) religions in the world over Hitler's bad semiotics. Hairpins (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Holidays...

...are not mentioned on this page. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 16:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Animals as Gods?!

mehh In the first paragraph of the article there is the following statement: "[Jainism] worships animals as gods and the people sweep in front of them so they don't kill bugs." First of all, if my understanding is correct, there is no concept of God or gods at all in Jainism, even Tirthankars being seen as role models, not divinities. Second, animals are treated with respect not because they are worshipped but because the doctrine of ahimsa forbids the harming of any living things, all jivas being viewed as equal. Finally, it is only the monks, not Jains in general that use a brush to sweep away insects so as not to harm them. Could someone check on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turmarion (talk • contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are correct to a great extent, but may I submit that its not just the Monks who sweep. Lot of Jains do it, in a varying fasion. Would try to pull out more details and put here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalese (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a practice during Samiyaka or Pratikamana before you sit down you have to sweep using a special brush, which I do not remember the name of, to sweep the germs and small insects away so you do not kill them. Also this is done when getting up and then sitting down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitezero (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

10.2

10.2 what? Million members? THats what I would think is meant, but since I don't know, I hadn't the nerve to try to fix. Pretty serious semantic snafu, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.216.230 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do Jains believe their religion is the ONLY way?

I know Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Sikhs, etc. do not believe their religion is the only way. But I saw nothing in the article if this is also true for Jains. It emphasizes they are nonviolent and nonjudgmental, and with their relation to the other Indian religions, I would guess they do not believe their way is the only way. But I just wanted to ask here to make sure they aren't an exclusive religion (like Christianity or Islam). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.187.66 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Jains in Pakistan?

Are there currently any Jain population in Pakistan? The article does mention that there were some in Lahore (Punjab) before the partition but have all left? Also, I read somewhere that there are Jain temples in the Sind Province (Thar district). Are there any Jains in Sind, maybe? Can someone with the knowledge add this stuff? Qadirma (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you include as an external link the Jainpedia project? It is a project that is digitising over 2000 Jain manuscripts held by British museums and libraries which will then be put online with accompanying notes, translations etc.

You can find it at:

http://blog.jainpedia.org/

Many thanks in advance.

Lostnorfolkboy (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Coin Picture

The coin shown as minted by the East India Company is a crude forgery. Please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.115.183 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

JAINpedia link

Apologies - I put this in an old section rather creating a new one.

Can you include as an external link the Jainpedia project? It is a project that is digitising over 2000 Jain manuscripts held by British museums and libraries which will then be put online with accompanying notes, translations etc.

You can find it at:

http://blog.jainpedia.org/

Many thanks in advance.

Lostnorfolkboy (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Practice

"For example, Jains drink only boiled water. In ancient times, a person might get ill by drinking unboiled water, which could prevent equanimity, and illness may engender intolerance".

By now they might however know, that boiling water causes the death of billions of microbes, finding themselves inside that water, as well as in the fuel, if used. Being a bit less tolerant to some other persons would be be much less grave, seen from the point of respecting life off all beings, which is said to be the main principle of this religion. --VKing (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In water that we drink there are microbs which have there continuous life cycle i.e. they go on reproducing and dying in huge numbers. The boiling of water for a specific time eliminates the microbes and stops there life cycle for certain time. Thus one might have effectively destroyed less number of microbs by boiling the water and then consuming.Actually it is more scintific and more correct than one might think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.155.205 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jainism and bacteria

What do jainists think about the millions of bacteria that their bodies kill everyday? 204.184.80.26 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I am not sure whether the questioner is genuinely interested in finding an answer or it is a bit of leg-pulling exercise. I will try giving some pointers so that the question can be researched and explored. First of all, Jainism acknowledges that every individual has different capabilities in adhering to the major vows. For example, one cannot become a doctor, engineer, accountant, etc. without going through primary, secondary education and then to the university before landing on to their profession of choice. The aspiration can be there to become a doctor for a five year old child - even though the capability to attain it immediately is not there. There has to be a process that the child need to go through in order to achieve his/her goal. Similarly a soul needed to start with basic non-violence principles that can be performed depending on their capability and specific situation in terms of meeting their life's demands and expectations. Jainism acknowledges that it is impossible to discharge one's duties without some degree of himsa, but encourages to minimise as much as possible. The very fact that in living life and discharging one's duties, not only bacterias but also other life forms are subjected to some himsa either knowingly or not is not a good excuse to throw hands and give up non-violence ideal.

Another example that may help in this process comes from a practice of zero accident tolerance ideal in petrochecmical industries. Every one in the organisation know it is an ideal - however the management and the workers are committed to achieving it and do whatever in their powers to reach that ideal target. Doing it any other way is really not a good option.

Hope the pointers I have given is a good start for the exploration. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient

Here is an argument for my position that 'ancient' should not be used in the introduction of this article.

As Baseball Bugs pointed out on my talk page (User talk:Munci#Ancient), 'ancient' can be used to refer to things which have existed for a long time and still do as well as referring to those things which existed long ago but which do not continue to exist. It is confirmed by looking at various dictionaries that there are both senses.

However, the prototypical usage of the word is probably in such phrases as "Ancient Egypt" or "Ancient Greece". Given the fact that ancient redirects to ancient history, this seems likely. This hypothesis is also confirmed by google searches: google ancient and it will suggest 'ancient egypt' and 'ancient greece' as possible search terms. In fact, seven of the ten suggested search terms are relating definitely to history (Egypt, Greece or Rome), not to anything which continues today. Also, the search results generally are about the same topics. Exceptions being a dictionary definition, a myspace site of a band called Ancient and ancient scripts. All the others are about history and only that.

BaseballBugs also give the idea that the present tense might be enough to distinguish between the two meanings. However, looking at the article Ancient Greece, I see that the introduction begins "Ancient Greece is". The same goes for Ancient Greek.

I am definitely talking about the word 'ancient', not about 'extinct'. Extinct is rarely used in the context of religions, whether continuing or not. 'historical' is used in the case of historical Vedic religion and 'ancient' is used in the context of ancient Egyptian religion. Otherwise you usually get 'paganism' as in germanic paganism. 'Ancient' is rarely used to describe Judaism or any number of other religions dating back a considerable time and the word certainly is not used in the lede of the wikipedia articles for any of these languages. People might not know what 'dharmic' means at first, but they will realise that they don't know, which is better than them thinking they understand when they don't. Also, they can go and check on that article and will then understand.

In order to state the long length of the existence of Jainism, I believe a statement similar to that found in the Judaism article ("Judaism claims a historical continuity spanning more than 3000 years.") might would be well suited here. Just replace Judaism with Jainism and get the right length of time in that sentence and that in. Except the first two sentences of the second paragraph might do enough to that end. Munci (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to necessarily argue for or against using the term "ancient" in the lead of the article, but I will say that I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word. According to EO,[2] "ancient" simply means "old" or "long-standing", which strikes me as being completely compatible with reference to an old or long-standing religion. The word "ancient" comes from "ante", meaning "before", i.e. "before modern times". That's a bit vague, but the EO entry gives a rule of thumb of "ancient" being used by historians to mean "before the fall of the Roman Empire". Obviously, that's a bit of a Euro-skewed viewpoint, but it does give a frame of reference. "Ancient" does not imply obsolete, it simply means "very, very old". It is also used metaphorically sometimes, as with The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, which is recited by a very-much-alive sailor; or The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, which was actually founded in the 1750s and is very much alive and operational. There are many examples. One I ran across that you might find interesting is Ancient counties of England. Then there's Ancient of Days, a synonym for God, and to believers, this "ancient" God is very much alive and well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Etymonline is a good source for what a word means. That's only for the origin. Try oed.com if you can access it. Or dictionary.com or Cambridge dictionary or Merriam Webster.

It isn't entirely clear to me from the article whether the ancient counties of England were referred to as 'ancient' before they were abolished/had their boundaries changed.

I am not denying that 'ancient' can be used to refer to something still continuing. I am denying that that is the normal and standard usage. Just as not all birds can fly, not all that is ancient is gone. But it's certainly one of the first things that will come to the average mind I am sure, especially in this context. Seeing Prototype theory might be useful. Come to think of it, there really should be an article for Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Might make it myself. Munci (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The first definition my Webster's gives for ancient is "Having had an existence of many years". Just substitute "very old" anytime you see "ancient", and the meaning and usage should become clearer. You had mentioned Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt. Well, those civilizations are still in existence. When they say "ancient", they are talking about the portion of those civilizations that occurred thousands of years ago. I've spoken English natively all my life (so far) and to me "ancient" simply means something with very old "roots". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Another way around this, though, rather than leading the reader down a pointless debate over what "ancient" really means, is to state the age of the presumed origin of the given entity. My Webster's says Jainism dates to the 6th Century B.C. So in the opening statement, simply say "Jainism dates to the 6th century BC (or BCE if you prefer)", a quantitative figure that obviates any need for qualitative terms like "ancient". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed a good idea. How about "Jainism is a religion of India dating back to at least the sixth century BC(E) that prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings."? Munci (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the trouble with these terms is the usual confusion caused by English being a hybrid of Latin (filtered through French) and old Germanic languages. You end up with differently-rooted words that mean the same thing. In French, ancien means "old", and of course the English "ancient" comes from ancien. Meanwhile, "old" and "ancient" both translate to alt in German, which is also the root of the English word "old". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah English has so much Latin and French influence. Sometimes the difference is clear between the loans and the originals thoguh like with meat you use the Romance word e.g. mutton for the food and the Germanic word for the animal e.g. sheep. I see similar happening in Malay for example as well: Malays nowadays will use 'chicken' to mean the food and 'ayam' for the animal. I think in Hindi and probably other Indian languages it's similar. I should probably ask my Tamil friend. At least that means they're no actually in danger of extinction in the way other languages are; they just get the influence only. Munci (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

English has become the universal language of business, and with its strong Latin roots, I'm sure Julius Caesar would be proud. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Antiquity of the Jainism

I have doubt of the antiquity of the Jainism, it has much carateristics of new religion incompatible with a primitive hunters and gatherers societies with competitive clans. A tribe with this philosophy at base, in Egypt in Mesopotamia or in Archaic Greece or China would be annihilated.

Andriolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.77.55 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there is abundant evidence of the antiquity of Jainism. The fact that that mgiht clash somehow with your expectations doesn't mean the facts are wrong, but that your expectations were wrong. In any case, the most accepted time for Jainism to emerge is long after sedentary farming settlements appeared in India so hunter-gatherers aren't really relevant. Munci (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Regarding antiquity of Jainism I would like to add some information below: "Jainism is an independent and most ancient religion of India. Jainsim is an eternal religion. Jainism is revealed in every cyclic period of the universe, and this constitutes the pre-historic time of Jainism. And there is a recorded history of Jainism since about 3000-3500 BC.

The discovery of the Indus Civilization seem to have thrown a new light on the antiquity of Jainism. The evidence suggests that Jainism was known among the people of the Indus Valley around 3000-3500 B.C. Some nude figures, considered to be of Lord Rishabha, on the seals have been discovered at Mohenjodaro and Harrappa. There is an article that suggests the representation of the seventh Tirthankara SuParsvanath. The people of the Indus Valley not only practiced Yoga but worshipped the images of Yogis. There are figures in Kayotsarga posture of standing are peculiarly Jain. 
 In addition, the sacred signs of swastika are found engraved on a number of seals.  Furthermore, there are some motifs on the seals found in Mohen-jo-Daro and it is suggested that these motifs are identical with those found in the ancient Jain art of Mathura. This presence of Jain tradition in the earliest period of Indian history is supported by many scholars. It strongly suggests that Jainism existed in pre-Aryan time. 
Janism in Vedic Period 
In the Rig -veda there are clear references to Rishabhdev, the 1st Tirthankar, and to Aristanemi, the 22nd Tirthankar. The Yajur-veda also mentions the names of three Tirthankars, viz. Rishabhdev, Ajitanath and Aristanemi. Further, the Atharva-veda specifically mentions the sect of Vratya means the observer of vratas or vows as distinguished from the Hindus at those times.  Similarly in the Atharva-veda the term Maha vratya occurs and it is supposed that this term refers to Rishabhdev, who could be considered as the great leader of the Vratyas. 
Jainism in Buddha Period
Lord Mahavir was the senior contemporary of Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. In Buddhist books Lord Mahavir is always described as nigantha Nataputta (Nirgrantha Jnatrputra), i.e., the naked ascetic of the Jnätr clan. Further, in the Buddhist literature Jainism is referred to as an ancient religion.  There are ample references in Buddhist books to the Jain naked ascetics, to the worship of Arhats in Jain chaityas or temples and to the chaturyäma dharma (i.e. fourfold religion) of 23rd Tirthankar Parsvanath.
 Moreover, the Buddhist literature refers to the Jain tradition of Tirthankars and specifically mentions the names of Jain Tirthankars like Rishabhdev, Padmaprabh, Chandraprabh, Puspdant, Vimalnath, Dharmanath and Neminath.  The Buddhist book Manorathapurani, mentions the names of many lay men and women as followers of the Parsvanath tradition and among them is the name of Vappa, the uncle of Gautama Buddha.  In fact it is mentioned in the Buddhist literature that Gautama Buddha himself practiced penance according to the Jain way before he propounded his new religion."

Regards, Ankur Jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurjain555 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am agree is a not a primitive and natural society religion. But is not excessive to affirm "....has prehistoric origins dating before 3000 BC, and before the beginning of Indo-Aryan culture...." ?? and is necessary to use hyperbolics sentences: " Some have speculated that the religion may have its roots in much earlier times, reflecting native spirituality prior to the Indo-Aryan migration into India.[7][8][9]" Why the Jainism must be ancient than Induism, or other indoarians religions, it shares many symbols with them ? For example the svastica. Often is impossible know the religion of the ancient culture that have a written word !!! The difficulties increase with society without written documents. For example at the moment we haven't decode ancient Harappa and Mohenjo-daro tablets, Can you affirm to know the religion of this exceptional culture ??

Andriolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.73.127 (talk) 08:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Prior to writing, people would look at architecture and burials and so on. It is possible that Jainism (and possibly other Indian religions at the time that are now gone?) had e.g. the swastika before the Indo-Aryans came and then the Indo-Aryans adopted it. That would make sense considering the swastika isn't appearing in other Indo-European cultures outside India. Anyway, the crucial sentence on the dating is possibly "Organized Jainism is believed by historians to have arisen between the ninth and the sixth centuries BCE." Munci (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Andriolo, pls check the references. They are valid and scholarly. And as far as ancient history is concerned, much of it is speculative even by scholarly standards. Hence, that is what is mentioned in the article. I suggest rather than arguing logically, (which can be argued either ways) go with the references and scholars. Leave the speculation of "who borrowed Svastika symbols to scholars from whom" and let us do our job of quoting them. Thanks Munci, what you say makes a lot of sense.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I do have a question about antiquity of Jainism. Your arguments are based on the assumption that Aryans invaded India and destroyed the native culture. You also quote archealogical evidence from Harappa and Mohenjodaro. I suggest that you read the following article: http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/harappa-mohenjodaro.html Sanjaydh (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you check the references provided in the article. These are scholarly references. On the other hand the reference provided by you is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. Author Tarini J. Carr's work is not peer reviewed or published in scholarly works and she quotes and relies on pseudo scholars like David Frawley and Subhash Kak.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And why do you assume that the scholarly references are unbiased? If Jainism really predates the arrival of Indo-Europeans in the Indian subcontinent, then you would expect to see Jain scriptures in Dravidian languages like Tamil. Unfortunately, no Tamil scriptures exist. At least the Sanskrit of the Rig Veda shows a considerable amount of Dravidian influence. Hokie Tech (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:Tirumala Venkateswara Temple]]. Pavan 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Please participate in the RFC discussion of whether Thondaiman has built the Tirumala Temple. Pavan 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Myth vs Facts

As with many religious articles on wikipedia this one contains myths presented as facts, such as "Lord Rishabh did not eat or drink water for 400 days." even a camel would not survive that long without water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Jainism isn't pro-life

Editors might want to chime in on the discussion at talk:pro-life, where those arguing against a page move claim that the US moral-conservative characterization of the anti-abortion movement as 'pro-life' is the only significant use of that concept. I can't think of a greater pro-life philosophy than Jainism, but it's nowhere mentioned in that article, not even under the section on religion. — kwami (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

response by lawstubes

It may be of note to understand that fetal life isn't fully alive yet, I know that is kind of anti-pro-life movement. But it kind of needs to be true, especially if you are motivated by religious values, specifically rooted in biblical text. So, in that context, we can't kill. Its mosaic law. You could make the error of thinking that the mosaic law is breakable, but in the religious context, it is not. If you think you can break mosaic law, you are nullified, neutralized, banished, destroyed from this existence and provided with your own, away from here.

Now, I think that is really important to understand, because it means that unborn babies are being built to receive a soul that they can't get until their body is ready to recieve all the incoming data from 'God' (or whatever). So, the first breath of a baby is the first real signal that tells the universe "This is a spiritual being" & all functions go 'online'. After all, 'spirit' does mean breath.Lawstubes (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dating convention

I propose that the "BC/AD" dating convention be replaced with "BCE/CE". Both conventions are allowed at Wikipedia, but it seems strange to define the dating of one religion in terms of one of the others. It's not unreasonable at the English language Wikipedia, but I suggest the alternative is slightly better. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Support- BCE/CE are internationally accepted and do not imply an inclination towards any religion.--Aayush18 (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Few Correction Required

One is Bahubali is not a Arihant. He is able overcome all 8 karmas. That I think need to be updated. Another issue is: Terapanth are worship Idols they are not against it. So I think this point should also be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.96.34 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also the mark: "According to Jainism, there are sixteen heavens in total.[39]" and its statement is wrong. There are seven heavens and not sixteen. Total fourteen levels, seven heavens and seven hells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.101.246 (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a debatable but jain cosmology shows, 16 Devlok ( Heavens)+ 5 Anudins + 9 Graiveyaks + 5 Anuttar = All considered as upper world ( urdhva lok). And 7 Hells (Narak) as a lower world. --Nizil (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Jainism is not pantheistic

Jainism is not a pantheistic religion. I am changing it to 'transtheistic' which better suits it. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Article improvement

There are some areas that will need to be addressed in this article to improve it in the future.

1. It's too long at over 100,000 bytes. That creates problems for mobile users and those with slower connections. Consider breaking more lengthy sections into main articles and summarizing them here according to WP:SUMMARY. Consider also summarizing the current sections to be more concise. This page gives guidelines.

2. Its lede does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:Lede for details.

3. It uses lists where prose (WP:PROSE) may be more appropriate. The section on meditation is an example.

4. The sources are inconsistent. In some cases, only URLs are provided. Complete sources should be used.

5. It is not adequately sourced. Some sections with main articles are unsourced or have one or two sources. The sources from the main article should be used here as well so readers can reference them. There are also many lengthy sections with none or very few citations. Rather than placing "ref improve section" in many of these sections, I'll place that tag on the article. I encourage the editors here who have put a lot of work in the article to not see that as a detractor. It is intended to improve the article by inviting interested editors to provide the references which are necessary for a reader to take an article seriously and not question its reliability throughout. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of unrefrenced and unsourced section.

The sections which contains next to no sources or references should not be there in the article. I am deleting those sections. I request the editors to provide adequate reliable resources if they wish to undo it. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you removed 35,000 bytes from the original article. Perhaps we could paste the deleted text in here and see if anything can be done with it? Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable. There are options within WP:PRESERVE besides outright deletion to consider. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there any point which was worth preserving in those articles I deleted? Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If properly referenced, I suspect the answer would be yes from some readers. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rahul, I've got a few points-

1. First of all, thank you for taking such a deep interest in articles that deal with Jainism, this will definitely help improve articles within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jainism

2. It is important to note that edits by other editors are always assumed to be in good faith & it may not always be possible to find sources. Example, you added the entire section Jainism#Canonical_texts without a single source. But did any editor delete it? No. Did any editor ever even ask you to mention sources? Nope. I know what you added is true, but other editors may not know this, but they still took your edits in good faith, because we're building this encyclopedia together from scratch. The point is, sourcing stuff rather than outright deletion, is any day more constructive.

3. You also deleted some sourced stuff. Example-

Jains hold that owning an object by itself is not possessiveness; however, attachment to an object is possessiveness. Finally, Jains value the company of the holy and better-qualified, strive to be merciful to afflicted souls, and tolerate the perversely inclined.A major characteristic of Jain belief is the emphasis on the consequences of not only physical but also mental behaviours.

The above is a perfectly sourced paragraph. I could count at least 8 more such instances with a mere go through of the deletions.

4. Jainism is too vast for any of us to understand completely. We may have never heard of stuff mentioned in the articles or may even disagree. We may even find it hocus-pocus. But does that warrant deletion of that stuff? Nope.

5. Complete sections on Cosmology, Worship, Symbolism, Karmas etc. have been deleted. People come to Wikipedia to find info. There are 2 options- Unreferenced material put in by well-meaning editors (that can be sourced) vs. nothing. I'd go with the former.

6. There are very few contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jainism, there are even fewer editors who maintain these articles. This project has the least number of articles when compared with other religions. Yes, there is a problem with the info that is not presented in an encyclopedic manner. But deleting that info is not contributing to the solution, it is only increasing the problem.

I'm reinstating 26,500 characters of the deleted 45,500 characters. I haven't reinstated everything from every section, but only some parts from every deleted section so that we do not lose the essence of those sections and further build upon them. I haven't reinstated the names in diff languages.--Aayush18 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aayush. Although I haven't reviewed your reinstatements, I agree with the general thrust of the above—with some exceptions. The exceptions concern unreferenced material. In number four above, if the material we haven't heard of or disagree with is unsourced, it may be inaccurate. We can assume good faith for an edit that suffers from inaccuracy or is simply the experience of one person, but which is not representative of Jains all over the world, but that material won't improve the readers' knowledge (and may actually hinder it). In number five, it might be preferable in these cases to have no material. For example, I've seen material in other articles on religion that purported to represent all adherents, but actually expressed the apparently idiosyncratic viewpoint of one adherent in one denomination. In a case like this, the absence of the material may be preferable. That prevents readers from thinking the positions stated are actually held by all those within the tradition/faith when they are not. So, I agree there is middle ground better walked between deleting all and retaining all, but I strongly recommend providing reliable sources for all material retained or tagging unreferenced material/sections to alert readers and editors. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

sect subsect tree

I have added collapsable sect-subsect tree in Denomination Section, based on reference book which is cited and also looked some books on Google Books to improve it. Please make suggestions and improve it further. -- Nizil (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

• I do not agree with removal of Customs and practices. It summarizes primary aspects of Jain life. Festivals, worship methods (rituals), pilgrimage (holy cities like Palitana), monastic traditions, food habits are needed.
• Rename "Illustrious Persons" to "Deities". Do not list all Tirthankars. The first introductory para with Rishabha, Parshva and Mahavira is enough. Not sure Chakravarti, Baladeva, Vāsudeva and Prativasudeva is needed. Missing popular goddesses like Ambika, Padmavati.
• History only covers origins. Talk about its spread across India and then its decline, restricting it to primarily Gujarat and other pockets in small numbers.
• Section on Demographics: where are the most Jains, how are they distributed currently.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Check my response above.--Aayush18 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose tag

The prose tag I added to the "Core beliefs" section was removed. I did not add the tag to detract from the article. I added the tag so that someone would improve the article. According to WP:PROSE, "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." There are some exceptions, but I don't see how this falls into any of them.

I've seen how a bullet list like can be improved by turning it into prose—even after initial reluctance from editors to undertake the project. Also, if this article were nominated as a Good Article or Featured Article, it would not pass. For example, it would fail Featured Article Criterion 1a.

Why should this list not be turned into prose IAW Wikipedia's Manual of Style and the criterions we expect of our best work here? --Airborne84 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no response for nearly a week, I will reinstate the tag, inviting an interested editor to transform the list into prose. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Airborne84, I just came online after a gap, and noticed that the tag has been reinstated. You have pointed out that there are exceptions to the prose rule - and rightly should be. I trust that this section is better presented in point form so as to highight the important bits of information to the reader with clarity.

Suresh Elangovan (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the listed exceptions in WP:PROSE before I posted the above and this section didn't seem to fall under any of them. I considered reworking the section into prose, but haven't had the time. Why don't we try this: I should be able to work on it in the next week or two. I'll rework the bullets into prose and we can discuss then. There's a lot of good material in this article and it could easily become a Good Article or Featured Article, but future edits need to align the existing material in the article with the GA and FA criterions. I hope this proposal is reasonable. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Your proposal is more than reasonable. I will be happy to contribute from my end, once the first draft is available. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

First draft complete. I hope you find it acceptable and a general improvement. I'm sure you can improve it further since I am not an expert in Jainism—just an interested observer. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article. Substantial work has been done to improve upon. I have read the first few main sections, and they have captured the essence of jainism without any bias.Suresh Elangovan (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'Customs and practices' section and 'constitutional status'

I have made some alterations in the article and changed the overall look of it. I would like opinion of other editors on it.

I also plan to remove whole of the 'customs and practices' section and 'constitutional status' section. Customs and Practices section has next to none references. It also seems to be sect-specific rather than dealing with whole of Jainism in general. There is a lot of redundancy too, the fact that 'Jains are vegetarians' and 'Jains have influenced overall india' seem to be mentioned many times in the article. The small paragraph about 'constitutional status of Jainism in India' seems completely unnecessary in the Article. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for re-categorizing sections as 'Core Principles' and 'Doctrines', they make a lot of sense and are crystal clear. But let's not remove all the sections that have been removed. Currently, if a person were to stumble upon this article, they would get a good idea of all the philosophical aspects, however, they would not know if Jainism is a living, breathing religion, what has been its contribution to society, who are Jains and what is Jain life? These questions should be addressed. Let's reinstate (and remove the sect specific stuff)-

• Cosmology -> Non-Creationism
• Customs & Practices -> All the earlier subsections AND 'Worship and rituals' and 'Festivals' as 2 new subsections
• Geographical Spread and Influence
• Culture -> Add in info from 'Contributions to Indian culture' and 'Literature'
• Comparative studies -> New section with the first 3 paras from 'Jainism and other religions' and 'Constitutional status in India'. Check Buddhism.

Feel free to add sources and/or trim down the sections as you see fit (I've already trimmed the sections before adding them in), but let's not completely remove them. Also, let's give some more thought to the Illustrious Persons section.--Aayush18 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would rather not compare the article with Buddhism, its rated B-class like this one. The Bahá'í_Faith, religion which has almost same number of followers as Jainism, managed to get their article a 'featured-article' status. The overall structure of the article isn't appropriate. Help me organize this article and I'll try my best to cite references and sources. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright makes sense. I like your push for the 'Featured Article' status, let's get this done.--Aayush18 (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)