Talk:History of Jainism

Greetings. A section of this entry discusses the interactions of Jainism and Buddhism, being contemporaneous religions. Reading through part of this section gives me a message that is different from the source it sites.

The message this sends across is that the Buddha had, at some point, studied under or discoursed with Mahavira and found it an improper rite. But this is not the case in the Sutta.

The 'I' in this part of the text is not the Buddha; it is actually King Ajatasattu of Magadha, a former follower of the Buddha's schismatic cousin Devadatta, who approaches the Buddha in this Sutta to understand why anyone should take up the renunciant life. The quote used in the above section is Ajatasattu's response to hearing Mahavira's answer to his question; like the other śramana leaders he seeks for answers, Ajatasattu is not satisfied and so leaves. [The above source is the same as it is in the entry, Access to Insight's 'Samaññaphala Sutta', namely under the Fourfold Restraint subsection.]

As for what to do about this quote, I suggest removing it and finding another Sutta that better discusses how the two movements viewed each other. I recall there being other suttas where the Buddha counters Jaina thought; there is a Sutta that has him discredit the notion of exhausting karma by way of painful ascetic rituals, but I cannot remember its name at the present. Does anyone have ideas for other quotes to put here in its place, or for how to reword this section of the entry entirely?

SkandaSkribe (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Today I located that Sutta I mentioned in my entry a month ago: the Devadatta Sutta. (Link on Access to Insight) No one else has commented on the matter, so I'll rework that section of the page when I have the time. SkandaSkribe (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Jainism is a religion founded in ancient India. Jains trace their history through twenty-four tirthankara and revere Rishabhanatha as the first tirthankara (in the present time-cycle). Some artifacts found in the Indus Valley civilization have been suggested as a link to ancient Jain culture, but very little is known about the Indus Valley iconography and script. The last two tirthankara, the 23rd tirthankara Parshvanatha (c. 9th–8th century BCE) and the 24th tirthankara Mahavira (c. 599 – c. 527 BCE) are considered historical figures. Mahavira was a contemporary of the Buddha. According to Jain texts, the 22nd Tirthankara Neminatha lived about 85,000 years ago and was the cousin of Krishna.[citation needed]

The two main sects of Jainism, the Digambara and the Śvētāmbara sect, likely started forming about the 3rd century BCE and the schism was complete by about 5th century CE. These sects later subdivided into several sub-sects such as Sthānakavāsī and Terapanthis. Many of its historic temples that still exist today were built in 1st millennium CE. After the 12th-century, the temples, pilgrimage and naked (skyclad) ascetic tradition of Jainism suffered persecution during the Muslim rule, with the exception of Akbar whose religious tolerance and support for Jainism led to a temporary ban on animal killing during the Jain religious festival of Dasa Lakshana. Jainism rejects the concept of creator and founder. In the present half cycle of the cosmos, Aadinatha was the first Tirthankara.[ 2409:4042:E95:C96A:FB8A:58FB:E98:3C06 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sourced information from scholars like Padmanabh Jaini and Pandit Nathuram Premi in addition to western scholars states that Akbar was tolerant towards Jainism and monks. We also know persecution of Jains in 12th century was a matter of importance. Does anyone else think otherwise and wants to delete that matter from this page, kindly clarify it here before undoing changes. Engaging in unfruitful edit wars is not the solution. Tagging User:TrangaBellam here to discuss. A major chunk was deleted without explaining what was the reason. ParvatPrakash (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

After the 12th century, the temples, pilgrimage, and Jain ascetics suffered persecution during the Muslim rule, with the exception of Akbar.

This flat — and caricaturish — account of persecution is flatly untrue. See recent scholarship by Steven M. Vose and Audrey Truschke among others. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I get your point. But Akbar's tolerance isn't untrue. I vote to keep that part as it is confirmed by sources as well. We can remove the part about persecution until confirmed. Persecution did happen with multiple sieges of the Palitana temples and Girnar temples. ParvatPrakash (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

At least 2 sieges of Palitana temples, one each by Mahmud Begada and Alauddin Khilji are well-known. I'll find sources mentioning those, but simply deleting material doesn't seem right to me. There were multiple sources supporting the information about Akbar. It could've been rephrased instead of direct deletion. ParvatPrakash (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Equating sieges or one-off acts of iconoclasm with persecution is not a sound approach—see Bernhaut (2023) for an overview alongside Vose's upcoming monograph (Routledge; 2025)—and, more importantly, violates WP:SYNTH. I have no principled opposition to the content on Akbar but why it is DUE in the lead? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understandable. You should've highlighted it earlier that you don't see it appropriate in the lead section. Also, siege of the most important place of pilgrimage as per the canonical literature of Jains makes it part of persecution. Attacking someone's place of worship only because one doesn't believe in idolatry and is iconoclastic is persecution. It is literally part of the definition of the word 'persecution'. Additionally, not just Khilji and Begada, there are several other acts of persecution. Bharuch's Jama Masjid was built after razing a Jain temple. 27 Jain and Hindu temples were razed to build the Qutb Minar. There's several such examples to prove otherwise from what you think. How would it violate WP:SYNTH if all sources say the same? If razing of religious places isn't part of persecution, I don't know what else is. I agree that the lead section isn't the place, but it doesn't mean there was no persecution. There's several sources showing it. You just deleted a section that was backed by Padmanabh Jaini, Paul Dundas, and Nathuram Premi's research. I don't think it was fit to be deleted. It could've been rephrased and placed somewhere else within the page. It is useful information, after all. I would also like to invite User:Livingstonshr to this discussion owing to their knowledge on the subject of the history of Jainism. ParvatPrakash (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I dont see any adequate reason given by TrangaBellam for revert of edits. Akabar's adminstration involved destruction of Vijaypur Sikri (a Jain City) and was renamed as Fatehpur. Kuwwat Ul Islam (might of Islam) mosque was erected near Qutub minar during sultanate era, destroying 27 Jain temples. Vandalism of Jain monuments at Gopachal rock caves is another of many examples of islamic aggression on Jain community. I don't see any reason for works of Steven Vose and Audrey be given greater importance than Padmanabh Jaini's works. Livingstonshr (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's exactly what I feel too. I've read Steven Vose and some of his works are not neutral. It does seem like Vose might be a non-neutral scholar. Even in some of his works, he does acknowledge such acts to have happened that do fall under the dictionary definition of 'persecution.' In general, any kind of an act that constitutes aggression should be considered persecution, may or may not be targeted. Paul Dundas has highlighted such acts of aggression that have occurred time and again after the 12th century. In my opinion, it cannot be ruled out that events of such aggression did indeed take place and were not isolated from what I see in Dundas's works. Palitana temples, Pavagadh temples, Bharuch's temples, Qutb Minar do come under persecution. I'm of the opinion to include Indian as well as unbiased Western scholars in the page. Even if one thinks they were isolated acts of violence against Jainism as per Islam's iconoclasm, it was indeed violence. Persecution cannot be classified in this case. I believe it can be added in another section if not in the lead section, but it surely deserves to stay in the article. ParvatPrakash (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, recent works are given more weightage per HISTRS; Nathuram Premi is too old for anything. Dundas is good but his recent positions are very nuanced. Additionally, what you/I feel about Steven Vose — and his neutrality (or lack of it) — is immaterial.

For an instructive example, you point towards the supposedly wanton persecution that accompanied the construction of the Qutb Complex. Obviously, you have not read Sunil Kumar's or Finbar Barry Flood's magisterial deliberations on the issue which holds consensus in academic scholarship. Neither have you read Alka Patel's Building Communities in Gujarat on the Bharuch Mosque.

Also, you need to read the sources that I cite. For an example, Bernhaut (2023) shows—citing multiple scholars in support—how modern-day academic scholarship has offered nuanced explanations—going above and beyond religious fervor—on what motivated Kings like Babar in their inconoclastic acts. But you go onto write, Attacking someone's place of worship only because one doesn't believe in idolatry and is iconoclastic is persecution. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Iconoclastic acts of terrorism were indeed persecution. Your religious bias does not change that fact. It was aimed at "forcing" Islam over those who didn't believe in it and that very thing is an act of terrorism, persecution, and that is not subject to a scholar's opinion because it is an objective truth. Anyone who does not see it so is not neutral. ParvatPrakash (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:VNOTTRUTH and WP:NPA. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources which, in this domain, equates to academic scholarship. Our personal viewpoints are immaterial and additionally, you may not cast unfounded aspersions on my "religious bias". Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh that's funny because you just deleted sections backed by Paul Dundas's research. YOU personally think that his works are nuanced. It's only YOUR point-of-view. It's established that his works on Jainism are unbiased and scholarly. My "aspersions" are not unfounded because your contributions clearly establish your religious bias. However, let's keep it aside for now. You randomly deleting a section sourced from Paul Dundas's work was uncalled for. ParvatPrakash (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see a single relevant line in Dundas (2002; p. 146):

However, the restoration of Shatruñjaya notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that the early period of Muslim rule in western India saw the destruction and disappearance of a large number of Jain holy places and many once great shrines are now no more than names.

Obviously, this cannot support the gross over-generalization that was in the lead: After the 12th century, the temples, pilgrimage, and Jain ascetics suffered persecution during the Muslim rule, with the exception of Akbar ... Dundas himself goes onto note (p. 147) Jahangir's erratic relationship with the Jains—for more details, consult Jain (2013; p. 69-76) — and Shah Jahan's goodwill — for more details, consult ibid, p. 76-84—, etc.; so, Akbar was not a blip, as the lead portrayed.

What I said was that Dundas' recent works on the locus show more nuance than his 2002 primer (and I will cite one of them, soon); what's there not to understand? Further, given that there exist full-length monographs on the topic — Jain (2017) and Vose (2025) — , I see no reason to use a one-volume survey as the core source.TrangaBellam (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This obviously supports a generalisation about how early Islamic rule actually 'persecuted' Jains and Jain places of worship. How does this line not support it? His earlier as well as current works are well-researched and cited by several scholars. The line could've simply been rephrased instead of a total deletion. You are still only justifying deletion when what was actually needed was a rephrasing of the content as per Dundas's work. ParvatPrakash (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

ParvatPrakash writes,

At least 2 sieges of Palitana temples, one each by Mahmud Begada and Alauddin Khilji are well-known ... Palitana temples [..] do come under persecution.

Let's consult recent academic scholarship on the locus —

Under Sultan Alauddin Khalji this relationship entered a new phase.

The Digambara pontiff Mahasen came to Delhi from South India to explain Jain theology in the royal court. As per the Jain narrative, the sultan respected the acharya for his insightful learning and asceticism. Alauddin Khalji also honoured the Shwetambara acharya Rāmchandra Sūri. The Nābhinandanoddharaprabandha of the Jain pontiff Kakkā Sūri written in VS 1392/AD 1335 gives details of the pious deeds of the Gujarati merchant Samra Shah, a Jain shrāvak of Upkesh (Oswal) caste and Vesata gotra. His friend and well-wisher was 'Alalpa Khana', the governor of Gujarat. He can certainly be identified as Alp Khan, the governor of Gujarat during Alauddin Khilji's period. Alp Khan gave the necessary farman (edict) to Samra Shah to rebuild the temple of Adinatha at Palitana. He received permission for the renovation of Śatruñjaya from Alauddin Khalji. The Emperor also permitted him to mine marble from the Mammaad mines. Ultimately, in VS 1371/AD 1314–15 Samra Shah took out a sangha yātrā from Patan to Śatruñjaya and consecrated the idol. The occasion was graced by many pontiffs, including Tapā gaccha acharya Ratnakar Sūri.

The Vividhatīrthakalpa of Jinaprabha Sūri, a contemporary text belonging to the time of Samra Shah, narrates that the mūla nāyak (main idol) of the Adishwar temple in Śatruñjaya was built by a merchant in VS 1371/ad 1314 after it was destroyed by mlecchas (barbarians) in VS 1369/ ad 1312. Two epigraphs found from Śatruñjaya dated VS 1371/AD 1314 confirm this detail. At the same time, the Jain sources pretend as if the permission granted by the 'Muslim ruler' Alauddin Khalji for the renovation of the temple and the mining of marble was more an act of strategy by Samra Shah instead of being a conciliatory or friendly gesture by the ruler. It could not have been that temple desecration was a 'conscious' act but the permission for its renovation was an unconscious one instigated by others!
— Jain, Shalin (February 2012). "Patrons, Temples and Pilgrimages: The Jain Community in Medieval India". Studies in History. 28 (1): 24–25. ISSN 0257-6430.

I am afraid that "persecution" is quite not the one-word-summary for the above passage. In any case, let's move on to Livingstonshr who — owing to their knowledge on the subject of the history of Jainism — was canvassed to this discussion by ParvatPrakash. And, thus spoke Livingstonshr —

Kuwwat Ul Islam (might of Islam) mosque was erected near Qutub minar during sultanate era, destroying 27 Jain temples ...

Ofcourse, the first part is an inaccuracy (and I do not know where he got the numbers, either). Sunil Kumar writes,

Khan, Cunningham and Page's analysis suggested that in the usage of plundered temple material, which was defaced, inverted, or plastered over, the military commander, Qutb al-Din Ai-Beg, made a statement of conquest and hegemony over an infidel population in north India, and conducted a ritual cleansing of profane territory. The authors also recognised the presence of temple material in the mosque as an evidence of a swift transposition of "Muslim rule" in "India" ... Meanwhile the symbolic redeployment of plundered temple rubble in the masjid-i-jami, did not merely proclaim Qutb al-Din's conquest of Delhi (588/1192), it also served as a statement of Islam's victory over idolators.

This point was driven home when Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Horowitz and Page recorded in their respective scholarly publications that the name by which the congregational mosque was known in the past was Quwwat al-Islam or the "Might of Islam". Their self confident assertion was surprising for the masjid-i-jami was not identified as Quwwat al-Islam by any extant inscription in the mosque or referred by this name in any Sultanate chronicle. As we will see later it was a corruption of a name sometimes used for Delhi in the thirteenth century. Suffice it to note for now, that for these scholars, it was almost logical that the congregational mosque which celebrated the conquest of Delhi should be called the "might of Islam" ...
— The Present in Delhi's Pasts, Three Essays Collective (2008), p. 8-9

TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Persecution is the precursor to the above chain of events. The very ideology of forcing Islam over others was the reason of the siege of Palitana temples. What other reason would there be to raze them? Even if we consider it was a conciliatory measure by Alauddin Khilji, what kind of conciliatory measure did Mahmud Begada take? And then what did Qutubuddin Aibak take to make up for the razing of temples and the forced conversion of Hindus and Jains to Islam? It's not only about razing of temples, it's also about those forced conversions and other related acts that constitute to persecution. Several scholars have highlighted it. You cannot possibly believe that Islamic kings, who wanted to rule the masses were entirely only kind to Indians. ParvatPrakash (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is original research and disallowed in Wikipedia. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are sources to cite this. And they were already present in the part you deleted. You viewed it subjectively that Nathuram Premi and Padmanabh Jaini aren't fit to be cited here cause they are 'older' scholars and deleted the part altogether. So, no it's not original research. There plenty material to show why Palitana temples and several other Jain temples in western India were razed. It is YOUR subjective opinion that these scholars aren't relevant here. However, a huge chunk of Jain philosophy and history comes from their works which cannot be rendered 'old' and unworthy of being cited. ParvatPrakash (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Huh, deleted what — misrepresentation of Dundas (2002), as I pointed out above? WP:HISTRW might be of aid to you. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Common views of Dundas and Premi were presented there. There was no synthesis or misinterpretation, so there was no original research. Moreover, Dundas was also cited for the line about Akbar's religious tolerance you deleted without discussing. ParvatPrakash (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

With an edit-count of ~50 times your's, I feel that I have a more accurate understanding of our content policies. But, more to the point, have you read WP:NPOV? Multiple scholars, in the last few decades, object to such a broad-brush characterization and a single line by Dundas is not enough to toss them out. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

what kind of conciliatory measure did Mahmud Begada take?

I do not know where you got Begada demolishing/seizing/converting/... Jain temples at Palitana but if you know Sanskrit, you ought to read Rājavinoda — a text without parallels — or read one of his late inscriptions where the curse of Kali—if I recall correctly—was said to befall anyone who violates the conditions of a grant governing the construction of a mosque. Alternatively, you can read Kapadia (2018).TrangaBellam (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply