hinduism, jainism

[Guest guest]

I am curious - what is difference btwn hinduism and jainism? I know that jainism is an off-shoot of hinduism, but in terms of the moral teachings and all, how different are these two religions?

[maadhav 0]

are you a hindu or jain?

 

what will you do whenyou know the difference?

 

 

[Guest guest]

"are you a hindu or jain?"

 

i'm hindu

 

"what will you do whenyou know the difference?"

 

i will have grown intellectually..and known the difference btwn the two /images/graemlins/smile.gif I was simply asking because i have recently made friends with some jains and their religious beliefs seemed so close to hinduism that i was curious.

 

[Guest guest]

the jains meditate on Om without any Gods,and The hindus are using Gods for meditation.

 

Isn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tirisilex 0]

I just recently started looking into Jainism.

 

Here is a good site to look at:

 

http://www.jainworld.com>www.jainworld.com

 

They have many Jain texts for download and some easy to understand commentaries.

 

As for the differences between Jainism and Hinduism.

I do not believe the Jains accept the Vedas.

Thats all I know.

[maadhav 0]

okay.

 

jainism says there is no god,

but they follow arihantas (great souls).

mahavir swami started jainism, following incorrectly rishabhdev, an incarnation mentioned in bhagavatam.

 

they do believe in soul and re-incarnation, but they believe one has to suffer one's sin and there is no othre way .there is no god or saint that can wash your sins.

 

becaue killing of any life is sin, they even worry about killing bacteria or pests. non violence is an absolute principle for them but it is not for the hindus.

 

krishna in gata clearly says when violence in necessary and dhrma. unfortunately, gandhi was a jain at heart. consequently bharat is still suffering even after independence since 1947.

 

jainism is an offshoot of hinduism.

sri ramanujacharya defeated jainism in a public debate.

instead of surendering to ramanuj and giving up jainism, the jain debators simply walked out of the debate without answering ramanuja's argument and kept practicing and propagating jainism.

 

most jains comfortably live with the hindus.

hardly any jain would choose to live in a muslim country

or any country where ther is violent culture and no law and order. most jains are vaishnas (merchants or professionals) and hardly join military. so, they want law and order where they live, but do not want to take the responsibility of doing violence as police or soldier.

they do pay taxes though and do donate large sums if so necessary for defense or police work.

 

hope it helps.

 

please do not enter in hindu-jain debate

becaue that is not proper at this time.

hindus think sikhs and jains are hindus also,

but jains and sikhs say they are not.

 

sikhism in my view is just kshatriya dharma of hinduism with advaita principle.

 

thus both these offshoots are opposite about ahimsa.

 

[Tirisilex 0]

**they want law and order where they live, but do not **want to take the responsibility of doing violence.

 

 

I do not know why you would look down on such idea's..

One can enforce law without violence.. Drugged dart guns and Gas grenades designed to render a violent criminal unconscious is a very simple task. One does not need to stoop to be violent to take care of violence.

 

There are many martial art forms one can use to incompacitate a violent person without killing them.

 

I find Jainist Ahimsa a beautiful practice and it is a shame that you find that Gandhi is a lesser man for believeing in Ahimsa.

[maadhav 0]

<< One can enforce law without violence.. Drugged dart guns and Gas grenades designed to render a violent criminal unconscious is a very simple task. >>

 

yes, and teh muslims woudl come after you with ak-4y instead.

 

<< One does not need to stoop to be violent to take care of violence. >>

 

to this no muslim agrees. that is why islam is a dealdy threat when it is around. and tht is why hinduism does allow violence as the last resort.

 

<< There are many martial art forms one can use to incompacitate a violent person without killing them. >>

 

 

sure. hindus should learn and practice it.

but deadly weapons ar needed as the last resort against asuras.

 

<< I find Jainist Ahimsa a beautiful practice >>

 

my point is that jainism does not provide answer to all real probles of life/society, hindism does.

 

<< and it is a shame that you find that Gandhi is a lesser man for believeing in Ahimsa. >>

 

what he did did not help hindus and bharat.

it helped muslims only, the invaded ideology.

is it no shame that many fail to understand it?

 

 

[Tirisilex 0]

**yes, and the muslims would come after you with

**ak-47 instead.

 

The Ak-47 would be useless in the hands of an unconscious weilder now wouldn't it?

 

If it works on a Tiger why not a human??

[maadhav 0]

you did not get it. i did not tell the whole thing.

 

you can put down one by a dart.

next day the one or his cousin would come to you

with ak-47 (even a knife is enough) when you least expect him, and when you are not prepared to pick up your dart, or have no time to pick it up.

you are done.

 

try to sleep with a cobra some where in your room,

and see if you get sleep.

now figure how you could sleep well.

 

[Tirisilex 0]

It would be no different if you had a gun..

If you had a Dart gun sitting in your drawer is no different than having a real gun..

 

Your arguement is so weak..

 

the only diff is one kills the other does not..

[maadhav 0]

<< the only diff is one kills the other does not.. >>

 

yes, and to keep a cobra alive is suicidal.

it will rob you chance to practiced dharma and get moksha.

 

so far, no army has used dart guns.

the barbaric terrorists' first choice will not be dart guns, but real ones which are more lethal than dart guns.

 

one who how has superior weapon wins. see history for proof.

 

superior weapons and superior tactics and strategy are needed to secure vijay.

 

prithviraj kept alive the invader enemy - ghauri- 17 times, and 18th time he (prithviraj) lost the war with ghauri. ghauri thrust hot rods in his eyes.

 

so, do you want to repeate prithviraj's mistake?

why keep an enemy alive and risk your own life?

 

besides, krishna did not tell arjun to use dart guns.

still, i agree, we practice violence as the last resort, and as less as just needed.

 

[Tirisilex 0]

Jesus said it best.. It's too bad your so blind..and you seem so full of hate.

Love your enemy...

 

In the name of war you throw out all compassion as it seems.. I agree totaly with Gandhi..

It's too bad you don't

[maadhav 0]

so you are a xian.

 

to want extent the xians have practiced loving their enemies? give some historical examples.

i find none.

 

please tell your xian missionaries to get out of bharat.

and tell them to love hindus and hinduism.

then we are friends.

also, jesus said, "thou shall not kill."

so stop xians from eating cows.

 

[Tirisilex 0]

I'm a Buddhist who studies all religions.. And I accept wisdom from them all.

 

I happen to agree with Jain Dietary beliefs.. I wish not to even kill plants.. I dont even kill mosquitoes..

[Guest guest]

"please do not enter in hindu-jain debate

becaue that is not proper at this time."

 

wow! when i asked about the difference btwn hinduism and jainism i had no idea it would spark up so much bad blood! i did not ask that question to humiliate any religion..i believe all paths lead to the same God...and i just like to learn about other religions and their beliefs.

 

Incidentally, just what did you mean by the below:

"gandhi was a jain at heart. consequently bharat is still suffering even after independence since 1947."

I am a NRI brought up abroad..and so forgive my poor knowledge of indian history or politics..but am so curious coz i've never heard this before...what does gandhi's status on ahimsa have to do with bharat's suffering..and what did you mean when you said it benefited muslims and not hindus?

 

 

[maadhav 0]

<< "please do not enter in hindu-jain debate

becaue that is not proper at this time."

 

..i believe all paths lead to the same God...>>

 

not true. paths are different.

a theist and and atheist cannot reach teh same destination.

 

<< and i just like to learn about other religions and their beliefs. >>

 

that is good. but chosee one to live by.

else just knowing will not benefit ineality.

 

<< Incidentally, just what did you mean by the below:

 

"gandhi was a jain at heart. consequently bharat is still suffering even after independence since 1947."

 

I am a NRI brought up abroad..and so forgive my poor knowledge of indian history or politics..but am so curious coz i've never heard this before...what does gandhi's status on ahimsa have to do with bharat's suffering..and what did you mean when you said it benefited muslims and not hindus? >>

 

gandhi, eing a jain at heart, believed that ahimsa is an absolute principle. it is not absoltute in hinduism.

when the minority anto-hindu muslims in 1947 threatened for a civil war to partition india, gandhi chose to divide the nation and created pakistan, a permanent enemy at the border. not only that he allowed muslims to live inindia even when he divded the nation for them. also, the division did not solve hindu-muslim problem but caused gand killings of hindus in pakistan. in reation some muslims also were killed in india. gandhi posed as a hindu but he was not a hindu. krishna in gita, the book of hinduism, does not approve absolute non violence. islam has invaded in india since 1000 years and has caused hindu genocide many times.

gandhi favored muslims against the majority hindus.

 

sri ramanujacharya had defeated jainism principle/path in a public debate that lasted for a few days. instead of surrendering to ramanuj and accepting vaishnavism, the jain scholars who debated simply walked out of the debate.

 

per hinduism/gita/krishna, one could go to war as the last resort when all other means fail to bring justice, law and order to check adharma and adharmis. so, never allow jains to lead hindus when it is a matter of choosing between war and no war, or violence and no violence.

 

jains are very good businessmen. we respect them for that.

they are not kshatriyas. so, never give kshatriya authority/ power to them.