#jainism

A Jain bowing at the feet of a statue of the saint Gommatesvara

@this-is-ableism @this-is-saneism

This is kinmisia and ableism, specifically saneism. And perhaps speciesism too?

Your argument mentions past lives so I'm assuming this argument is mostly directed towards spiritualkin and will answer with that in mind.

Now let's get into it

(PT: Now let's get into it)

Thinking you’re an object is really weird…I can understand therians and thinking you have a past life as an animal, but an object??

Bro has never heard of animism and it shows. Animism is the belief that everything has a soul - even plants and inanimate objects. At the very least, animists believe that everything has the POTENTIAL to have a soul.

Here are some resources:

Animism by Wikipedia

Animism by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Animism: The First Religion? by ReligionForBreakfast

ANIMISM: The Oldest Spiritual Belief in Human History by History Store

Approaching Spirit Work - An Animist's Perspective by Chaotic Witch Aunt

Objects aren’t living, how could you be an object?? Even if it’s a plant, that’s weird.

And here is a reminder to everyone that "it's weird" has never and will never be a good or valid argument on any level whatsoever. Either bring SOURCES or kindly keep quiet about subjects you have no knowledge on.

Even if it’s a plant, that’s weird. Plants don’t have a brain and can’t think like an animal or human does???

Okay... and? Are you saying that it's weird/not valid to identify as a plant because they're somehow "lesser" than fauna? Because that's what it's sounding like you're saying and that's a bit fucked up, to be honest.

Also you mentioned past lives. I don't know why you're trying to get scientific now. Yes spirituality and science overlap in many ways but you brought up reincarnation and I'd like to take this chance to remind you that we have absolutely no scientific evidence for a soul, so I don't know why you brought up past lives and then tried to get scientific with it.

Would also like to say that scientists are pretty up in the air about plant intelligence and sentience. While spiritually speaking, many religions and paths believe in plant sentience. From the dryads of Hellenism to the Fae and nature spirits of Druidry. From Jains respecting plants as sensing creatures to even Native American spiritualists that work with the spirits and wisdom that plants and even object can give us.

You aren’t an object or a plant, that’s just being delusional?? I genuinely don’t understand how that’s possible.

Hi, first of all, I'm glad that you asked. Asking is highly encouraged always. This makes you a jigyasu - seeker of knowledge. Now to answer your question, there are quite a few definitions of Hinduism: one is that it's a geographical identity, and the other is the philosophical definition of Hinduism. Let me elaborate. The first definition of Hindus, the geographical one, meant all the people living on and beyond the Sindhu river. King Dariush I called a satrapy in his Achaemenid empire as Hindush, which corresponds to modern day Sindh and Punjab. The Greeks called people of India and Indoi. Sakas and Hunas called Indians as the people of Jambudvipa or used the names of the ruling dynasties at the time. Mind you, during the time of Achaemenid empire, the Indo-Greek kingdom and the Saka and Huna wars and assimilation, "Buddhists" and "Jains" already existed in India. I will come back to this later on. When European travellers, traders and ethnographers came to India, they labelled all the Indians that were not Muslim, Christian or Jew as Gentile / Gentio /Gentoo. The British East India Company had separate laws for the Moors (Muslims) and the Gentoos in the 1700s, ordered by Warren Hastings. Here's light reading (it's nearly 500 pages, if you're curious I recommend you to skim through it) on those laws.

On a side note, you'll understand how the Mughals and the British really rigidified the stratification of Hindu society with these laws, even if the Gupta era in India is credited to have begun the "caste" rigidity.

Anyway, this meant that "Jains", "Buddhists", "Sikhs", "Tribal Animists", and even Parsis were lumped together under the "Hindoo" label. In the early 19th century, a change came to this as the leaders of these different groups started pushing back against the British law that generalised the whole non-Muslim/Christian/Jew traditions. Now, coming to the second definition of Hindu, that is the philosophical definition. Religious life in India was organised around Sampradayas, and Kulas in the pre-medieval and medieval times. What people largely consider as fundamentally Hindu are the Vedas. All shad darshanas, or the six "viewpoints" are the six orthodox traditions of Hindu philosophy that got formulated and solidified in the Iron and Classical Ages. These six traditions are Samkhya (सांख्य), Yoga (योग), Nyaya (न्याय), Vaisheshika (वैषेशिक), (Purva)Mimamsa (मीमांसा) and Uttara Mimamsa a.k.a Vedanta (वेदान्त). The common thing about them is that they are āstika (आस्तिक), they hold Vedas as an authoritative source of knowledge and origin.

The Indian philosophical landscape during the Classical period also produced philosophical systems that share many concepts with the āstika traditions, yet at the same time fundamentally reject or oppose the Vedas. These philosophies are called nāstika , and they include "Buddhism", "Jainism", Charvaka and Ajivika. They differ from āstikas when it comes to metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, even if, on surface level, "Buddhists" and "Jains" seem to have similar concepts like dharma, karma, moksha, and even same deities like Lakshmi and Ganesha. Now, before the British came, "Buddhists" didn't call themselves that. They too had several, differing schools of thought that were united in the common belief in anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering) and anatma (dependent existence). But because their Supreme Guide is Buddha, they collectively got called Bauddha by Classical Indian writers. Similarly, the followers of the 24 Tirthankaras got, over the time , called Jaina, as the title Jina got solidified for the Tirthankaras. So, Jains and Buddhists were named after their Supreme teachers. What about Hindus? In Hinduism, the revealer of our sacred mantras are called Rishis. Ancient, classical and medieval Indian texts identified us with various terms: Arya, āstika, Arsheya (of Rishi, kind of like how Bauddhas are followers of Buddha and Jains are followers of Jina), and Vaidika. Then there were philosophical and devotional affiliations: practitioners of Yoga were Yogis, Nyaya were Nyayaikas, Nath sampradaya followers were Nathas, Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, Ganapatyas, Kaumaras, and Kaulas followed the Kula traditions. They all held Vedas as their episteme, even the heterodox practices among them. But did ancient Indian texts call the astikas or Vaidikas Hindu? Well, the ancient Indian texts did not call the believers of the Vedas or Vedic gods as "Hindu". It was only during the late medieval period (roughly durin the 14th century CE), that Indian writers writing in Sanskrit, and regional languages, began adopting the word "Hindu" to mean a vaidika or an āstika person in order to differentiate themselves from the Turakas (Muslims). The reason for that is that in the classical era, our ancestors didn't have to differentiate themselves because their default world was dominated by their own Vedic religion (the religion of the victorious Bharata tribe). They identified other people by their Tribe name (there were several separate Vedic tribes) and even the people who were not Vedic, they interacted with them by using their Tribe names. During the classical era when philosophical development really started to bloom, there were astikas and nastikas. It's only when foreign tribes with a foreign religious affiliation, that had no respect for the Indian religious traditions, started invading that a geographical unifier term started to be used for the Indian people. For example, the Śārṅgadhara Paddhati (a 14th-century anthology), Brihaspati Agama and Kalika Purana began using the term Hindavah (Hindu) specifically to describe people who follow the Vedic path. That is not to say that the word Hindu, Hindavah or Haindavah did not exist prior to the Islamic invaders or even Persians like king Dariush I. In this post below I explain the origin of the word "Hindu" ⬇️

Now, about tribals, this is a very broad category. There are several different tribes in various parts of the Indian subcontinent, who are not Muslim of Christian. Many of these tribals worship their local deities, some may even worship Margiya devatas of the Hindu pantheon. In fact, an ethnography and "caste" taxonomy written by the British eugenicist Herbert Hope Risley states how a "non-Aryan" (bullshit made up term btw) "indigenous tribe" Barui tribe worshipped Rigvedic goddess Ushas. Today these Barui people are categorised as " Schedule caste / Dalit".

This paper by S.C Mitra mentions Rigvedic gods Mitra-Varuna, Rudra & Kalarudra in rural Bengali village. Notice the bhogas were offered by both Brahmins and Rajbongshis?

Today Rajbongshis are counted as OBC, SC or ST depending on the state. Makes you think how fake the "Hinduism isn't a religion, tribals and "low caste" were oppressed for 5000 years, "vedic and non-vedic are totally different" -discourse is, doesn't it?

Here is Rakkayi amman who is none other than the Vedic goddess Raka, one of the lunar tetrad goddesses along with Anumati, Shinibali, Kuhu. She is worshipped by Tamils in this video ⬇️

But you will hear the phrase "Tamils are not Hindus saar, Tamils are Dravidians not Aryan bastards saar" by the Periyarists, DMK, Christian fanatics, Islamists or other anti-Hindu elements.

This is a phenomenon called de-Sanskritization. Forcibly erasing and eradicating millennia of cultural and religious development and amalgamation. Its purpose is purely political, electoral, and it was first pushed in the English and Christian universities, and it was designed to destroy Indian or Hindu unity when the British started noticing that the Indians were rising up against the colonial tyrants.

#जैन_धर्म_की_सच्चाई

जैनी मूर्ति पूजा में विश्वास रखते हैं। ये अपने तीर्थकंर को ही प्रभु मानते हैं,उन्हीं की मूर्ति मंदिरों में रखते हैं। जबकि मूर्ति पूजा का विधान किसी भी सद्ग्रंथ में नहीं है। शास्त्र अनुकूल साधना को जानने के लिए देखिए

#जैन_धर्म_की_सच्चाई

yet the words of Kabir Sahib Ji remind us:

'WITHOUT A GURU, THE ROSARY AND THE GIFT ARE BUT EMPTY GESTURES; THIS TRUTH IS ECHOED THROUGHOUT THE VEDAS AND PURANAS.'