The above conclusion
is amply supported by the testimony of the Jaina Books; but even Hinduism
acknowledges the great antiquity of Jainism, naming its Founder Rishabha
Deva,
who lived, according to the testimony of certain of the Hindu Puranas,
millions of years ago. That religion flourished so far back in the past
might be questioned by those who have not studied it as a science; but
there is nothing surprising in its antiquity if humanity itself was
present --and modern science tells up that man has peopled the Earth for
hundreds of millions of years -- then.
It should be stated
that the Jainas can not be Hindu dissenters by any possibility. Whenever
there is a division in a community the bulk of the creed remains the same
and common to the parts or branches thus formed. The differences arise in
respect of a few matters only. But if we regard Hinduism as
non-allegorical and then compare it with Jainism, the differences are very
great. Their agreement is in respect of a few particulars only, excepting
those matters, which concern the ordinary mode and living (civilization).
Even the ceremonies, which appear to be similar are, in reality different
in respect of their purport, if carefully studied. The Jainas regard the
world as eternal; the Hindus hold it to have been created by a creator.
Worship in Jainism is offered only to men who have attained the perfection
of
Godhood, but to no one else;
in Hinduism its object is supposed to be
a god who is the
creator and ruler of the world. Hinduism believes in a large number of
additional gods; in Jainism there is no room for any one in the class of
Gods except Perfect Men.
The significance of
worship itself is different in the two religions. In Jainism the idea is
only that of walking in the footsteps of a Model, to become like Him;
there is no prayer and no offering of food and unguents to please the
Deity. In Hinduism it is the propitiation of gods for which worship is
performed. In respect of their Scriptures also great differences prevail
between Jainism and Hinduism. Not one of the Books of the Hindus is
acceptable to the Jainas, nor do the Hindus acknowledge a single
composition of the latter. The contents of these scriptures also differ
very materially. Not one part of the four Vedas and the 18 Puranas of the
Hindus is included in the Jaina Scriptures, nor is any part of the Jaina
Sacred Literature included in the Hindu Books. The matters in respect of
which there seems to be an agreement between the two communities are
purely social; their significance wherever they have a religious bearings
is divergent. Ordinary agreement in respect of such matters is naturally
to be expected wherever two communities are found living together for
thousands of years, especially if intermarriages take place among them, as
between the Hindus and the Jainas. Thus, there is not an
iota
of evidence to support the notion that Jainas are Hindu dissenters.
To sum up: there are three
possible views of the relationship between Jainism and Hinduism namely,
1. That the former is the
child of the latter,
2. That the latter is the
child of the former; and
3. That the two are
parallel creeds, which have existed side by side without the one being an
off- shoot of the other.
Of these, the first is a
pure assumption, and not supported by any evidence extrinsic or intrinsic;
the second rests on the intrinsic evidence, and proceeds on the basis of
the Vedas having an esoteric, that is to say, an allegorical
interpretation; and the third is the only remaining alternative which will
hold good if the allegorical theory is to be rejected for any adequate
reason. When the scholars will approach the question from the standpoint
of the allegorical interpretation of the Vedas the true view will come to
prevail easily then.
I shall now conclude this
article by quoting the following weighty observations of Sir Kumaraswami
Sastri, the officiating Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and a
learned Hindu Scholar (see in re B. Gentappa v. B. Eramma, Indian Law
Reports, Madras series, Vol. 50, pp, 229-230):--
"Were the matter
res
integra
I would be inclined to hold that modern research has shown that Jains are
not Hindu dissenters but that Jainism has an origin and history long
anterior to the Smritis
and Commentaries which are recognized authorities on Hindu Law and usage.
In fact, Maha Veera, the last of the Jain Tirthankar, was a contemporary
of Buddha and died about 527 B.C. The Jain religion refers to a number of
previous Tirthankar and there can be little doubt that Jainism as a
distinct religion was flourishing several centuries before Christ. In fact
Jainism rejects the authority of the Vedas which form the bed-rock of
Hinduism and denies the efficacy of the various ceremonies which Hindus
consider essential."
"There is a great force in
the observations of Holloway, J. in Rithucurn Lalla v. Soojan Mull Lalla
(9 Madras Jurist 21) that Hindu Law cannot be applied to them. So far as
Jain Law is concerned it has its own law books of which Bhadrabahu Samhita
is an important one. Vardhamanaa Niti and Arhana Niti by the great Jain
teacher Hemachandra deal also with Jain Law. No doubt by long association
with Hindus who form the bulk of the population Jainism has assimilated
several of the customs and ceremonial practices of the Hindus, but this is
no ground for applying Hindu Law as developed by Vignaneswara and other
commentators, several centuries after Jainism was a distinct and separate
religion with its own religion ceremonial and legal systems,
en
bloc
to Jains and throwing on them the onus of showing that they are not bound
by the law as laid down by Jain Law-givers. It seems to me that in
considering questions of Jain Law relating to adoption, succession and
partition we have to see what the law as expounded by Jain Law-givers is
and to throw the onus on those who assert that in any particular matter
the Jains have adopted Hindu Law and custom and have not followed the law
as laid down by their own Law-givers."
Email this page 
Philosophy
