r/Jainism

I've seen different opinions on this and I'm a bit confused.

Are Jains generally considered part of the Baniya community, or are they separate? Also, are Jains considered Hindus, or is Jainism a completely separate religion?

So now it would be kind of awkward to go to pathshala , so please suggest me some of important sutra or where can I learn it online .

I am a jain I have a few questions(shanka)

1.is this the only way? if yes then why?(for moksha)

2. can people from other sect or religions can go to moksha(or it is bounded by Jainism)

3. Why the path to moksha involves abandonment and forsaking everything

4. is there somehow jain cosmology connects to our morden science

im open for discussion/any answers

Jai jinendra

Jai Jinendra! 🙏

Maybe it's nostalgia, but every now and then I randomly miss Palitana sangh trips.

The 3–4 AM wake-ups, everyone climbing at their own pace, waiting for family and friends, chanting on the way, the first glimpse of Dada's derasar at sunrise... somehow those memories stick with you.

What's the one memory from a Palitana sangh trip that you'll never forget?

why are there so many branches of Jainism itself even we have so small community

as far as I know

there are digambar, svetambar and sthanakvasi(taran-taarn)

I am digambar jain so I know

there are so many branches in digambar itself 13 panthi/20 panthi etc

it almost feels that we all are scattered among ourselves

like there's a huge problem in marriage bw diff branches

My friend Clayton (u/Impressive_Claim8294) wrote this poem :

It is foolish before You to imagine that this boundless universe was created by You, for neither the sum of all atoms can contain Your bliss, nor can all atoms together bind You to heaven or to hell.

The mere thought of Your breath compels me towards that Light of all life - burning brighter than ten thousand suns - yet even such radiance cannot contain a Nirgrantha such as You.

By Truth, You cannot be imprisoned within a jacket of stars, nor would such confinement ever be desirable to You.

Thus I bow to the Lord of the Uncreated, seeking to cleanse this earthen pot that I carry within my heart.

For You are the creator only of this Pot of Bliss, within which Your Sangha swims. The LokAloka is Yours in Knowledge, and the LokAloka is Yours to reject.

By Your Essence I bow to You in this world full of echoes shaped like You, myself, the birds, and the trees.

O Teacher, the life of this dream is not a dream, nor can the dream of perishing expel me from Your Glory.

O Grader of Virtues, Destroyer of None, beneath the canopy of SiddhaSila. I have mocked this death sentence called birth, for its grammar is broken and its prosody flawed.

By You I have been given the persistence to endure it.

What more needed to be spoken beyond those immortal words: Jai Jinendra.

If I am alien to monks, then I surrender myself to Your Darshan.

Many men have approached gods seeking mercy and glory, yet seldom have they expressed Your teachings with the clarity of water and the sweetness of a celestial harp.

And yet, nothing remains desirable before the antipode of You.

For water may be purified, and the wood of a bow may yet become a harp.

But I bow before You, O Teacher.

This classroom has grown empty; the students have departed, save for me and a few others.

If Your bald head sweats beneath the sun, I cannot help but imagine You as a temple of living goldfish through which even bacteria swim.

Your eyes have closed to this world, as has Your desire for rebirth.

Like the stone of Your idols, we remain firm in faith.

Grant that the garlands of Shraddha may rest firmly upon my shoulders.

For an ant such as myself, I cannot comprehend the Absoluteness of Your Knowledge, nor drink more than a few drops of that Infinite Essence.

Indeed, O Lords abiding in SiddhaSila. Your service has ever been for us, and Your blessings are spoken within our hearts.

My soul has become like paper, and just as a lovely song cannot endure without paper upon which to be written, so too can no being persist in liberation without a soul to know its beauty.

Indeed, O Perfect Teacher.

Tonight I depart from Your sight, that one day You may behold me again - adorned not in words, but in glory.

No speech of mine is sufficient to express Your greatness.

Nor is it fitting to remain forever at Your feet.

Someday I too shall leave this classroom for the final time, so that You may behold me in glory, O Lords.

For this alone is the beauty of an eternal soul.

Jai Jinendra.

I am looking for a strictly logical and rational discussion.

I used to be very aligned with traditional belief systems, but my interest has completely faded. My decision to avoid meat is driven purely by my love for animals and animal welfare, ​not by cultural or traditional dogmas.

Because of this, I see a massive logical contradiction in what we are taught to consume. We are told milk is perfectly fine, and it is even used widely in sacred rituals. But I have visited many dairy farms, and the reality is deeply cruel: artificial insemination, male calves being killed because they aren't useful, cows given daily injections, and cows being slaughtered right after they hit "menopause" even though more than half of their natural lifespan is left. Poultry farms have the exact same level of cruelty. So why is milk labeled "vegetarian" while eggs are labeled "non-vegetarian"? Nutritionally, this makes zero sense. You can drink a whole liter of milk and still miss out on essential nutrients, whereas just two eggs give you the best quality protein and a superior nutrient profile. To make things weirder, some people in these traditional circles even restrict essential vegetables, or claim that soya chunks shouldn't be eaten just because they "look like meat." Maybe I need to eat eggs to get essential nutrients.

A Rational Perspective on the Matter: The distinction between milk and eggs in traditional belief systems is based on outdated definitions of what constitutes life, entirely ignoring the modern supply chain. Historically, milk was seen as a byproduct that didn't require killing the animal, while eggs were grouped with poultry. However, modern factory farming has equalized the cruelty. Today, commercial dairy is just as exploitative and lethal as the meat and egg industries. Treating milk as a cruelty-free food while demonizing unfertilized eggs or plant-based proteins like soya is a massive logical fallacy.

Are there any interesting whatsapp channel which can be referred by all sects like Digambar, Sthanakwasi, Mandir and Terepanths.

Or any common website or information center which can be visited?

As we tend to believe, the terms "Alakā" or "Alakāpurī" remind us of the famous city of Kubera and are associated with jewelry and richness of that city. I was one of those people at the beginning.

But while working with the Jain literature, I noticed how this city received another interpretation. According to Hemacandra's Triṣaṣṭiśalākāpuruṣacaritra, Alakā is not considered a good city because of its richness. On the contrary, it is believed that its prosperity is the result of virtue. The king leads according to the law of dharma, takes care of his citizens, and its richness is called the reward for virtue and not the outcome of greed.

It reminds us of one of the fundamental principles of Jainism: the wealth itself is not criticized, but desire for it is.

Therefore, it can be said that the Jain interpretation of the story is focused on not on possessing but earning prosperity through virtue.

The following questions arise:

- Is there any other Jain text which discusses about Alakā or Kubera from such an ethical perspective?

- What do Jain scholars think about Kubera's role in Hindu tradition?

- Does it mean that this view belongs to Jain political philosophy and not cosmology?

I would be very grateful for your thoughts about the issue.

Do Jainism too believe in Kaliyuga and if yes then it would be ended by Kalki Avatara itself or ended by next upcoming Tirthankaras?

If it would be ended by Kalki Avatara then how it be ended by him?

What's role and how he would be according to Jainism?

What does our Sashtras / Revered Sahebji's says about this?

I kept freezing on decisions at work. Scared of criticism. Scared of being wrong.`

A friend sent me 'Clarity Book' by a Jain monk, Pujya Shri Bhavvirah Vijayji M.S. One page changed how I decide:`

The 3-question filter before you act:

1. Is it true? Not just factually, but true to my values?
2. Is it necessary? Or am I reacting from ego?`
3. Is it kind? To me and to the person receiving it?

I run every email, every Slack reply, every ‘no’ through this now. Saved me 3 dumb fights last week alone.

The book applies ancient Jain ideas like aparigraha and anekantavada to modern stuff: office politics, social media, family drama. No Sanskrit needed.

PDF is free here Comment ‘filter’ if you want the full chapter on handling criticism. I’ll DM it.

Not selling anything. Just found it useful and think a few of you might too.

Always in Jainism, some monks went astray, whether in the 4th or 5th era. When Bhagwan isn't here some Maharaj Sahebs go astray. How should Shravak and Shravika look out for our own well being along with that of Jainism?

Some Digambar and Shwetambar monks have gone astray; I think we can all agree to that.

I know these two girl who want to take Diksha and the Sadhvis are not leaving them alone. The conventional thought is that if you are sincere then you can for a time live without me and then see if you are truly ready or even go talk to other Maharaj Sahebs if you would rather join that Gaccha or Guru. So some are trying to grow their lineages very fast, when in reality you should make sure. The trend of taking Diksha really fast is bad.

Along with that how can Jains pick their Gurus wisely? Some Gurus are very pushy or seperated from Jain Dharma. Saw this video of these Murtipujak Mahra Sahebs playing along with a Shiv Bhakti, which was strange. Some Gurus get into fights, both Sadhus and Sadhvis.

Most Maharaj Sahebs are true Jains, but some are blatantly going against Jain Dharma. Some give their followers short cuts, other do mithyatva, some are to pushy.

I think a big problem also is that Gacchapadis should think abt combing a lot of these Gacchas, because there are far to many compared to the amount of Jains. Along with the nonsense of 2-Titthis, doing Yatra during monsoon or not, etc.

If I have hurt anybody, Michhami Dukkadam and Jai Jinendra. May Jain Dharma and the Chaturvedhi Sangh forever live on!

I know this is going to be controversial, especially on this sub, but after reading about the historical relationship between Mahavira and Buddha and reading both Tripitaka & Agams (jain scriptures) for years, I'm starting to think that Siddharth Gautam may actually have spent a few years as a disciple of Mahavira before eventually going his own way and later becoming the historical 'ShakhyaMuni' Buddha himself.

Listen.

We know for a fact that Mahavira and Buddha were living contemporaries. We also know from the Buddhist texts themselves that Buddha spent around 6 years practicing very extreme asceticism (jain practices) before attaining full enlightenment.

But where did he learn all these practices?

Mahavira was already leading a large and well-established ascetic movement at that time. The Buddha was clearly familiar with the Jain community (the Nigaṇṭhas), and the early Buddhist texts mention Mahavira multiple times as Nirgrantha Nathputta.

When you start comparing Jainism and Buddhism, the similarities are honestly mind-blowing:

• Almost same word for their highest level of spiritual attainment : 'Arahant' in Buddhism, 'Arihant' in Jainism
• Similar Monastic Sanghas.
• Karma and Rebirth.
• Strict Celibacy.
• Meditation as the path to liberation. (Shukla Dhyan in Jainism & Samatha-Vipassana in Buddhism)
• Both rejects the authority of the Vedas
• Both Religions reject the caste system
• Both Religions do not believe in the existence of a creator God.
• Both Religions have similar ethical discipline & monastic conduct for monks

Even the Buddha's Five Precepts (Pañca Sīla) look stolen from Mahavira's Five Great Vows (Pañca Mahāvratas) because they are literally the same! Except in Jainism there is a much greater emphasis on the first precept of not killing any beings no matter how small.

This made me wonder:

Did Buddha first train under Mahavira or within the Jain ascetic tradition and made huge spiritual progress there, and then later leave to develop his own sect which much later became an organised religion called buddhism?

From this perspective, the biggest philosophical differences introduced by the Buddha seem to be only two :

1. Anatta (No-Self) instead of the Jain doctrine of eternal Jīva.
2. Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) as the explanation for suffering and rebirth.

Apart from these two major differences, there is a lot of overlap between the two traditions.

Here's another thing that I find really really fascinating & interesting :

Mahavira was traditionally said to be about 8 years older than Siddharth Gautam.

According to the traditions:

• Mahavira renounced the world at age 30 and attained Kevala Jnana after about 12.5 years of ascetic practice, at around age 42.
• Siddhartha left home at age 29 and attained Nirvāna after about 6 years, at around age 35.

Now, if the theory of Prince Siddharth spending roughly 3 years with Mahavira is true, this would place Siddhartha in his early thirties, while Mahavira himself may still have been an unenlightened but highly advanced ascetic at the time.

In other words, Siddharth may have initially accepted Mahavira as his guru/teacher before either of them had attained final enlightenment.

Another question I've always wondered about:

Prince Siddhartha's kingdom was located in Kapilvastu - what is now modern Nepal. If he simply wanted solitude and meditation, why travel all the way to Magadha (modern Bihar) instead of practicing in the forests closer to Kapilvastu?

One possible explanation is that Magadh had become the spiritual center of the Śramaṇa movement. Many famous ascetics and teachers were active there, including Mahavira. It makes sense that a sincere seeker like Siddharth searching for the highest truth would travel to the region where the greatest spiritual teachers of the age were gathering.

There is also an even more interesting possibility.

Mahavira's renunciation was extraordinary for its time and happened 8 years prior to Siddharth's Renunciation : a prince abandoning wealth, power, family, and royal comforts in pursuit of liberation from birth and death cycle.

Such a first of it's kind event would almost certainly have become widely known throughout the kingdoms of northern India.

Could news of Prince Vardhaman's renunciation have reached the ears of young Siddhartha?

Could hearing about another prince giving up everything in search of ultimate truth have planted or strengthened the seed of renunciation in Siddhartha's own mind?

We can only speculate...

It has been quite a Rabbit hole for me I could read about both men all day endlessly without getting tired, it's that much interesting to me.

But of course, we have no direct historical evidence for this, But considering that both men were contemporaries, born into Kshatriya families, renounced royal life, pursued liberation, literally meditated in the same damn forest of Magadh both being unenlightened at the time, taught in the same towns/ geographical region after their enlightenment and 'officially' apparently never met face to face, hmm... I suspect alteration of the texts by later disciples of both traditions, the possibility of it is certainly intriguing to think about.

At the very least, it seems likely that Mahavira and the wider Jain ascetic tradition had a much greater influence on the development of early Buddhism than is commonly acknowledged today.

What do you all think?

​Hello everyone,

​Non-Jain here I have a sincere question, and I want to start by saying that I have immense respect for your faith, especially the principles of peace and Ahimsa.

​However, I’ve been reflecting on the Jain concept of liberation (Moksha), and I can't help but wonder: doesn't it lean a bit too much into legalism?

​For instance, if a person strictly avoids meat but their mind is constantly filled with malice, trickery and deceit can that person really be considered "good"? In Christianity, there is a saying: "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth."

​Of course, it is completely natural for a religion to have a list of rituals and prohibitions, and I deeply respect plant-based diets (personally, I don't see an issue with eating meat as long as I didn't kill the animal or it wasn't killed specifically for me). How ever what I struggle to understand is defining liberation almost like a law of physics.

​To me, the idea of achieving a better life or better karma simply by adhering to a specific diet or following ethnic cultural customs feels somewhat legalistic. True purity, in my view, should come from the heart and intentions rather than just outward actions.

​What are your thoughts?

​Best regards 🙏