________________
SOME MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING JAINISM.
(To the Editor, Simla Times.)
SIR,
I have read in the columns of the Simla Times the concluding portion of an article entitled Jainism from the pen of a contributor who subscribes himself A. S. P.' I shall feel obliged if you will permit me to remove some of the misconceptions that abound in that composition?
99
It is a mistake to suppose that the Jainas are Hindu dissenters or that Jainism arose with Mahavira. Had that been so the Hindus would have never said about it that it was founded by Rishabha Deva, the son of Nabhiraja, who was the third Manu. The Hindu teaching about the Manus is that there are fourteen of them, and they appear at the commencement of creation. This is simply fatal to the notion that Jainism was founded by Mahavira, or by Parasvanath who preceded Mahavira by 250 years within the historical times. The Hindu conceptions of creation, Manus and the like may or may not be correct, scientific or adequate, but the fact remains and it is an important fact that the Hindus know of no other personage than Rishabha Devaji as the founder of Jainism. Had Jainism been established by Mahavira, they would be sure to know it, and, instead of confirming the Jaina tradition about the origin of their religion, would have flatly contradicted it as untrue. As Stevenson says in his "Kalpa Sutra and Nava Tattva," the Hindus and Jainas agree so rarely that we cannot afford to refuse credence to their agreement when one is actually reached on any point.
The next point is about the Jaina practice of non-injury. As to this A. S. P., could not restrain himself from having a fling at the whole of the Jaina community. He writes: "Devout Jainas have been known to have placed them (the vermin) on a separate bedstead and then to have paid some one to sleep on Shree Sudharmaswami Gyanbhandar-Umara, Surat
www.umaragyanbhandar.com
