Jaina Law Bhadrabahu Samhita

Author(s): J L Jaini
Publisher: ZZZ Unknown

Page 91

APPENDIX B.
But all these statements are entirely wrong. Jainism is not a compromise between Hinduism and Buddhism. It is far otherwise. Dr. Thomas (quoted in J. H. Nelson's ScientificStudy of Hindu Law, 1881, at pages 91-2) is making & statement along the lines of History and Jaina tradition. The learned Doctor holds Buddhism to be an off-shoot of Jainism, and proceeds : " It is sufficient to observe that the history of the Jaina religion, when constructed must be of prime importance to the student of Hindu Law, because it will show beyond all possibility of doubt that Jainists are not Hindus and cannot legally be subjected to the Hindu (i. e., Sanskirt) Laro." (The italics are mine). Thanks to the labour of Orientalists, Dr. H. Jacobi, Dr. Hoernle, Prof. Guerinot, Dr. Burnett, Dr. L. Suali, Drs Burgess and Buhler, Dr. Johannes Hoertel and others, the historicity of Lord Mahavira and Parsvanath and the independent and ancient origin and growth of Jainism are thoroughly established, and it is not necessary to attack the dead theory of the "compromise" now.
As to Jainas being Hindu dissenters, and therefore governable by Hindu Lat, re are not told the date of this secession But History recognises that Lord Mabavira was till 527 B. C., that Parasvanath yas till 776 B. C., on the earth. This is Jaina tradition too. Jainism then claims that there rere 22 more Tirthankaras before Parasyanath, tho one immediately preceding him being Neminath in Gujrat, near Mount. Gimnar, in Junagadh. Lord Neminath as a contemporary of Krishna and Arjuno the heroes of Mababharata. The date of Mahabharata is given, at the lowest count, at about 1200 B.O. Therefore, Lord Neminath must be about that time at the latest. Not insisting upon the Jaina tradition in its entirety at present (and it must be said in passing that there is nothing to discredit it as a matter of necessity), the 21 Tirthankaras before Lord Neminath must have covered at least a