4 ms·

All I'm saying is that Hinduism, Buddhism & Jainism evolved from interactions with each other. This is a clique not a digraph.

by enupten 12y ago

shripadk 12y ago
Buddhism and Jainism are branches of Hinduism whether you like it or not. That has been documented in various scriptures, on stone carvings and even carvings within caves. I can't help you if you don't want to be helped. Buddha's birth itself was predicted in all Hindu scriptures (see the 18 puranas) written ages before Gautama Buddha took birth. Jainism is too new in comparison to even Buddhism. Please get your facts right.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism Also note that the religions we practice today are quite different from those we practiced 1000, 2000 years ago, even if we give them the same "names" (the practitioners of 2000 years ago would have very different ideas about identity, however). /r/askhistorians is a good source on how religions tend to continuously branch and merge over time. It is only in the modern age with global communication where fewer ideas of what a religion is have taken root (but there is still a lot of diversity). Of course, if you are an adherent believer, the fact that religions evolve over time in often very radical ways might sound a bit heretical.
  - shripadk 12y ago
    You haven't understood the crux of what I said. Buddhism and Jainism being branches of Sramana tradition is correct. The word Sramana itself originates from Taittiriya Aranyaka which is an annexure of the Vedas. Vedas are the basis for Hinduism. Buddhism and Jainism are branches of Hinduism. Period. They are part of a group called Nastikas who don't believe in the Vedic rituals.
  - shripadk 12y ago
    "Also note that the religions we practice today are quite different from those we practiced 1000, 2000 years ago, even if we give them the same "names" (the practitioners of 2000 years ago would have very different ideas about identity, however). /r/askhistorians is a good source on how religions tend to continuously branch and merge over time." This is not true. Especially in India. There are plenty of families that still practice and live according to scriptures that were in existence thousands of years ago, passed down through generations. Hinduism itself is not a religion. Hinduism is a collective of multiple religions within its fold that follow the Vedic philosophy. The core religion is Sanatana Dharma. The word Hindu itself is not Vedic and was used first by Persians and then by Moghuls who invaded Bharat and renamed it Hindustan.

All I'm saying is that Hinduism, Buddhism & Jainism evolved from interactions with each other. This is a clique not a digraph.

by enupten 12y ago

All I'm saying is that Hinduism, Buddhism & Jainism evolved from interactions with each other. This is a clique not a digraph.

shripadk 12y ago

Buddhism and Jainism are branches of Hinduism whether you like it or not. That has been documented in various scriptures, on stone carvings and even carvings within caves. I can't help you if you don't want to be helped. Buddha's birth itself was predicted in all Hindu scriptures (see the 18 puranas) written ages before Gautama Buddha took birth. Jainism is too new in comparison to even Buddhism. Please get your facts right.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_Jainism Also note that the religions we practice today are quite different from those we practiced 1000, 2000 years ago, even if we give them the same "names" (the practitioners of 2000 years ago would have very different ideas about identity, however). /r/askhistorians is a good source on how religions tend to continuously branch and merge over time. It is only in the modern age with global communication where fewer ideas of what a religion is have taken root (but there is still a lot of diversity). Of course, if you are an adherent believer, the fact that religions evolve over time in often very radical ways might sound a bit heretical.
- shripadk 12y ago
  You haven't understood the crux of what I said. Buddhism and Jainism being branches of Sramana tradition is correct. The word Sramana itself originates from Taittiriya Aranyaka which is an annexure of the Vedas. Vedas are the basis for Hinduism. Buddhism and Jainism are branches of Hinduism. Period. They are part of a group called Nastikas who don't believe in the Vedic rituals.
- shripadk 12y ago
  "Also note that the religions we practice today are quite different from those we practiced 1000, 2000 years ago, even if we give them the same "names" (the practitioners of 2000 years ago would have very different ideas about identity, however). /r/askhistorians is a good source on how religions tend to continuously branch and merge over time." This is not true. Especially in India. There are plenty of families that still practice and live according to scriptures that were in existence thousands of years ago, passed down through generations. Hinduism itself is not a religion. Hinduism is a collective of multiple religions within its fold that follow the Vedic philosophy. The core religion is Sanatana Dharma. The word Hindu itself is not Vedic and was used first by Persians and then by Moghuls who invaded Bharat and renamed it Hindustan.