Bramhanic And Sramanic Culture A Comparative Study

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided text from "Bramhanic and Sramanic Culture a Comparative Study" by Sagarmal Jain:

The text argues that understanding Indian culture requires a holistic approach, recognizing the deep intermingling and mutual influence between its primary constituents: Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. It emphasizes that these traditions, while having distinguishable features, are not entirely separable.

The author identifies two dominant trends in Indian culture from its earliest days: Brahmanic and Sramanic. While these can be differentiated in theory, in practice, they are difficult to disentangle as neither remained untouched by the other. The Sramanic traditions, including later Jainism and Buddhism, were influenced by the Vedic tradition, and vice-versa. Notably, concepts like tapas (austerity), asceticism, liberation, meditation, equanimity, and non-violence, which were initially absent in the Vedas, entered Hinduism through Sramanic influence. The Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita are presented as examples of this dialogue, evolving spiritual interpretations of Vedic rituals.

The Upanishadic trend within Hinduism is described as not being a pure form of Vedic religion. It incorporated various Sramanic tenets, giving Vedic religion a new dimension. Thus, Hinduism is viewed as an intermingling of Vedic and Sramanic traditions. The author contends that the voices of ancient Upanishadic Rsis, Munis, and Sramanas, who protested against the ritualistic and worldly outlook of caste-ridden Brahmanism, found a stronger expression in Jainism and Buddhism. These movements, along with others like the Ājivakas and Samkhyas, offered refuge to those disillusioned with Vedic ritualism and the worldly focus of Brahmanism. Jainism and Buddhism, however, were particularly vocal and vehement in their rejection of Vedic ritualism, outrightly condemning animal sacrifices in yajñas, the birth-based caste system, and the infallibility of the Vedas. Mahavira and Buddha are depicted as significant reformers who challenged the prevailing caste-ridden and ritualistic Brahmanism, which was perceived as crumbling under its own inadequacies.

However, the text cautions against the assumption that Jainism and Buddhism remained unaffected by Vedic ritualism. It states that new forms of ritualism, particularly Tantric practices, infiltrated Jainism and Buddhism, becoming integral to their religious practices and worship. Jainism, under the influence of Hindu Tantricism, adopted various Hindu deities and their modes of worship, adapting them to their own religious temperament. The Jaina concept of Śāsana Devatā or Yakṣa-Yakṣiṇīs is seen as a Jaina adaptation of Hindu deities. The author points to reciprocal influence, citing Hinduism's acceptance of Rishabha and Buddha as divine incarnations, and Jainism's inclusion of Rama and Krishna in its Śalākā Puruṣas. Furthermore, several Hindu deities like Sarasvati, Lakshmi, Kali, Mahākali, Chakreśvari, Ambika, Padmavati, and Siddhika were incorporated as consorts of Tirthankaras.

The central argument is that different religious traditions within Indian culture have borrowed extensively from each other. The author stresses the importance of highlighting this mutual impact to bridge the gaps between religious systems.

The text refutes the notion that Jainism and Buddhism were merely a revolt against Brahmanism, as some Western scholars have suggested. Instead, it posits that they represented a reform and an advance stage in spirituality compared to Vedic ritualism. The author criticizes the view that Jainism and Buddhism are rival traditions to Hinduism, attributing this perception partly to Western scholarship and unfortunate support from some Indian scholars. While acknowledging divergent views and ideals between the Sramanic and Vedic traditions, the text likens them to fundamental human aspects like passion and reason, or śreya (spiritual good) and preya (worldly pleasure) – distinct yet integral components of a single whole: Indian culture.

The author draws a parallel between the Upanishadic trend, which diverged from Vedic ritualism but is considered part of Hinduism, and Jainism and Buddhism. If the Upanishads are seen as an evolution from ritualism to spirituality, then Jainism and Buddhism, which followed a similar path with greater enthusiasm and a focus on common people and moral virtues, should be viewed in the same light. They are seen as having worked for the betterment of weaker sections of society and for redemption from priesthood and ritualism.

The text concludes by advocating for a new approach in Jainological research, urging scholars to re-examine the relationship between Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, particularly the Upanishadic trend, through the lens of ancient Jain texts like the Ācārāṅga, Sūtrakrtāṅga, and Rśibhāṣita. The author is confident that an impartial study of these texts will dispel the misconception of Jainism and Hinduism as rival religions. Evidence from these texts, such as the simultaneous mention of Śramaṇa and Brāhmaṇa in the Ācārāṅga, and the inclusion of Upanishadic Rṣis in the Sūtrakrtāṅga and Rśibhāṣita, demonstrates the early openness and tolerance of Jainism, and the foundational unity of Indian spirituality, regardless of later divisions. The author suggests that these ancient Jain texts can be better understood in light of the Upanishads, and vice-versa, mirroring the interconnectedness of other Indian spiritual traditions like Pali Canon texts and the Upanishads. This understanding is presented as a guide to overcome communal separatism and strife.