Talk:Mahavira

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Former good articleMahavira was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
December 12, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
April 5, 2016Good article nomineeListed
April 14, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 31, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 28, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 13, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 2, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
November 25, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 15, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
Close
More information Associated task forces:, Previous copyedits: ...
Close

I'm reassessing this article after it attracted criticism in its previous FA candidacies, particularly its fourth and fifth. For a long time the article's main problem was that it failed to adequately distinguish between Jain tradition and fact, and thus it failed the neutrality criterion. That gradually became less of a problem; when FAC reviewers cited particular passages as problematic, they were removed or given qualifiers such as "In the Jain tradition…". But the result is something of a muddle. There's a section on the "historical Mahavira" that implicitly contrasts historical reality with the Jain traditions about him, which make up most of the article, but it does little to explain how historians assess what is true about him and what is not, and the article doesn't make clear how the historical Mahavira relates to the traditions that appear in the rest of the article.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mahavira/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In sum, I think the article fails two and possibly three criteria:

  • Criterion 1, "well written". This isn't a requirement for FA-level prose, but when the text is unclear about basic issues, it doesn't meet GA standards.
  • Criterion 3, "broad in its coverage". For any article on a legendary figure like this, separating legend from fact—and doing so in a way a general reader can follow—is an essential aspect of the article, which isn't adequately addressed here.
  • Criterion 4, "neutral", isn't as much of concern as it once was. But very few changes have been made since the last FAC closed three months ago, and the most substantial change was to remove a single sentence that I cited as a glaring example of a lack of neutrality. Smaller problems are still there.

Both Squeamish Ossifrage and I have said that the article needs to be rethought and restructured. Until that happens, I doubt it will meet GA standards. A. Parrot (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist, essentially per my comments at previous FACs. This article has not really been written; it has accumulated, over time. Getting this to GA status or FA status requires a single editor, or a small group, to sit down with a bunch of sources and rewrite the piece summarizing them. The nominator, though they are acting in good faith, has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to do this, and has instead continually renominated this article (and others) after making a series of gnomish edits, which, while helpful, do not address the core problem; that of an article which does not adequately reflect the substance of the best available sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Near to a keep at GA - this is not FAC & the standards are much lower. But the nomination is correct I think (& Vanamonde not far wrong) things like "Mahavira has been erroneously called the founder of Jainism..." and so on need adjusting. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Johnbod: I don't think we're fundamentally in disagreement, but FWIW; I don't intend to hold this to FA standards; but I think it's fair to say that an article about a major religious figure needs to have its substance based on sources from secular scholarship. I don't think that's the case here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree that if nothing happens this needs delisting, but I don't think a vast number of changes are needed. For one thing, the dates modern scholars assign to him are not properly (clearly) stated, only the traditional ones (c 100 years different). Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    It is sentences like "He preached, and attained Nirvana at the age of 72" and "Mahavira's Jal Mandir stands at the place where he attained nirvana" that are particularly jarring. These are articles of faith, rather than historical record (as the sources make clear); they need to be presented as such. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Vanamonde93 makes some good points above and has made many more in past FAC reviews. There are two additional broad, long-standing problems with important Jainism-related articles such as this one. Jainism has two major historic sub-sects (the majority Svetambara and the minority Digambara), and a few relatively even minor though important traditions. Each has their own different legends and facts, and it is important to separate these as A. Parrot correctly notes. That isn't acknowledged in this article and separated, in a way it should be. More free, self-published publications are available from the Digambara tradition, which in combination with our WP:V guidelines means their version gets plugged more often by well-meaning, flyby editors. In past, we have had a lot of copyvio issues from Digambara open/free publications, something admin Dianna and I have struggled with. This and other Jainism articles are a bit cleaner, better now than in the past. But, a GA/FA article this is not. Scholarly peer-reviewed literature is available (Dundas, Cort, Jaini, etc), but these are behind paywalls or require access to good libraries plus hours of careful reading and summarizing in one's own words. To keep or renominate this as a GA/FA article, I encourage that we rely mostly on peer-reviewed scholarship in combination with our content guidelines and other good practices. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    Precisely. An article about a broad, well-studied, and non-contemporary topic needs to be based on high-quality sources. This one doesn't come close. To be fair to the nominator, it's not easy to make such a large article meet the GA standards; but that's no excuse for nominating it when it doesn't. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Closing as delist. I've never run a GAR before and am more accustomed to the stringent standards of FAC, so for a while I was swayed by Johnbod's argument; I thought perhaps this could be kept if the most blatantly POV statements were removed. I've attempted to do some of that, but Ms Sarah Welch has convinced me that there are indeed deeper problems here. None of those who have shown up here seem in a position to do the required overhauling—I don't have the expertise, and those who might, Ms Sarah Welch and Vanamonde, don't seem to have the time. Capankajsmilyo, who was the original GA and FA nominator, has not responded here, despite being notified when I opened this review nearly a month ago. I'll end by emphasizing a point I touched on in the last FAC: many scholarly sources of the type that would be needed to improve this article are already listed among this article's sources, but the article isn't based as closely on them as it needs to be. If that changes, I would be happy to reevaluate the article, but a lot of work is needed first. A. Parrot (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bhedvijñān

Arbitrary header #1

Are there any sources for this term? Anybody knows? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The precise compound bheda-vijñāna does not appear to be widely documented in classical Sanskrit sources. The earliest known use of the term is found in the Ratnākara Śatak (16th century CE). One finds bheda-jñāna (“knowledge of distinction”) and vijñāna of bheda as syntactic combinations, but not a crystallized compound in doctrinal use. It is possible that the compound existed earlier (for example, in commentaries), but it has not yet been catalogued. However, what is catalogued offers absolutely no evidence of any Jain teaching, as we have them, tracing back to Mahāvīra. It is even more untenable and intellectually dishonest to push Pārśvanātha as a Jain or proto-Jain figure based purely on weak speculation and belief, especially without considering the major consensus that these figures most likely had nothing to do with Jainism as we know it today. Even to assert something as proto, we must at least know something concrete about it. One cannot simply shoot an arrow into the sky and hope it hits the target. Very very dishonest. Meh 2409:40C1:1028:693A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
If only I could edit this article. Eh, perhaps it's for the best. 2409:40C1:1028:693A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I still wont join The joshua project. :p 2409:40C1:1028:693A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
You aleady did, grumpy grandpa ;) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey hey hey… I’m grumpy but not a grandpa. I’m barely 30 and happily unmarried. I did everything I could in my early 20s, and now I’m almost a renunciate. There’s a low chance of me ever being a pa, let alone a grandpa. It’s unfortunate that I’m the last of my line. Sad that no other body would support this consciousness for many hundred years. Hehehe ;p
Basically, I’m just a grumpy, emotionally charged, annoying anomaly with a lot of free time. I have no other commitments except work, which, to me, is pretty chill and not soul-sucking. So you’ll be seeing me around on some pages that interest me, or those I think are severely distorted and need attention.
Right now, you should get back to the topic - with those two, or maybe one acting as two. Wikipedia, after all, is about improving pages in the end. Have a good day :) 2409:40C1:1028:693A:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Someone who can write The precise compound bheda-vijñāna does not appear to be widely documented in classical Sanskrit sources. The earliest known use of the term is found in the Ratnākara Śatak (16th century CE). on such an obscure topic (in terms of Google-hits) deserves admiration. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

@Pawapuri Winds: the concept is fascinating; it aligns with other Indian religions. That's why I'd like to see sources, to get to know more about it. But if it Bhedvigyan term first appears in Amritchandra Acharya's commentary on Samaysaar diff (10th c. CE), then how do we know that it was taught by Mahavira? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

It resembles aspects of Samkhya and Vedanta. The term Bhedvigyan (or Bhedgnan) can be traced back to the works of Amritchandra Acharya, especially his commentary on Samayasāra, where it is used to describe the entire practice of attaining nischay samyak darshan of the fourth gunasthana. Although the term itself appears later, the concept and practice have always existed across all Jain sects (except the Sthanakvasis) and originally formed the essence of Drashtivaad, the twelfth Anga of the Aagamas, now lost to time.
When Kundkund Acharya composed Samaysaar, this practice was formally recorded in literary form. While later scholars such as Haribhadrasuri, Anandghan, and Yashovijaya did not explicitly use the term Bhedvigyan, their writings strongly emphasize the same practice.
Pandit Banarasidas, who was a close friend of Mughal Emperor Jahangir and is said to have played chess with him every weekend, frequently uses the term Bhedvigyan in his long poetic work, a vernacular translation of Amritchandra’s Samaysaar. This work was later translated into old Gujarati by another poet named Rajmal Pandey Shastri.
Kanji Swami, after studying Rajmal Pandey and Banarasidas's works, as well as the works of Shrimad Rajchandra, produced detailed commentaries on Samaysaar. Interestingly, Rajchandra titled his own long poem Atmasiddhi, inspired by a chapter named Atma Siddhi from Drashtivaad—a scripture now lost, though some details about it survive in other Angas.
More recently, Manu Doshi and Rakesh Jhaveri have written extensive commentaries on Atmasiddhi, explaining the concepts of nischay samyaktva and Bhedgnan in depth, in their work published by HarperCollins in 2021. However, the term itself does not appear in their commentary. After consulting Jhaveri, Upadhyay Bhuvanchandra Maharaj authored The Experience and Path (2024), which explicitly includes the term. Both of these books are currently available only commercially. I will therefore be able to cite them only by title, page number, and ISBN in the coming weeks. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Drashtivaad is the 12th scripture of the Jain Agamas written by Sudharma Swami, the chief disciple of 24th Tirthankar Mahavira. This concept is unique only to Jainism, as it represents the spiritual aspect of Anekantvaad.
Briefly illustrating based on the four nayas given by Kundkund: suppose a man kills an enemy. As per Anekantvaad, from the Anupcharit Vyavhaar (or paryaay) viewpoint, the man killed a person. From the Upcharit Vyavhaar viewpoint, the man did not kill the person; he merely pressed the trigger of the gun, which became the nimit kaaran (instrumental cause) of the death and not the upadaan kaaran (direct material cause).
From the Ashuddh Nischay Nay (impure absolute viewpoint), the man is essentially a soul who created an impure desire to kill. The act of pressing the trigger and the death of the person were merely “witnessed” by the soul and “done” only by the body, not by the soul itself.
From the Shuddh Nischay Naya (pure absolute viewpoint), the soul is unchanging, blissful, and eternal. The emotion arose in the soul due to ignorance and was later dissolved into it; the soul substance merely witnessed this process.
Jainism expects the man to seek forgiveness and repentance to eradicate the karmas acquired, considering the relative and impure absolute viewpoints. At the same time, Jainism asks the man to remain aware of his true nature from the pure absolute viewpoint and see everyone and himself as pure souls and contemplate that body, thoughts and emotions is not him. By doing so, he avoids acquiring new karmas and moves toward self-realization and liberation-this is Bhedvigyan.
This entire philosophical structure is explained holistically and uniquely only in Jainism. Other philosophies discuss the idea of viewpoint, but none provide such a complete and precise framework. This is elaborated in great detail in Samaysaar. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Purvas,- in this page you can see 4th Purva: Asti Nasti Pravada Purva, this contained details of bhed-asti and bhed-nasti, the terms used in this section of Mahavira page. The 7th Atma pavada Purva contained analysis of soul from different viewpoints which I explained in the discussion. The purvas part of 12th anga Dhashtivaada and are attributed to chief disciples of Mahavira. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Are there alternate spellings, and synonyms? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Bhedvigyan (bhedvignan) and bhedgyan (bhedgnan) are used interchangeably. Hindi and Sanskrit sources use gy, Prakrit and Gujarat use jn or gn. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Moved to Moksha (Jainism); no shred of evidence in WP:RS that this was taught by Mahavira, but nevertheless relevant info, as far as I can judge, though (or because of/) it's close resemblance to yoga, Buddhism and Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
@Starry Pine: regarding this revert diff, edit-summary, eh, none: if you had paid attention, you'd have noticed this talkpage-thread. See also user talk:Joshua Jonathan#October 2025. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Bhedvijnan for future reference

  • Kundakunda (8th c. CE), Amritchandra (10th c.), Shrimad Rajchandra (1867-1901), Kanji Swami (1890-1980), Rakesh Jhaveri (b. 1966), Shrimad Rajchandra Mission
  • Upadhyay Bhuvanchandra Maharaj authored The Experience and the Path (2024), which explicitly includes the term - published by Shrimad Rajchandra Mission, The Experience and the Path, "a translation of Munishri Amrendravijayji’s seminal work, “Atmajnan and Sadhanapath” (Gujarati)."
  • Shrimad Rajchandra: "was attracted to Ahiṃsā (non-violence) and bheda-vijñāna (practice of discrimination of the soul from transient activities and substances) doctrine of Jainism."
  • Bhedvijnan, bheda-vijnana, bhedvigyan, bhedgnan, bhed-jnan
  • Google Bhedvijnan:

All the Indian philosophies, explains knowledge as the essential cause of liberation is knowledge such as, according to Nyaya, Padārtha jñānā–material knowledge; Vedanta–Bhedajñāna or Brahmajñāna is must; according to Saṃkhya, Vivekjñāna–discriminatory knowledge; according to Buddhism, Tattvajñāna–knowledge of reality is must for liberation. According to Jainism, kevaljñāna is must to attain salvation

So, "kevaljñāna," "kevala jnana" is also a synonym. Kevala is kaivalya, detachment, separatio between purusha and prakriti - duh. Compare the preamble to Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhasya, which paints a dualistic view of self and non-self, quite in contrast to the (mistaken) perception of Advaita Vedanta as nondual, but in line with this notion of "bhedajñāna" - knowing the difference between 'self' (awareness, beingness) and not-self. See also prapanca.
  • Wisdomlib, Samani Pratibha Pragya (author), Preksha meditation: History and Methods (2016), 9. Sambodhi-Dhyāna:

(5) Conscious cognition/perception (caitanya-bodha)–with total exhalation one’s self is said to merge into emptiness. With the observance of total silence, one’s self is observed separate from the outer world and the inner passions.

It is interesting to note that this is a new category and is a kind of bhedajñāna but not the traditional one. The self is rectified by this practice to be different from the outer material world and the inner passions.

Bhedvigyan means the science of differentiation. The practitioner of Bhedvigyan differentiates his eternal and unchanging soul from his body, karmas and the transitory feelings. He then experiences oneness with it and attains Samyak-Darshan.

"Oneness with Samyak-Darshan"? Hmmm... sounds contemporary spiritual. Ah, right: Kanji Swami.

Bhedvigyan; the science of differentiation. The practitioner of Bhedvigyan differentiates his eternal and unchanging soul from his body, karmas and the transitory feelings. He then experiences oneness with it and attains Samyak-Darshan.

  • bhed-jnan:

The Digambara Jain scholar Kundakunda, in his ''Pravacanasara'' states that a Jain mendicant should meditate on "I, the pure self". Anyone who considers his body or possessions as "I am this, this is mine" is on the wrong road, while one who meditates, thinking the antithesis and "I am not others, they are not mine, I am one knowledge" is on the right road to meditating on the "soul, the pure self".{{sfn|Johnson|1995|pp=137–143}}

That came from Kanji Panth. Surprise, surprise: blocked users at that page; the passage was added diff by User:Realphi.
  • W. J. Johnson, Harmless Souls, p.137: "Kundakunda takes in the yamasara through his use of a vyavahara/niscaya distinction which has more in common with Madhyamaka Buddhism and even more with Advaita Vedanta than with the Jain philosophy of Anekantavada" - well, well, so far for the rejection of Buddhism...

Still obscure with respect to WP:RS, but yet, a little bit more. NB: it seems to me that this is the same as atma (vi)jnana. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Protection

Due to an ongoing content dispute, this page has been fully protected for three days. Please discuss and come to a consensus to resolve this dispute. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI