remember that Jains and Buddhists have to leave their material heritage away so they can concentrate in reaching the perfection and get rid off the cycle of reincarnations while the basic Hinduism is still very much involved into the material world and their gods are still playing an important role into the material existence. Once as a creator, one as a preserver and the last one (my favorite) as a destruct or.
Most likely that refers to the political uses of the caste system and the concept of reincarnation to induce fatalism and social stratification among the people. Jainism and Buddhism eliminated the endless multiplication of gods and goddesses and simplified the objectives of religion, focusing on compassion and reverence for life on the path to transcendence.
Are u a saint?..are you not corrupt in any way?..Don't you believe in materialism? If you are even a little honest you cant say no to these questions. Common man is just like that...weather it is Hindu Jain or Buddhist, Muslim or christian. As far as religions are concerned read every holy book from all religions you will find that they talk about developing positive qualities. therefore it is not religion which is corrupt but man...But you can count the number of spiritual Scriptures of Hinduism which are nothing but pure science of purifying your soul.. I wont ask you to read them as you may not have caliber to understand them but at least you should be able to count them ..
From where did you find this fantastic quote my friend? Jainism and Buddhism are NOT a reaction to Hinduism or Vedas. They are a continuation of the ancient Sramana tradition that is Prue-vedic in nature.....much ancient that medic religion and Aryans.....so where is the question of developing in reaction to Hinduism.............corrupt or otherwise. As a matter of fact, Hinduism as we know now never existed.
When Mahavira, a prince, renounced the worldly activities to become an ascetic, he was not protesting against the Vedas or the Brahmin's. He had better things to do! He was focused on his own soul in the pursuit of salvation. His rigorous austerities and meditation in his twelve years of wanderings and subsequently his teachings, had nothing to do with Vedas or being anti-medic. He simply did what he considered right for his soul and establishment of the four-fold Jaina order; in this, he followed the footsteps of the ancient seaman teachers.
The divinity and sanctity of the Vedas were never a part of Jain teachings and the later Jain texts objected to the animal sacrifices and the Vedic preponderance with the rituals. This wrongly resulted in the Jains being labeled as Vedic dissenters or a heterodox school.
The view that the Jainas are dissenters of Vedic religion has been refuted by J. L. Jaini :
?As to Jainas being Hindu dissenters, and, therefore governable by Hindu law, we are not told this date of secession [...] Jainism certainly has a longer history than is consistent with its being a creed of dissenters from Hinduism.?
Dr. Prof. Padmanabh Jaini further states that, Jainas themselves have no memory of a time when they fell within the Vedic fold. Any theory that attempts to link the two traditions, moreover fails to appreciate rather unique and very non-vedic character of Jaina cosmology, soul theory, karmic doctrine and atheism.
Sounds like the expression of a fanatic.
Firstly, in the time that Jainism and Buddhism developed, there was no such thing as Hinduism, even more extreme, there is no 'one' Hinduism; there are almost endless variations of beliefs in India that people call Hinduism. Some Hindus even consider Buddhism a part of Hinduism.
Traditionally in old India (and even today), some masters obtain powerful spiritual insights, which they then teach to their disciples. Similarly, the Founders of Jainism and Buddhism had their powerful spiritual insights, a bit different from the mainstream so to speak. Both founders were apparently inspiring enough that their teachings attracted students long after their death.
For example, the Buddha rejected the caste system, which 'rang a bell' with many people and made it distinct from the general belief in Indian society. To call all the different traditions and teachers within Hinduism 'corrupt' is just as silly as to call all Americans or Europeans corrupt.
Of course, if you call the caste system 'corrupt', then you could call the Buddha a reactionary in some sense, but that is of course very far-fetched and not in accordance to what was happening at the time.
jainism and buddhism develolped in reaction to a material and corrupt hinduism" expla
