Talk:Jain vegetarianism

Recent edits

@Goyama, @Srmd1136 , @Rohan Rathod R

Some material was recently removed from a book written by Paul Dundas [1], [2], [3]. This wasn't a copyright violation because the paragraphs can be found here [4] (page 177). One of these says ""Nonetheless, it seems clear that the early Jain ascetics were not totally strict vegetarians and that, like the Buddhists, they could accept meat as alms if an animal had not been specifically killed for them. Svetambara monastic law also suggests that in certain exceptional circumstances such as famine or to cure and illness consumption of meat was permitted". However, the content may be WP:UNDUE in the lead but it does not look unreliable and could be mentioned in the article if cited correctly.

Please discuss this before further edit-warring. Veg Historian (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Greetings @Veg Historian,I belong to the Jaina community. In the scholarly community of the Jainas, Hermann Jacobi is the most well-known. This controversy about any Jaina texts containing references of meat-eating is a direct result of a fault in H. Jacobi's translation of the Acharanga Sutra, the oldest extant Jaina text. I say this was a mistake because it was later clarified by H. Jacobi in a letter to Mr. Motilal Ladha, a member of the Jaina community. The letter can be found here: [5]. Jainas have always considered meat and fish as unacceptable, even for householders. It is not possible that their monks would have consumed that. Only based on literal meaning of a word 'mamsa', it was deduced that it referred to animal flesh. However, as per the traditional and more widely accepted meaning within the Jaina community, we accept it to mean 'pulp of a fruit', which also attests the other practices of monks that prevent them from accepting fruits with seeds as alms because Jainas consider seeds to contain life. Had it not been the case, Prof. Jacobi wouldn't have clarified it later. In Ayurveda, the pulp of a fruit is referred to as 'mamsa' more often than one could imagine. It also uses animal-like metaphors to denote vegetarian foods. The Jaina text, Vakyaprajnapti, which Prof. Ludwig Alsdorf mistranslated based on H. Jacobi's translation, mentions the word 'kukkuta-mamsa' which again refers to the medicinal fruit 'Aegle Mamelos' and not cock meat. Moreover, if Jainas had once consumed meat, there would've had been several sects/subsects today that would be consuming meat. That's not the case. It is important to know that all religious texts contain some or the other kind of metaphors. Jaina texts, especially Vakyaprajnapti, contain many because it is the largest of all ancient canonical Jaina texts. Because of these metaphors the meaning of a word is only understood when learning along with the interpretation of another learned Jaina scholar. While most scholars now agree with this interpretation, this statement was taken from an old edition of Paul Dundas' book which may have had been corrected later. Nevertheless, I give more weightage to Jacobi's work than Paul Dundas since the former stayed in India and made several efforts to accurately translate the texts. If a scholar has corrected their error, it leaves no room for doubt and works that cite Jacobi's former work done accurately reflect the history of Jainas. It seems like a deliberate attempt to prove that Svetambara Jaina texts contain such references when they have clearly been clarified time and again. Goyama (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Goyama thanks for the historical information, very interesting and you are probably correct about that. The link you cited was about Acaranga Sutra and Jaina monks or nuns. Some of the content which I cited by Dundas was not about this. This is unlikely to involve metaphors. The specific topic I am interested in knowing about is the claims that early Jain ascetics in certain circumstances were allowed to eat meat if they were ill. There is also mention of this in "Jain Doctrine and Practice: Academic Perspectives (page 101), which says "There exist passages in the classical Svetambara Jain texts of monastic law which allow for the eating of meat by ascetics to counteract illness. However, he makes clear that these are exceptions suitable only to particular circumstances ( Dvātrimśaddvātrimśikā 7.12 ) which do not invalidate the general rule ( utsarga ) that eating meat is inappropriate".

Can you verify any of this? There are sources claiming that the Svetambara Jain texts of monastic law do allow meat-eating but only under specific conditions. I would like to see some more sourcing on this. What you have stated above does not appear to invalidate what Dundas was claiming about Svetambara monastic law and meat eating. From what I have read the early Jains could eat meat if they were ill. I would like to see more sourcing on this but I think it is notable to be included on the article. Do you have any references contradicting these claims? Veg Historian (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Veg Historian Yes,I can surely throw some light upon this particular verse in the said text. It has not been translated to English before, so I will try to make the explanation simple. This cited verse (7.12) by Yaśovijaya is actually a pūrpakṣa (a verse that is about a different view/philosophy), which is meant to explain the concepts of vidhi and niṣedha. He is basically saying - "some people believe that māṃsa-bhakṣaṇa (meat-eating) is correct only if it is endorsed by scriptures." This verse, in its spirit, is only quoting beliefs from other philosophies. He further explains in verse 7.14 that eating meat under any circumstances is wrong and amounts to great sin. However, here (in verses 7.12 and 7.13), he is talking about another philosophy's views, such as the Vedic view, for instance. Verses 7.12 and 7.13 essentially describe how some others (outside the Jaina community) feel about meat-eating. However, he goes on to refute these claims from verse 7.14 onwards. It seems the op. only read the original verses and may have misunderstood the intent of Yaśovijaya. Verse 7.13, which states:

प्रोक्षितं भक्षयेन्मांसं ब्राह्मणानां च काम्यया।

यथाविधिनियुक्तस्तु प्राणानामेव चात्यये॥७।१३॥

It seems the author took first half in terms of Brāhmaṇas and the second half as a general law which is not the case. This complete verse is directly taken from Manusmṛti, a Vedic text, and exemplified only to elucidate the pūrvapakṣa contained in verse 7.12. It is thus clear that he stating the pūrvapakṣa (a belief which is to be refuted) in continuation of 7.12. From 7.14, the uttara-pakṣa (refutation to the pūrvapakṣa) starts where he states that this kind of view is complete flawed. This division of pūrvapakṣa and uttarapakṣa has been mentioned by Yaśovijayajī in his auto-commentary himself. Even in verses 7.12 and 7.13, Yaśovijaya does not prescribe a rule for Jaina monks to follow as claimed in the cited book. By the time Yaśovijaya took initiation as a Jaina monk, all rules and conduct for monks and nuns were practically already in force for at least 1900-2000 years. Goyama (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Goyama thank you for your detailed knowledge about this issue and the clarification. I trust you on this because you seem well educated on this topic. I do not have access to any non-English sources, and I have not been able to translate the original Jain sources on this. It appears only Paul Dundas and one two other academics I found have mentioned Svetambara Jain texts of monastic law and meat-eating but I can't find any other specific sourcing on it. The material is only a small paragraph from each of these authors so it is likely to be WP:UNDUE as there is no confirmation from the larger academic community. I have spent decades of my life researching European vegetarianism. I an in contact with a Baháʼí scholar, two Chinese historians of vegetarianism and several Buddhist scholars from the UK but it appears there are very few scholars that have looked into Jain vegetarianism in serious detail. I am in contact with a lot of people interested in vegetarianism but there probably isn't anyone I know that could help with this content, so you are probably the best to ask about this. Thanks for your research. I agree that it would be best to leave that information off the article. Veg Historian (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Original research

This content is unsourced and WP:OR and some of it (the butter claim) is untrue:

"According to Jain texts, a śrāvaka (householder) should not consume the four maha-vigai (the four perversions) – wine, flesh, butter and honey; and the five udumbara fruits (the five udumbara trees are gular, anjeera, banyan, peepal, and pakar, all belonging to the fig genus). Lastly, Jains should not consume any foods or drinks that have animal products or animal flesh".

Information about Jain dietary restriction can be found here [6] in the The A to Z of Jainism. This section needs to be improved with better sourcing. Veg Historian (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)