Jain Couple leaves property and child to turn monks

[ravishingravi]

http://www.ndtv.com/cities/jain-couple-from-madhya-pradeshs-neemuch-to-leave-3-year-old-daughter-to-turn-monks-1751238?site=full

[G_B_]

irresponsible 

 

fine on the wealth front. But to abandon your child. 

[dial_100]

Isnt it their choice? I think they have abandoned the materialism. I am sure child will be fine. Child will have enough resources and support of grand parents. I would never do such a thing myself. Because you become monk from inside not outwardly.

[asterix]

Isnt it their choice? I think they have abandoned the materialism. I am sure child will be fine. Child will have enough resources and support of grand parents. I would never do such a thing myself. Because you become monk from inside not outwardly.

Yes their choice indeed, strange that included to have a child in their selfish choices...

[G_B_]

dont have a child or wait till child is 18

 

 

[Tibarn]

Adharmic behavior. 

 

I agree with GB, if you were truly Dharmic, you would raise the kid(s) first and then turn monks. 

[zen]

Religion would recommend raising the child first

[Texan]

Read this few days back and was appalled by this. For their own selfish interest, they first have a kid and then ruin the kid's life by abandoning the child. Your child is YOUR responsibility, not your parents' responsibility. Large section of desis just don't get that.

 

I even see so many couples here in the US leave their kid in India with grandparents so that they don't have to bother 'raising' the kid and they can happily both work and make money to 'support' the kid. Somehow, they justify it to themselves as it being 'good' for their kids. I can tell you that nothing is better for the kids than growing up with the parents and being a part of a real family.

[Gollum]

This is why extremism in any religion is bad. Follow the middle path advocated by Buddha, that is the true essence of dharmic religions. Many Jains are way too extreme. 

[Ranvir]

4 hours ago, Gollum said:

This is why extremism in any religion is bad. Follow the middle path advocated by Buddha, that is the true essence of dharmic religions. Many Jains are way too extreme. 

Even Buddha abandoned his family and promoted the monk way of life.

[zen]

50 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

Even Buddha abandoned his family and promoted the monk way of life.

Again not apples to apples

 

Buddha is an exception / outlier who wanted a change. His goal was to help others. In fact, it was predicted that he would do that (either become a monk or a great king) which is why he was not allowed to see pain and misery

 

The ppl in discussion are doing nothing of that sort 

Edited September 19, 2017 by zen

[dial_100]

They might have got the realization that they should lead an austere life after they had a baby. Why are we judging others based on what choices they make. I see absolutely no adharmik behavior or extremism here. You guys are over dramatic and very critical here. I see it absolutely opposite way. I think kid will be well taken care of by grand parents. I agree that kid will miss parents but it will not be as bad as you are terming it to be.

 

Ascetic life is very tough and i feel the parents are brave. I dont know what and how much they could achieve but they are trying. 

[MechEng]

The bizarre extreme practices of self neglect done by Jains and Buddhists played an important role in the past foreign invasions of India. Especially how Buddhist Afghans were unable to defend themselves against the Arabs when you consider how freakishly strong are Afghans, they had a wrong understanding of ahimsa.

 

Violence against self is as bad as violence against others. Maintaining a healthy balance between loving others and respecting self is the true meaning of ahimsa.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, MechEng said:

The bizarre extreme practices of self neglect done by Jains and Buddhists played an important role in the past foreign invasions of India. Especially how Buddhist Afghans were unable to defend themselves against the Arabs when you consider how freakishly strong are Afghans, they had a wrong understanding of ahimsa.

 

Violence against self is as bad as violence against others. Maintaining a healthy balance between loving others and respecting self is the true meaning of ahimsa.

the bolded part, is actually not true. Afghanistan was not an easy conquest for the Arabs and they never really conquered Afghanistan till Yaqub As Laith As Saffar- almost 150 years after their conquest of Persia. I know maps show Afghanistan as part of Rashidun and Abbasid Caliphate very early, but for 100+ years, they were vassals, not directly ruled by Arabs and the Arabs lost quite a few wars there.

It wasn't because of Ahimsa or any such idea that Afghanistan fell to the muslims, its because Afghanistan was divided into many principalities and petty states against a far more united and mighty foe. 

 

Oh and one more thing- what you consider 'Afghans- AKA Pashtuns- they were not living in most of Afghanistan at the time. Pashtun ancestors, according to Al-Uthbi, who is chronicler of Mahmoud of Ghazni, clearly mentions that 'Afghans and Ghiljis' were living in Suleiman mts. at the time and joined with Ghazni after his father Sebuktagin defeated Kabul Shahis. the region of Kabul, Kandahar, Peshawar, etc. - the cities of Hindu kush- were populated by the ancestors of the Hindkos. 

 

At the final defeat of Kabul Shahis, Mehmoud allowed genocide of the in the region and a demographic shift- away from Hindko towards Afghans. there are still some traces of Hindko left in the Kabul-Peshawar corridor but its they, not Afghans, who are original inhabitants of Afghanistan. 

[MechEng]

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

the bolded part, is actually not true. Afghanistan was not an easy conquest for the Arabs and they never really conquered Afghanistan till Yaqub As Laith As Saffar- almost 150 years after their conquest of Persia. I know maps show Afghanistan as part of Rashidun and Abbasid Caliphate very early, but for 100+ years, they were vassals, not directly ruled by Arabs and the Arabs lost quite a few wars there.

It wasn't because of Ahimsa or any such idea that Afghanistan fell to the muslims, its because Afghanistan was divided into many principalities and petty states against a far more united and mighty foe. 

 

Oh and one more thing- what you consider 'Afghans- AKA Pashtuns- they were not living in most of Afghanistan at the time. Pashtun ancestors, according to Al-Uthbi, who is chronicler of Mahmoud of Ghazni, clearly mentions that 'Afghans and Ghiljis' were living in Suleiman mts. at the time and joined with Ghazni after his father Sebuktagin defeated Kabul Shahis. the region of Kabul, Kandahar, Peshawar, etc. - the cities of Hindu kush- were populated by the ancestors of the Hindkos. 

 

At the final defeat of Kabul Shahis, Mehmoud allowed genocide of the in the region and a demographic shift- away from Hindko towards Afghans. there are still some traces of Hindko left in the Kabul-Peshawar corridor but its they, not Afghans, who are original inhabitants of Afghanistan. 

Even if it's not explicitly stated in documented history, I do believe that passiveness or the false understanding of ahimsa did play a big role in their downfall. I can't remember an instance in history where the Buddhists displayed inspiring resistance against invaders and protected it's people (not the negative example followed by Imperial Japan).

 

Also, who are Hindkos? Heard that for the first time.

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, MechEng said:

Even if it's not explicitly stated in documented history, I do believe that passiveness or the false understanding of ahimsa did play a big role in their downfall. I can't remember an instance in history where the Buddhists displayed inspiring resistance against invaders and protected it's people (not the negative example followed by Imperial Japan).

I doubt Ahimsa had anything to do with it. For example, one of the most powerful Indian empires ever was the Rashtrakutas : even though they directly controlled only western Deccan, they routinely whacked everyone: Gujjars (ancestor to Rajputs), Pal empire (Magadh+Bengal), Pallavas (tamil people) and Arabs, repeatedly. Yet, most of their rulers were Jains.

 

Buddhists showing inspired resistance as well as very, very tenacious at warfare would be the Vietnamese repeatedly whacking China through the ages (not all the time, but enough to remain independent), the thai, the Burmese, etc. 

 

You don't find much example in Indian subcontinent, because we've typically faced invasion from outside when North India was fragmented into principalities ( Greeks, Parthians, Saka, Mahmoud, Ghauri, Bin Qasim- they all had successes against a series of small kingdoms/principalities). Even timur defeated a Delhi Sultan who ruled an UP-sized area centered around Delhi, no more. 

 

Only twice did an invader come from land and face off a major empire in India and won: the Hepthalites vs the Gupta empire and Babur vs Lodi empire.  

1 hour ago, MechEng said:

Also, who are Hindkos? Heard that for the first time.

these people: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindkowans

PS: Apparently they are not Hindko but Hindkowans. Hindko are a people of western Punjab close to Dera Ghazi Khan. So i was a bit off. 

 

PPS: Its interesting reading the origin of Pashtun people. Its fairly agreed upon, that their ethnic genesis is formed by a mixture of Ashvaka branch of Kambojas, the Huns and Scythian folk, around 600s AD.

the name 'Afghan' itself comes from 'Ashvaka' (horse people in Sanskrit) as well as 'Avghan' in middle Persian, meaning 'highlanders'. 

the ethnic composition is predominantly Scythian (Saka) tribesmen who settled in the Suleiman mountain ranges of Baluchistan & Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa as well as the Huns. the Huns who came to India (Hara Huna and Sweta Huna) were ruled by the clan called 'Yeopthal', from which English/Greek word 'Hepthalites' come from. However, 'Yeopthal' soon became 'Abdal' in Farsi-dominated areas and this clan is now known as Abdali or Abdal. 
Infact, the people of Kaffiristan - a region of Afghanistan until very recently (1880s) that was Hindu & Shamanistic, still call any Pashtun 'Abdal'. 

 

the Pashtuns spread to Kabul-Peshawar-Gandhara region following the genocide of the Hindkowans who inhabited the region, at the hands of Mahmoud of Ghazni. they spread to Kandahar during the middle ages, following the utter destruction of Ghazni at the hands of the Ghorids (precursor to invasion of India). the Afghans settled in Kandahar, the turks in nearby Bost. this was the extent of the Afghans - Kandahar to Qalat, Kabul to Gandhara and west bank of Indus, till the fall of Nader Shah's empire and rise of the Durranis in 1700s. that is when Afghans spread westwards, conquering & settling in Farah, Herat and for the first time, entering tajik country, which was immediately north of Kabul, on the other side of the Hindu Kush. 

 

that is Afghan origin, in a nutshell.