________________
forced to proclaim with extreme pain that they do us great injustice if they regard Jainism as a product of Brahmanism, or if they look upon Parshva Nath as its founder. In so doing they would be simply illustrating the proverb "From the frying pan into the fire.” They would be saving us from one difficulty but involving us into another. They would be playing Lassen, Weber, Barth, and Wilson as far as Jainism is concerned. These latter scholars were struck with the similarity between Jainism and Buddhisnì, and since they knew very litle of the former, they regarded it as an offshoot of the latter. Bühler and Jacobi too are struck with the similarity between Jainism and Brahmanism and since they knew not all about the former they looked upon it as a branch of the latter. But may we not again point out here that this opinion is hasty and ought to have been reserved till further study we mean the study of the Hindu Shastras. These two excellent scholars know that to disprove Jainism as an outcome of Buddhism, they discovered material in the Buddhist Texts themselves. They found that Jainism was not spoken of in Bud. dhist Scriptures as a religion posterior to Buddhism, but as a faith of the Nirgranthas who existed before Buddha. Let them now study Jainism in Hindu Scriptures. Let them now see what evidence the Hindu Shastras afford as to the antiquity of Jainism. Let
Jainism not a product them now see whether Jainism is of Brghmanism. Both pro- a product of Brahmanism, or whemosphere of ancient ther both are not a product of the common atmosphere of ancient India. .
duct of the common at
India,
