Talk:Kundakunda

Videh kshetra

I have removed these lines. - It is believed that Acharya Kundkund was knowing the Avakashgamini vidya (Skill to teleport self through air). He went to videh kshetra where Simandhar swami's samav sharan was going. Height of acharyas there was so huge that Kundkund looked like cardamom size in front of them. Hence those acharyas called him "Elacharya" (Cardamom sized acharya). Acharya Kundkund gained knowledge directly from Tirthankara Shri Simandhar Swami and created the "Samaysaar".

This is a wrong belief which doesn't have any support from Jain texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by जैन (talk • contribs) 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of 8th century date

8th century

I propose removing the mention of the 8th century CE date for Kundakunda, Several reliable scholarly sources, including Paul Dundas, actually place Kundakunda much earlier - around the 2nd or 3rd century CE. and Dundas specifically notes that Samayasara itself is a 2nd-century text. Since no reliable sources support the 8th-century attribution, it should be removed to maintain historical accuracy and consistency. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

No. That's the traditional date; scholars place him much later. Take this as a warning. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan First, I want to know which scholar placed him in the 1st century. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You tell me. Why do you ask? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• Paul Dundas, actually place Kundakunda much earlier - where, exactly?
• no reliable sources support the 8th-century attribution - Dundas, Long

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Every scholar places him in the 2nd century. The 8th century was added by you. I want to know where Dundas, mention the 8th century, including the page number.

Also, long do not mention Kunda Kunda, I have same book. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• 8th century was already there version of 23 september 2025, including Dundas and Long:

Western scholars, however, place him much later primarily because of ideas he refers to and because his hagiography and quotations from his influential and important work begin to appear around 8th-century CE. For example, [[Paul Dundas]] dates him to about mid-8th-century.{{sfn|Dundas|2002|pp=107–108}}{{sfn|Long|2013|pp=65–66}}

But you seem to have a problem understanding what {{sfn|Dundas|2002|pp=107–108}} or {{sfn|Long|2013|pp=65–66}} means?

• Dundas (2002) p.107-108:

Although scholarship has conventionally located him in the second or third century CE, hagiographical accounts do not appear until the tenth century, a fact which has prompted a recent radical reassessment of his dating which would locate him after 750 CE. [note 52]
Note 52: Dhaky (1991). This proposed redating would entail Kundakunda being located close to early Advaita Vedånta which his teachings resemble in certain respects.

• Long p.65:

a distinctively Digambara bent toward mysticism emerges with Kundakunda, who may have lived as early as the second or as late as the eighth century CE. [note 127]
Note 127: This wide divergence of possible dates may be due to their having been more than one author using this name – perhaps a lineage of teachers all known as “Kundakunda,” much like the Śa$karācāryas of Hinduism.

2nd century CE is way too early for Madhyamaka-influences, as Javierfv1212 can explain to you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate pov information of Long, the very lead of Samaysaar states Samayasāra expounds the Jain concepts like Karma, Asrava (influx of karmas), Bandha (Bondage), Samvara (stoppage), Nirjara (shedding) and Moksha (complete annihilation of karmas)., then how is a deviation from karmic realism? Kundkund has no influence of Vedant or Buddhism. Some topics like ahimsa, karma, liberation, of Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism have similarities, but you cannot say which one was influenced by whom. Also, Samaysaar is Bible for Digambar Jains. Better stop your pov on Jain pages. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

It is a laughable claim to place kundkund in 10 century. Without Kundkund's literature, Digambar sect wouldn't even exist as they draw their very identity from his works. It is true that the split happened during times of Bhutabali, Shivbhuti, but they dont have any significant influence on Digambars. The authors on which you are heavily relying are most ill informed writers. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

They are what we call WP:RS. And where did you read "10th century"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

But I refrain to acknowledge them as reliable, as they don't cite their analysis in detail as to how they concluded date. Hemachandra, has mentioned in his work Triṣaṣṭi-śalākā-puruṣa-caritam the names of 1008 Yugpradhans which places Kundkund to around 3rd century AD. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Mahayamaka Influence hahaha!!! Based on false philosophical reasons they came to this date!!? Stop pov. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's talk philosophy. Kundkund in panchastikaya states that practice of self-non self discrimination, one destroys Darshan Mohniya Karma (perception skewing karmas) which causes ignorance in soul. The destruction happen as: 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Upsham (Subsidence): When the Darshan Mohniya Karma subsides, the soul experiences its true nature for less than 48 minutes at a time. This state is known as Upsham Samyak Darshan and corresponds to the 4th Gunasthana (stage of spiritual development).

Kshayopsham (Destruction-cum-Subsidence): Here, the Darshan Mohniya Karma is partially destroyed and partially subdued. This leads to Kshayopsham Samyak Darshan, allowing the soul to experience its true nature continuously for up to two births.

Kshayik (Destruction): This is the complete destruction of Darshan Mohniya Karma, known as Kshayik Samyak Darshan. In this state, the soul experiences itself indefinitely, provided the remaining karmas are also destroyed. Complete of 4th gunasthana.

There are eight types of karma in Jainism, and Mohniya Karma is one of them. The destruction of this karma leads to the 4th Gunasthana, whereas liberation (Moksha) is attained at the 14th Gunasthana.

Thus, there is no need for Jains to seek influence from other religious traditions for understanding such a specific topic the Jain scriptures themselves provide a complete and profound explanation. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Madakeri Tamra Shasana

If he was an 8th-century monk, why does his name appear in the 4th-century Madakeri Tamra Shasana?
This is the exact inscription line from the book: Narasimhachar, R. (1988). History of Kannada Literature pp. 125–127

("Chandanandi Bhattara, disciple of Gunanandi Bhattara, disciple of Jayanandi Bhattara, who in turn was the disciple of Shilabhadra Bhattara himself the disciple of Abhayanandi Bhattara, disciple of the illustrious Gunachandra Bhattara of the Desiga-Gana and Kundakunda tradition.")
In the Saka year 388 (466 CE), on the fifth day of the bright fortnight (Shukla Paksha) of the month of Magha, on a Monday, under the Swati nakshatra, during the rule of Akalavarsha-Prithvivallabha, the minister of the king, with financial support from the righteous emperor Avita Mahādhirāja, acquired a charming village named Badaneguppe, situated within the Eddenadu-Eppattu (Eddenadu-70) territory in the Punnadu Six Thousand division. The village was donated to the Shri Vijaya Jina Basadi at Talavanagara, along with twelve kanduga units of land, to support the religious activities of the Jain sangha.

~~ Starry Pine (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY; you tell me. Regarding these sources diff

• Settar, S (1989). Jaina Art and Architecture, Vol. 2. Karnatak University. pp. 125–127. Discusses the significance of the Madikeri inscription for Jain history in the region.
• Narasimhachar, R. (1988). History of Kannada Literature: Readership Lectures. Karnatak University. pp. xx–xx. Provides literary and historical context for the early Kannada script and Jain references in the Madikeri inscription.
• Annual Report of the Department of Archaeology, Museums and Heritage, Government of Karnataka (Report). Government of Karnataka. Includes references to discoveries and research on inscriptions such as the Madikeri shasana.

What's the relevance of these sources and quotes without explanation? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

See: Narasimhachar, R. (1988). History of Kannada Literature book Starry Pine (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm asking you; you are editing Wikipedia, not Narasimhachar. But I will check that publication. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, Narasimhachar (1988) has only 84 pages; there is no page 125–127. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, to add to this, Nathuram Premi, n scholar who has done tremendous research on this saint's dating, but has ended up with a conclusion that he couldn't have had flourished any time before 683 years after Mahavira, so nothing before 156 AD at least. See Pravachanasara by A.N.Upadhye (pg. 11 in the Introduction section). 2409:4081:DC7:22B:65DA:FE0F:7D9D:9997 (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

What you give as "Kundakunda," is actually Kodakundanvaya." The authenticity of the record is questioned, as it seems to be a 9th century copy; B. Lewis Rice, Epigraphia carnatica, p.x-x1. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

When one author mistakes, a bunch follows back. Not a single modern author though. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Sources

See also: Talk:Mahavira § Bhedvijnan for future reference

• Paul Dundas, in: David Gordon White, Yoga in Practice, p.146: "The standard Digambara locatiin of him in the second or third century CE almost certainly is too early"
• Johannes Bronkhorst: incorporation of succesfull samkhya-ideas.
• Agustin Panikar: nondualism
• Fuchs and others: multiple authors
• Balcerowicz: multiple authors, multiple layers
• The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Kundakunda: "Sixteen works are attributed to him, but these attributions are not secure; at most, only parts of some works are likely to have been written by him."

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Attempt to Demolish Identity

A user attempted to demolish the identity of Kundkund Acharya. Here is my clear rebuttal to claims made by the 3 authors cited.

• The authors claim that vyavhaar and nischay were influenced by Vedanta. This is totally incorrect. Vedanta talks about vyavharika and parmarthika "satya"- which is two different "realities", whereas Jainism talks about vyavhaar and nischay "nays" (viewpoints) within one single reality. These two sound similar but they are not! Infact, this concept has been very much criticized by Adi Shankara in his brahmasutras where he mentions that how can an object be hot and cold together. Read Criticism of Jainism. Therefore, it makes no sense that Jain acharya was influenced by vedanta given that this concept of vyavhaar and nischay "nay" has itself been criticized by both buddha and shankara. Jainism says that an individual soul is bound by ignorance and karma from vyavhhar "nay", the same soul is pure and liberated from nischay "nay" in the same moment of time. (not to be confused with parmarthika satya which many indologists have). Vyavhaar and nischay are 2 of the 7 nays of saptbhangi nays of anekantvaad itself (along with Naigama Naya, Sangraha Naya, Ṛjusūtra Naya, Śabda Naya, Samabhirūḍha Naya, Evambhūta Naya), accepted by all jain sects, it is not a deviation from it or something unique by Kundkund.

76.32.28.129 (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

see WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, your edits are both biased and contain original research. Wikipedia isn't censored, and each viewpoint should be given due weight, based on reliable, independent sources. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

answer to the point i made 76.32.28.129 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you made a point - you need to find a reliable, independent source that restates your claim. This also doesn't justify your removal of the viewpoints of the other scholars, it just merits another section that discusses your claim. AGAIN: Wikipedia is NOT censored. As long as a opinion has due weight and reliable, independent coverage, it justifies its mention in Wikipedia(see Flat earth and Anti-vaxxer.) monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You sound like a construction project manager who does not know the definition and meaning of bricks and cement. 76.32.28.129 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, you sound like an editor who doesn't check the sources being used. Read Balcerowicz (2023) for his argument on multiple authorship, to answer the heading of this thread. With regard to Buddhist, Samkhya, and especially Advaita influences: it would be a miracle if Indian authors from that period were notacquainted with those ideas. Those authors state nothing weird. But maybe you can find some (one?) scholarly source which denies those influences? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand that they are the initiator, they are the asshole, and they are in the wrong. But don't feed the trolls! They clearly don't have any intention to change their ways, so treat them with no attention - it's probable that they didn't absorb a single word you said. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Never give up on trying. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

His works itself clearly indicate that they have not understood the difference between "nays" and "satyas". Why and how would Adi Shankara criticize something if this was formed later with his "influences"? 172.58.113.83 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

But maybe you can find some (one?) scholarly source which denies those influences? not necessary that if one scholar makes a claim, other scholar will dedicate his works to reject them. 172.58.113.83 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Page update

Hey folks, request to have a look at my edit - Latest revision as of 05:10, 14 May 2026 for more balanced reading. Give your views at best convenience! ~2026-23345-82 (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Views of Piotr Balcerowicz

The views of Balcerowicz are speculative personal views. They don't align with what the majority of scholars believe. Are there any other authors who agree with him? Malaiya (talk)

"Speculative": says which source? regarding Are there any other authors who agree with him?, "Likewise, Johnson states that". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:27, 15 September 2026 (UTC)