Jainism (Review)
Summary
This review assesses Natalia R. Guseva’s 1971 book *Jainism*, translated by Y. S. Redka, which aims to introduce Soviet readers to the complex ethnocultural background of India. Guseva’s stated objective is to generalize as objectively as possible the evidence of records, monuments, and folklore to unravel the historical process of Jainism. The reviewer notes that while the book is intended as an introductory exposition, it frames Jainism as a product of resistance to Aryan expansion, a view the reviewer strongly refutes. The review argues that Jainism is an independent, parallel current to Vedicism rather than an anti-Vedic, heretical religion born from class antagonism. The reviewer contends that the Vedas reference Adinatha Rsabha, the first Tirthankara, and that the Chandogya Upanisad contains a dialogue involving the 22nd Tirthankara, Aristanemi. The reviewer also disputes the book’s reliance on Comrade S. A. Dange’s political work, arguing that ancient India had no slavery or communism, and that Aryan assimilation did not produce class war in the Marxist sense. The review concludes that Guseva’s study would have been more useful if it had concentrated exclusively on a simple exposition of Jainism, highlighting its unique, scientific, and God-less approach to the soul as a virtual God bound by karma, and its view of the ksatriyas as the upholders of truth. The review also discusses an unsigned introduction, possibly by N. N. Mikhlukho-Maklaya, which notes that Jaina Canons have been edited in Indian languages but lack an international medium like English, and that the Jainas belong to the middle and great bourgeoisie. However, the reviewer refutes the introduction’s assumption that Jainism arose as a protest against Aryan expansion. The review emphasizes that Jainism views life as bondage and religion as a key to liberation through individualistic effort, never as a gift of grace. The reviewer concludes that Guseva should restrict her work to a simple exposition rather than viewing Jainism as antagonistic to other traditions. The review is authored by K.C.L.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Guseva’s study offers a valuable, objective introduction to Jainism for a Soviet audience, though its analytical framework is fundamentally flawed. The reviewer refutes the book’s central premise that Jainism arose as a heretical, anti-Vedic protest against Aryan expansion. Instead, the text argues that Jainism is an independent, indigenous tradition with deep historical roots, possessing inherent richness and a unique, scientific approach centered on the soul’s liberation through individual effort rather than divine grace. While Guseva’s work successfully acquaints readers with the complex ethnocultural background of India, its attempt to force a Marxist class-struggle narrative onto ancient Indian history is rejected. Consequently, the book’s primary significance lies in its accessible exposition, but its lasting scholarly value is diminished by its reliance on a discredited, antagonistic historical model.