Prof. Dr. Lawrence A. Babb
What, we may now ask, has become of the boundary between Hinduism and Jainism (or, for that matter, between either and Buddhism)? The materials presented in this book suggest that to see such boundaries as rigid or impermeable is problematical. Of course to those who regard themselves as "Hindu" or "Jain" this distinction is obviously meaningful and is certainly real. But if we take a somewhat more analytical stance, and if we focus on ritual culture, then we see that the real division in the materials we have seen is not between Hindus and non-Hindus but between traditions emphasizing transacting versus nontransacting or minimally transacting objects of worship. It is true that Jainism and Buddhism emerge from our comparison as strikingly similar, but it is also true - at least at the level of ritual culture - that Saivism has more in common with Jainism and Buddhism than with its fellow "Hindu" tradition Vaisnavism.
It therefore seems logical to ask if there might be some ordering principle other than the division between Hindu and non-Hindu that we can apply to these ritual cultures. I think there is. An important clue to what it might be is contained in recent studies of a class of South Asian ritual prestations known as dan (or dana). Normally this term is translated as "charitable gift" or "alms" in English. Ideally it is a gift given to some highly meritorious receiver; in turn, it produces merit for the giver, but it should be given disinterestedly and without any thought of return. Dan, I suggest, provides further evidence of structural unities between ostensibly very different ritual traditions.
