Propos of the Botika Sect

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_3_Pundit_Dalsukh_Malvaniya_012017.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250257/1

Page #1

A PROPOS OF THE BOȚÍKA SECT
M. A. Dhaky Sagarmal Jain
Up to the period of the nir yuktis (c. A. D. 5251), the Svetāmbara Jaina canon noticed only seven nihnavas (heretices), each of whom had differed on one singular point from, or one aspect or interpretation of, one or the other early doctrine of the Nirgrantha religion?. Partly basing his exposition on the immediately preceding, rather succinct, exegetical notices and partly on the then current elucidatory traditions on such and similar old records, Jinabhadra gani kşamāśramaņa in the Vises = Avašyaka-bhāşya (c. A. D. 5853), presents an historical as well as quasi-historical account of these traditional seven, plus an additional or the eighth heretic, Sivabhūti. While the preceding more ancient seven nihnavas ultimately had been proven inconsequential, the eighth one,--the heresiarch Sivabhūti, --by his separation from the main ecclesiastical stream, brought about a major schism which eventually grew into a definite, viable, and an important sect with a school of thinking and practice that was branded “Botika dřsti (Bodiä ditthi)" by the post-āgamic Svetāmbara commentators.
The term “Botika" ("Bodiya" or "Bodiyāņa" in Jaina Mahārāştri and Bodiga" or "Bodiä" in late Ardha-Māgadhi) has been taken to mean “Digambara" by current Svetāmbara writers, 4 a misinterpretation that has been perpetrated presumably from the time of the late medieval Svetāmbara writings onward, and had of late attracted unwarranted attacks on Jinabhadra gani kşamāramana by some pundits of the Digambara sect who did not suspect that the interpretation of the term and hence the ascription of the sect was wrongs. Indeed," Walther Schubring was aware that the term did not originally.imply the way it was later thought to be. Schubring, however, suggested no alternative interpretation. It was Muni Jambuvijaya who made a right guess that the appelation "Botika" had meant Yapaniya'.
Let it at the outset be clarified that, before Jinabhadra gıņi, th: term "Bodiya" is mentioned in the Bhāşya (c. A. D. 550-575) on the Āvaśyaka-sūtra;8 the bhāşya-gātha, moreover, reports the date of the origination of "Bodiya dițghi" to be V. N. S. 609/A.D. 1329. The still earlier Müla-bhāsya (C. A. D. 550) briefly alludes to a question asked by Sivabhūti to Arya Krşņa at Rathavirapura (the place of schism, unidentified, perhaps somewhere in M. P. or U. P., 10) which

Page #2

132
M. A. Dhaky & Sagarmal Jain
apparently was a prelude to the discussion between the two pontiffs which ultimately led to the schisms (as the commentators including Jinabhadra gaṇi report). The latter gāthā also figures in the Uttarādhyayana-niryukti (c. A. D. 525) 11. The gāthā, as found in the mūlabhāşya of the Avaśyaka-sūtra, may have been taken from the Uttaradhyayana-nir yukti or, equally, it may have drifted to the selfsame niryukti from the mūlabhāşya. At any rate the gātha in question is not posterior to c. A. D. 550. The Niryuktis do sometimes briefly allude occasionally with one word or a few catch words, to the anecdotes pur porting to some historical events or happenings besides legends, parables, etc., which are not long afterwards commented upon by the Prāksta bhāsyas and the cūrnis and next by the Samsksta vșttis in fuller perspective. At the same time, there are instances where the Nir yuktigāthās are partly (or wholly and sometimes inextricably) mixed up with those of bhāşyas12. At any rate, the mūla-bhāsya on the Avašyaka which alludes to Sivabhūti, is definitely anterior to the Viseș= Āvasyaka-bhāşya. (This exonerates Jinabhadra gani !)
Posterior to the Viseș= Āvasyaka-bhāşya, the Āvašyaka-cūrni (c. A. D. 600650), while explaining the relevant older bhāsya-gāthās, narrates the Šivabhūti episode at some length, and, at one other place, classes the monks of the five sects,
-the Ajivaka, Tāpasa, Parivrājaka, Tatkşaņika (Buddhist), and 'Boţiya'-as avandya, unworthy of paying obeisance. 13 A verse, plausibly an interpolation, in the Ogha-niryukti (main text c. early 6th cent. A. D.) interprets a visual encounter on one's way with a Cakracara 14, Panduranga (Sivaite monk) and Boţika as augering uppropitious, the worst of them all being Boţika, meeting whom would consequence in death 15 ! This interpolation, however, could be of a date as early as the seventh or the eighth century; for contempt toward the Boţika is also noticeable in the Sütra-kṛtānga-curņi (c. last quarter of the 7th cent. A. D.)18, and what is more, still earlier in the cūrni by Agastyasimha on the Dasavaikālika-sutra (c. A.D. 650)17. Incidentally, Bāņa-bhatta, in the Harşa-carita (c. early 7th cent, A. D.), explicitly refers to an episode of visual encounter of a nagnāțaka to prince Harşavardhana at one place and prince's looked upon as inauspicious, even prognosticative of death18 ! It is then clear that, aside from the Svetāmbaras, the brahmanists of the period also believed that the visual confrontation with a nude Jaina monk (kşapana) is unpropitious.
Among the early literary notices on Boţika, the last is perhaps by Haribhadra sūri. In his Boţika-pratiședhal' which may perhaps be the same as his Boţikānirāsa 20 also gives the characteristics of Boţika21 not applicable to the Digambara but to the Yāpaniya sect. 32
None of these sources, however, define or explain what 'Boţikā' means. The term may mean "polluted” or “corrupt". The verb 'boțavun' in the current

Page #3

A Propos of the Boţika Sect
133
Gujarati means 'to pollute'. The Sārtha Gujarāti Jodonikosa28 derives the word from the desya 'bota 24 whereas the Prāksta is “Bodia" and not "Boyțiä”. So Professor Harivallabh Bhayani suggested another current Gujarāti word “boļavun" to shave as a source-word and "Bodia" and its Sanskritized form "Boţika" simply meaning "shaven” or by extension, nude. 26
But the meaning of the term glossed above does not go far in explaining the characteristic features and doctrinal positions of the Boţika sect. A statement in the Ācārānga-cūrņi (c. late 3rd quarter of the 7th cent. A. D.), cited by Muni Jambuvijaya, somewhat illumines the problem. 26 According to this commentary, the Bodiyas are those whose only possession is their body (šarira-parigrahi)27 meaning thereby that the Boţika monks practicised nudity, and they received in and ate food from their folded palms (pāņi-puța-bhoji), which, by implication, meant the rejection of begging bowl, the use of which the monastic practice of the protoSvetāmbara friars allowed. However, the definition of the term Botika, if this feature alone is considered, can equally apply to the Digambara monks. That the Cūrni's succinct but pointed description applies to the friars of the Yāpaniya order is clear from the Yāpaniya work Ārādhanā of Sivārya (c. 6th cent. A. D.), the author specifically declaring himself to be 'pāņi-tala-bhoji'.28 The early Yāpaniyas, it seems, were particular in stressing this specific feature of their practice since the Northern Yāpaniya monks, unlike their Digambara counterpart, often bore the epithet 'ärya' (as in Sivārya's lineage) or vācaka, kşamāśramana, etc. as their early Gupta inscriptions (c. A. D. 370) from Vidiśā would tend to suggest. 29 There the friar concerned is expressly called "pani-pātrika”, the one who uses palms as bowl. The Yāpaniyas and the Digambaras shared two monastic features in common; strict nudity, and almost absolute non-possession for friars. But the Yāpaniyas recognized the same early āgamas which are the part of the Svetāmbara canon; and hence there was no doctrinal difference between the Svetāmbaras and the Yāpaniyas unlike Digambaras and these two sects.
However, the secessionist Sivabhūti, the originator of the Yapaniya sect, was not Digambara but Svetāmbara. Svetāmbaras for long did not know about the existence of the Digambara sect and their different doctrinal views. Hence by the term Boţika they could not have meant Digambara but Yāpaniya. According to the earlier part of the Sthavirāvali (hagiological list) of the Paryuşaņā-kalpa, 30 he was the disciple of Ārya Dhanagiri and grand disciple of Arya Phalgumitra in the line of the illustrious of Arya Vajra; and, according to the later additional part (c. A. D. 503/516)81 of the selfsame sthavirāvali, Sivabhūti had a confrére Ajja Kanha, Ārya Kļşņa.3% There is, however, no hint there about Sivabhūti's secession from the main stream. In point of fact, his disciple-Arya Saņdila-onwards the line of pontiffs continues till it ends with Ārya Sandila (or Skandila) who had presided over the Mathurā Synod (c. A. D. 363) :

Page #4

134
M. A. Dhaky & Sagarmal Jain
Ārya Vajra
Ārya Ratha
Arya Puşyagiri
Arya Phalgumitra
Arya Dhanagiri
Arya Sivabhūti
Arya Krsna (ob. before K. E. 95)
Arya Bhadra
Ārya Saņdila (or Skandila)
(c. A. D. 363)
From the sthavirāvali it is clear that Arya Sivabhūti was a senior confrere of Ārya Krsna as against the impression carried in Jinabhadra gani's narration, which makes Ārya Krsna "guru” and Sivabhūti “sisya”, a mistake in fact had been made by the earlier bhāsya. Significantly, while the śvetāmbara commentators denigrate Sivabhūti, 'the Digambara Jaina work Bhāvapāhuda (Bhāvaprābhsta, c. late 8th cent. A.D. or later), 33 ascribed to Kundakundācārya, extalls Sivabhūti for his bhāvavisuddhi by tusa-bhāşa. 84 Since no Digambara pontiff with the appelation of Sivabhūti is known, it is very likely that Bhāvapāhuda's Sivabh iti is probably identical with the separatist Sivabhuti of the Svetāmbara sources, who was most welcome to the Digambara sect since he had insisted on nudity and absolute nonpossession.
As for the date of Arya Sivabhūti, since he is fisth after Āiya Vajra (c. 1st cent. A.D.) in the succession list, he may be ascribed to c. 2nd 3rd cent. A. D. The Mathurā Šilāpatta (stone plaque) dated to the 95th year of the Kusāņa Era very reverentially depicts " Kanha samana (Krsna Sramaņa or Arya Krsna)”. 85 The date of the silāpațța in terms of Christian Era variously can be A.D. 200-205, or 223, or 238, depending on the year from which the Era of Kanişka is reckoned or

Page #5

A Propos of the Boţika Sect
135
computed.36 In any case, the traditional date of V.N.S. 609/A.D. 132 for the Boţika schisni given by the bhāşya and maintained by Jinabhadra gani does not seem accurate. 87
The Mathurā šilāpațţa of Arya Kțsņa represents the guru-mūrti, and the presence inside the depiction of Nāgarāja shows that some years had already elapsed after the demise of the pontiff Ārya Krsna. Under the circumstances, the Sivabhūti schism ultimately may have taken place some time late in the last quarter of the second century A.D. at the latest.
We may note, in passing, the date given by Devasena in his Darśanasāra88 for the origination of the Yāpaniya sect: According to which it was founded by Śrikalaša, a Svetāmbara pontiff, in V.S. 675 (A.D. 619), or, as the alternate reading says, in V.S. 205/A.D. 159, at Kalyāņa.39 Kalyāna was the capital of the Cālukyas from the days of Āhavamalla Someśvara I who was enthroned in A.D. 1044. Nothing, however, is known from the historical records about that town before the days of the Cälukyas. And the date, at least A.D. 619 is much farther afield from the truth. Devasena for certain was in darkness about the origin of the Yāpaniya sect. For all sects (excepting for his own), he not only conjures up an historical wrong perspective but, the worst of all, a highly sectarian and venomous standpoint also of which Śrutasāgara (15th cent. A.D.) and Ratnanandi (16th-17th cent. A.D.) were heirs. 40 There are no parallels in pre-medieval Švetāmbara literature to the writings of the last two authors. 41
Notes and References 1. The available niryuktis have been ascribed by late Muni Punyavijaya to
(the so-called) Bhadrabāhu II, brother of the astronomer Varāhmihira (c. early 6th cent. A.D.), according to the Jaina writers of the Solanki period. While the existence of Bhadrabāhu II cannot be proven, nor is there any real ground to so suppose, the niryuktis can of course be ascribed to c. A.D. 525, or inside years not long after the Valabhi Synod II (c. A.D. 503/516), with the qualification that they partly draw on the one hand from the floating samgrahaņis compiled between the third and the fifth century A.D., and on the other hand also contain verses which may have been interpolated between the sixth and the eighth century A.D. The Sthānānga-sūtra (c. 3rd quarter of the 4th cent. A.D.), the Aupapātika-sūtra (c. 3rd cent. A.D.), and the Avašyaka-nir yukti (c. A.D. 525) in particular take notice of the seven nihnavas. The subsequent exegesis elaborate upon the original succinctly stated information in the aforenoted works.

Page #6

136
M. A. Dhaky & Sagarmal Jain
3.
Jinabhadra gani kşamāśramaņa apparently had passed away in c. A.D. 594. He had written the commentary in Sanskrit on his Vises- Ävašyaka. bhäsya which he had left unfinished before death. Also the Visesanavati and the Jitakalpabhāsya were compiled before the Vises - Avasyakabhāsya. So the plausible date of composition of the Viseș=Āvašyakabhāşya could be c. A.D. 585 or at most a few years later on average computation. This is the stock view reflected in most of the current Svetāmbara Jaina writings. The writers were under double delusion in that they mistook the Yāpaniya like the Aradhanā of Sivārya (c. 5th-6th cent. A.D,) and the Mülācāra of Vaţtakare (c. 6th-7th cent. A.D.) as of Digambara affiliation (as did most, and still do many, Digambara writers themselves despite late A.N. Upadhye as well as late Pt. Nathuram Premi's investigations). The current historical investigations on the major early schisms in the Nirgrantha Church had, therefore, gone completely astray, the conclusions reached were absolutely erroneous, and all these writings have only served to mislead both old and new generations of scholars including Western and the Japanese. For the latest, among those who took "Boţika" as “Digambara", cf. Jagadish Chandra Jain and Mohanlal Mehta, Jaina Sahitya kā Brhad Itihāsa (Hindi), Pt. 2, Varanasi 1966, p. 205. One other factor that arose their anger was Jinabhadra's defence on the āgamic position of the sequential occurrence of perception and cognition for an omniscient. The Doctrines of the Jainas, first edition, reprint, Delhi 1978, p. 50: “The Svetāmbara report (Av. nijj 418 a) on the heresy committed by Bodiya Sivabhūti in the year 609 after MV, who wanted the Jina-kappa (Jina-kalpa) to be made generally acknowledged and who himself accepted it notwithstanding the warnings of his guru. Originally, however, this was nothing to do with the Digambaras and was related to them only later". Cf. “Prastāvanā" (Gujarāti) Ayaranga-suttam (Pt. 1), Jaina-AgamaSeries Vol. 2, Sri Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyālaya, Bombay 1977, p. 49. The first of these verses gives the date of the Boţika schism at Rathavirapura and the next verse ascribes it to Botika Sivabhūti the Heretic, and reports that this heresy came into being at Rathavirapura. In the next verses figure a hint as to a dialogue between Sivabhüti and Ārya Krsna at Rathavirapura and to Kauņdinya and Kotivira, two supporters and disciples of Sivaonati.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Page #7

A Propos of the Boţika Sect
137 छन्वाससताइं णवुत्तराई तइया सिद्धि गतस्स वीरस्स । तो बोडियाण दिट्ठी रधवीरपुरे समुप्पण्णा ॥३०३२॥ ऊहाए पण्णत्तं बोडियसिवभूतिउत्तरेहि इमं । मिच्छइंसणमिणमो रधवीरपुरे समुप्पणं ॥३०३३।। रधवीरपुरं गगरं दीवगमुज्जाण मज्जकण्हे य। सिवभूतिस्सुवहिम्मी पुच्छा थेराण कधणा य ॥३०३४॥ बोडियसिवभूईओ बोडियलिंगस्स होति उप्पत्ती। कोण्डिण्णकोट्टवीरा परंपरप्फासउप्पण्णा ॥३०३५॥
-विशेषावश्यकभाष्य
It seems that all four verses apparently are quotes from the earlier bhāsya-commentaries. The last two at least have been called “bhāsyagāthās" or "sangraha-gäthās" by commentators. The basic verses are followed by a long narrative by Jinabhadra gani (up to vs. 3093) on how
it all eventualized. 9. Cf. above vs. 3032. The A.D. conversion is based on Harmann Jacobi's
rackoning B.C. 477 as the year of Vira-nirvāņa. 10. This is just a guess; it may not be right. 11. Cf. Muni Punyavijaya (Gujarāti), “Chedasūtrakāra and Niryuktikāra,"
Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya Rajata-Mahotsava-Grantha, Bombay 1940,
p. 191. Muni Punyavijaya had regarded Botika as Digambara. 12. For instance the niryukti and the bhāşya of the Brhat-kalpa sūtra and of
the Nisitha-sutra. 13. किं च, इमेवि पंच ण वंदियवा समणसद्देवि सति, जहा आजीवण तावसा परिव्वायगा तच्चणिया
बोडिया समणा वा इमं सासणं पडिवन्ना, ण य ते अन्नतित्थे ण य सतित्थे जे वि सतित्थे न प्रतिज्ञामणपालयन्ति ते वि पंच पासत्थादी ण वंदितव्वा । (For discussion, cf. Mohanlal Mehta, Jaina Sāhitya kā Brhad Itihāsa (Hindi), Pt. 3, Parsvanātha Vidyasrama Sodha Samsthāna, Varanasi 1967,
p. 302.) 14. The meaning of the term is unclear to us. It may perhaps mean a monk
of a sect whose practice was to progress circularly on his way. 15. For discussion see Jain & Mehta, Brhad., Pt. 2, p. 205. 16. तमिति तं अत्तयाए पसंवुडं रोयमाणं, एगे ण सव्वे, समंता भासंति परिभासंति, आजीवकप्रायाः
अन्यतीथिकाः, सुत्तं अणागतोभासियं च काऊण बोडिगा। and : ते इति आजीविकाः बोडियादयो ये चोद्दिश्यभोजिनः पाखण्डाः। also :
18

Page #8

138
M. A. Dhaky & Sagarmal Jain प्रतिलभ्य ज्ञान-दर्शन-चारित्रवन्तं धर्म प्रतिलभ्य तीर्थकरोपदेशाद् जमालिवद् आत्मोत्कर्षदोषाद् विनश्यन्ति, गोदामाहिलावसानाः सर्वे निवाः आत्मोत्कर्षाद विनष्टाः बोटिकाश्च । (Ed. Muni Sri Punyavijayaji, Sayagadangasutta, Prakrit Text Society
Series No. 19, Ahmedabad 1975, pp. 90, 92, and 219.) 17. पुणो विसेसो जिणदेसिते, ण बोडिग णिण्हगादिसच्छंदगाहे ॥
(Ed. Muni Punyavijaya, Dasakaliyasuttam, Prakrit Text Society Series No. 17, Ahmedabad 1973, p. 256.) Cf. Harsacarita v; also see v. S. Agrawal, Haryacarita : Eka Samskrtika Adhyayana (Hindi), Patna 1964, pp. 90. 109. Agrawal identifies the nagnāțaka of Bāna bhatta with Yāpaniya monk. Earlier than Bāņa, in Visakhadatta's Samskrta play, the Mudrārākyasa, similar hateful attitude toward the kşapanaka (nude Jaina monk) is evinced as noted by Agrawal : (For the text, cf. Kane, fifth edition, Motilal Banarasidas,
Varanasi 1965, p. 20.) 19. As the name suggests, the work deals with the refutation of the Botika
(monastic) practices. 20. This is the view of Pt. Dalsukh Malvania he expressed during a discus
sion with the first author. We have not seen this work. 21. For details see in this volume the article in Hindi on this subject by Pt.
Malvania. 22. Ibid., pp. 68-73.
Gujarat Vidyapith, 5th edition, Ahmedabad 1967. 24. Ibid., p. 109. 25. During a personal discussion with the first author. 26. "आह-जइ एवं अप्पबहुअणुथुल्लचेयणाचेयणदव्वआदाणातो परिग्गहो भवति तेण जे इमे सरीर
मित्तपरिग्गहा पाणिपुडभोइणो ते णाम अपरिग्गहा, तं जहा--उदुडग-बोडिया(य)-सरक्खमादि तेसिं अप्पादिपरिग्गहवियप्पा णत्थि, तं च [5]परिग्गहं भत्त (वतं) लद्धं सेसाणि वि वयाणि तेसिं भविस्संति, वलि(ति)त्ते य संजमो, ततो मोक्ख इ [ति । तं च ण भवति, जम्हा-एतदेवेगेसि महब्भयं भवति [सू० १५४] जे बोडियादि आउक्काया रसगादि तिविति (आउक्काय-उद्देसिगादि गिण्हेंति ?) तेसि तदेव सरीरं महब्भयं । जे वि आउक्काइयउद्देसियादि परिहरंति जावणिज्जाइणो ते वि अपडिलेहितं भुंजंति अपडिलेहिते य ठाणादीणि करेंति ।"--आचाराङ्गचूर्णि (Cf. Āyārāngasuttam, "prastāvanā" (Gujarāti), Jaina Āgama Series 2, pt. 1, Bombay 1977, p. 49)
Ibid. 28. For the citation and the discussion thereof, of. Nathooram Premi,
"Yapaniyon-ka Sahitya" (Hindi), Jaina Sahitya aur Itihāsa, Bombay 1956, pp. 68-69. G. S. Gai, "Three Inscriptions of Ramagupta," Journal of the Oriental Institute, Vol. XVIII, pp. 250-251.
23.
27.

Page #9
. 139 A Propos of the Botika Sect 30. Ed. Muni Darsanavijaya, Sri Pattavali-Samuccaya. Sri-Caritra Smaraka Granthamala, No. 22, Viramgam 1933, pp. 8 and 10. 31. १८--थेरस्स णं अज्जधणगिरिस्स वासिट्टसगुतस्स अज्जसिव भुइ थेरे अंतेवासी कुच्छसगुत्ते / १९--थेरस्स णं अज्जसिवभूइस्स कुच्छसगुत्तस्य अज्जभद्दे थेरे अन्तेवासी कासवगुत्ते / and : वन्दामि फग्गुमित्तं च, गोयमं धणगिरि च वासिढें / कुच्छं सिवभूइम्पिय, कोसिय दुज्जत कण्हे अ॥१॥ 32. This goes against the Avasyaka literature's statement that Arya Sivabhuti was a disciple of Arya Kssna. The Sthaviravali being about five centu ries earlier, for is certainly more reliable on this point. 33. Pt. Pannalal Sahityacharya, Kundakunda-bharati, Faltan 1970, p. 263. 34. Jag staat aangt FETTETET I णामेण य सिवभूई केवलणाणी फुडं जाओ / / -भावपाहुड 53 Cf. Vincent A. Smith, The Jain Stupa and Other Antiquities of Mathura, Allahabad 1901, Plate XVII, Fig. 2. 36. It is now more or less certain that the Kusina Era is not identical with the Saka Era and hence did not commence in A.D. 78. The latest compu tation by G. V. Mitterwallner favours A. D. 143 for K. E. to begin. 37. It would be nearer the truth if the V. N. S. date is later than B. C. 477. Recent researches on the Buddha Nirvana date favour a century later than the traditional B. C. 483. If this can be established, V. N. S., too, will come down by a century, in which case the Botika schism may have to he dated to c. A. D. 232. The Kanha-Samana plaque of K. E. 95, on Mitterwallner reckoning, is to be dated to A. D. 238. (The latter two dates are close enough !) 38. Ed. Nathooram Premi, Bombay V. S. 1974 (A. D. 1917), p. 13. 39. REATO ATOOT FETT 17 37 TTC जावणियसंघभावो सिरिकलसादो हु सेवडदो // 29 // 40. For a rejoinder, cf. Muni Kalyanavijaya Sramana Bhagavana Mahavira (Hindi), Jalor V.S. 1998 (A.D. 1948), pp. 307-318. Muni Kalyana vijaya, as most others had, confused Botika with the Digambaras, and to that extent (and also due to a few other historical errors) his rejoinder suffers. 41. The existence of the Digambara sect as such was unknown to the Svetam baras, who otherwise knew Botika (Yapaniya) against whom of course they were bitter. Since Yapaniya sect had for long disappeared in North, the later Svetambara writers confused "Botika" with "Digambara" because of the naganya (nudity) and their being pani-tala-bhoji or using palms as a begging bowl.