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 BOTIKA SECT M. A. Dhaky Sagarmal Jain Up to the period of the nir yuktis (c. A. D. 5251), the Svetambara 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 ksamasramana in the Vises = Avasyaka-bhasya (c. A. D. 5853), presents an historical as well as quasi-historical account of these traditional seven, plus an additional or the eighth heretic, Sivabhuti. While the preceding more ancient seven nihnavas ultimately had been proven inconsequential, the eighth one,--the heresiarch Sivabhuti, --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 drsti (Bodia ditthi)" by the post-agamic Svetambara commentators. The term "Botika" ("Bodiya" or "Bodiyana" in Jaina Maharastri and Bodiga" or "Bodia" in late Ardha-Magadhi) has been taken to mean "Digambara" by current Svetambara writers, 4 a misinterpretation that has been perpetrated presumably from the time of the late medieval Svetambara writings onward, and had of late attracted unwarranted attacks on Jinabhadra gani ksamaramana 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 gini, th: term "Bodiya" is mentioned in the Bhasya (c. A. D. 550-575) on the Avasyaka-sutra;8 the bhasya-gatha, moreover, reports the date of the origination of "Bodiya ditghi" to be V. N. S. 609/A.D. 1329. The still earlier Mula-bhasya (C. A. D. 550) briefly alludes to a question asked by Sivabhuti to Arya Krsna 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 gani report). The latter gatha also figures in the Uttaradhyayana-niryukti (c. A. D. 525) 11. The gatha, as found in the mulabhasya of the Avasyaka-sutra, may have been taken from the Uttaradhyayana-nir yukti or, equally, it may have drifted to the selfsame niryukti from the mulabhasya. At any rate the gatha 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 Praksta bhasyas and the curnis and next by the Samsksta vsttis in fuller perspective. At the same time, there are instances where the Nir yuktigathas are partly (or wholly and sometimes inextricably) mixed up with those of bhasyas12. At any rate, the mula-bhasya on the Avasyaka which alludes to Sivabhuti, is definitely anterior to the Vises= Avasyaka-bhasya. (This exonerates Jinabhadra gani !) Posterior to the Vises= Avasyaka-bhasya, the Avasyaka-curni (c. A. D. 600650), while explaining the relevant older bhasya-gathas, narrates the Sivabhuti episode at some length, and, at one other place, classes the monks of the five sects, -the Ajivaka, Tapasa, Parivrajaka, Tatksanika (Buddhist), and 'Botiya'-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 Botika as augering uppropitious, the worst of them all being Botika, 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 Botika is also noticeable in the Sutra-krtanga-curni (c. last quarter of the 7th cent. A. D.)18, and what is more, still earlier in the curni by Agastyasimha on the Dasavaikalika-sutra (c. A.D. 650)17. Incidentally, Bana-bhatta, in the Harsa-carita (c. early 7th cent, A. D.), explicitly refers to an episode of visual encounter of a nagnataka to prince Harsavardhana at one place and prince's looked upon as inauspicious, even prognosticative of death18 ! It is then clear that, aside from the Svetambaras, the brahmanists of the period also believed that the visual confrontation with a nude Jaina monk (ksapana) is unpropitious. Among the early literary notices on Botika, the last is perhaps by Haribhadra suri. In his Botika-pratisedhal' which may perhaps be the same as his Botikanirasa 20 also gives the characteristics of Botika21 not applicable to the Digambara but to the Yapaniya sect. 32 None of these sources, however, define or explain what 'Botika' means. The term may mean "polluted" or "corrupt". The verb 'botavun' in the current

Page #3
A Propos of the Botika Sect 133 Gujarati means 'to pollute'. The Sartha Gujarati Jodonikosa28 derives the word from the desya 'bota 24 whereas the Praksta is "Bodia" and not "Boytia". So Professor Harivallabh Bhayani suggested another current Gujarati word "bolavun" to shave as a source-word and "Bodia" and its Sanskritized form "Botika" 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 Botika sect. A statement in the Acaranga-curni (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 (sarira-parigrahi)27 meaning thereby that the Botika monks practicised nudity, and they received in and ate food from their folded palms (pani-puta-bhoji), which, by implication, meant the rejection of begging bowl, the use of which the monastic practice of the protoSvetambara friars allowed. However, the definition of the term Botika, if this feature alone is considered, can equally apply to the Digambara monks. That the Curni's succinct but pointed description applies to the friars of the Yapaniya order is clear from the Yapaniya work Aradhana of Sivarya (c. 6th cent. A. D.), the author specifically declaring himself to be 'pani-tala-bhoji'.28 The early Yapaniyas, it seems, were particular in stressing this specific feature of their practice since the Northern Yapaniya monks, unlike their Digambara counterpart, often bore the epithet 'arya' (as in Sivarya's lineage) or vacaka, ksamasramana, etc. as their early Gupta inscriptions (c. A. D. 370) from Vidisa would tend to suggest. 29 There the friar concerned is expressly called "pani-patrika", the one who uses palms as bowl. The Yapaniyas and the Digambaras shared two monastic features in common; strict nudity, and almost absolute non-possession for friars. But the Yapaniyas recognized the same early agamas which are the part of the Svetambara canon; and hence there was no doctrinal difference between the Svetambaras and the Yapaniyas unlike Digambaras and these two sects. However, the secessionist Sivabhuti, the originator of the Yapaniya sect, was not Digambara but Svetambara. Svetambaras for long did not know about the existence of the Digambara sect and their different doctrinal views. Hence by the term Botika they could not have meant Digambara but Yapaniya. According to the earlier part of the Sthaviravali (hagiological list) of the Paryusana-kalpa, 30 he was the disciple of Arya 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 sthaviravali, Sivabhuti had a confrere Ajja Kanha, Arya Klsna.3% There is, however, no hint there about Sivabhuti's secession from the main stream. In point of fact, his disciple-Arya Sandila-onwards the line of pontiffs continues till it ends with Arya Sandila (or Skandila) who had presided over the Mathura Synod (c. A. D. 363) :

Page #4
134 M. A. Dhaky & Sagarmal Jain Arya Vajra Arya Ratha Arya Pusyagiri Arya Phalgumitra Arya Dhanagiri Arya Sivabhuti Arya Krsna (ob. before K. E. 95) Arya Bhadra Arya Sandila (or Skandila) (c. A. D. 363) From the sthaviravali it is clear that Arya Sivabhuti was a senior confrere of Arya Krsna as against the impression carried in Jinabhadra gani's narration, which makes Arya Krsna "guru" and Sivabhuti "sisya", a mistake in fact had been made by the earlier bhasya. Significantly, while the svetambara commentators denigrate Sivabhuti, 'the Digambara Jaina work Bhavapahuda (Bhavaprabhsta, c. late 8th cent. A.D. or later), 33 ascribed to Kundakundacarya, extalls Sivabhuti for his bhavavisuddhi by tusa-bhasa. 84 Since no Digambara pontiff with the appelation of Sivabhuti is known, it is very likely that Bhavapahuda's Sivabh iti is probably identical with the separatist Sivabhuti of the Svetambara sources, who was most welcome to the Digambara sect since he had insisted on nudity and absolute nonpossession. As for the date of Arya Sivabhuti, since he is fisth after Aiya Vajra (c. 1st cent. A.D.) in the succession list, he may be ascribed to c. 2nd 3rd cent. A. D. The Mathura Silapatta (stone plaque) dated to the 95th year of the Kusana Era very reverentially depicts " Kanha samana (Krsna Sramana or Arya Krsna)". 85 The date of the silapatta 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 Kaniska is reckoned or

Page #5
A Propos of the Botika Sect 135 computed.36 In any case, the traditional date of V.N.S. 609/A.D. 132 for the Botika schisni given by the bhasya and maintained by Jinabhadra gani does not seem accurate. 87 The Mathura silapatta of Arya Ktsna represents the guru-murti, and the presence inside the depiction of Nagaraja shows that some years had already elapsed after the demise of the pontiff Arya Krsna. Under the circumstances, the Sivabhuti 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 Darsanasara88 for the origination of the Yapaniya sect: According to which it was founded by Srikalasa, a Svetambara pontiff, in V.S. 675 (A.D. 619), or, as the alternate reading says, in V.S. 205/A.D. 159, at Kalyana.39 Kalyana was the capital of the Calukyas from the days of Ahavamalla Somesvara I who was enthroned in A.D. 1044. Nothing, however, is known from the historical records about that town before the days of the Calukyas. 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 Yapaniya 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 Srutasagara (15th cent. A.D.) and Ratnanandi (16th-17th cent. A.D.) were heirs. 40 There are no parallels in pre-medieval Svetambara 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) Bhadrabahu II, brother of the astronomer Varahmihira (c. early 6th cent. A.D.), according to the Jaina writers of the Solanki period. While the existence of Bhadrabahu 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 samgrahanis 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 Sthananga-sutra (c. 3rd quarter of the 4th cent. A.D.), the Aupapatika-sutra (c. 3rd cent. A.D.), and the Avasyaka-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 ksamasramana apparently had passed away in c. A.D. 594. He had written the commentary in Sanskrit on his Vises- Avasyaka. bhasya which he had left unfinished before death. Also the Visesanavati and the Jitakalpabhasya were compiled before the Vises - Avasyakabhasya. So the plausible date of composition of the Vises=Avasyakabhasya 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 Svetambara Jaina writings. The writers were under double delusion in that they mistook the Yapaniya like the Aradhana of Sivarya (c. 5th-6th cent. A.D,) and the Mulacara of Vattakare (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 "Botika" as "Digambara", cf. Jagadish Chandra Jain and Mohanlal Mehta, Jaina Sahitya ka Brhad Itihasa (Hindi), Pt. 2, Varanasi 1966, p. 205. One other factor that arose their anger was Jinabhadra's defence on the agamic 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 Svetambara report (Av. nijj 418 a) on the heresy committed by Bodiya Sivabhuti 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. "Prastavana" (Gujarati) Ayaranga-suttam (Pt. 1), Jaina-AgamaSeries Vol. 2, Sri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay 1977, p. 49. The first of these verses gives the date of the Botika schism at Rathavirapura and the next verse ascribes it to Botika Sivabhuti the Heretic, and reports that this heresy came into being at Rathavirapura. In the next verses figure a hint as to a dialogue between Sivabhuti and Arya Krsna at Rathavirapura and to Kaundinya and Kotivira, two supporters and disciples of Sivaonati. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Page #7
A Propos of the Botika Sect 137 chanvAsasatAiM NavuttarAI taiyA siddhi gatassa vIrassa / to boDiyANa diTThI radhavIrapure samuppaNNA // 3032 // UhAe paNNattaM boDiyasivabhUtiuttarehi imaM / micchaiMsaNamiNamo radhavIrapure samuppaNaM // 3033 / / radhavIrapuraM gagaraM dIvagamujjANa majjakaNhe y| sivabhUtissuvahimmI pucchA therANa kadhaNA ya // 3034 // boDiyasivabhUIo boDiyaliMgassa hoti uppttii| koNDiNNakoTTavIrA paraMparapphAsauppaNNA // 3035 // -vizeSAvazyakabhASya It seems that all four verses apparently are quotes from the earlier bhasya-commentaries. The last two at least have been called "bhasyagathas" or "sangraha-gathas" 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-nirvana. 10. This is just a guess; it may not be right. 11. Cf. Muni Punyavijaya (Gujarati), "Chedasutrakara and Niryuktikara," 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 bhasya of the Brhat-kalpa sutra and of the Nisitha-sutra. 13. kiM ca, imevi paMca Na vaMdiyavA samaNasaddevi sati, jahA AjIvaNa tAvasA parivvAyagA taccaNiyA boDiyA samaNA vA imaM sAsaNaM paDivannA, Na ya te annatitthe Na ya satitthe je vi satitthe na pratijJAmaNapAlayanti te vi paMca pAsatthAdI Na vaMditavvA / (For discussion, cf. Mohanlal Mehta, Jaina Sahitya ka Brhad Itihasa (Hindi), Pt. 3, Parsvanatha Vidyasrama Sodha Samsthana, 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. tamiti taM attayAe pasaMvuDaM royamANaM, ege Na savve, samaMtA bhAsaMti paribhAsaMti, AjIvakaprAyAH anyatIthikAH, suttaM aNAgatobhAsiyaM ca kAUNa boddigaa| and : te iti AjIvikAH boDiyAdayo ye coddizyabhojinaH paakhnnddaaH| also : 18

Page #8
138 M. A. Dhaky & Sagarmal Jain pratilabhya jJAna-darzana-cAritravantaM dharma pratilabhya tIrthakaropadezAd jamAlivad AtmotkarSadoSAd vinazyanti, godAmAhilAvasAnAH sarve nivAH AtmotkarSAda vinaSTAH boTikAzca / (Ed. Muni Sri Punyavijayaji, Sayagadangasutta, Prakrit Text Society Series No. 19, Ahmedabad 1975, pp. 90, 92, and 219.) 17. puNo viseso jiNadesite, Na boDiga NiNhagAdisacchaMdagAhe // (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 nagnataka of Bana bhatta with Yapaniya monk. Earlier than Bana, in Visakhadatta's Samskrta play, the Mudrarakyasa, similar hateful attitude toward the ksapanaka (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. "Aha-jai evaM appabahuaNuthullaceyaNAceyaNadavvaAdANAto pariggaho bhavati teNa je ime sarIra mittapariggahA pANipuDabhoiNo te NAma apariggahA, taM jahA--uduDaga-boDiyA(ya)-sarakkhamAdi tesiM appAdipariggahaviyappA Natthi, taM ca [5]pariggahaM bhatta (vataM) laddhaM sesANi vi vayANi tesiM bhavissaMti, vali(ti)tte ya saMjamo, tato mokkha i [ti / taM ca Na bhavati, jamhA-etadevegesi mahabbhayaM bhavati [sU0 154] je boDiyAdi AukkAyA rasagAdi tiviti (AukkAya-uddesigAdi giNheMti ?) tesi tadeva sarIraM mahabbhayaM / je vi AukkAiyauddesiyAdi pariharaMti jAvaNijjAiNo te vi apaDilehitaM bhuMjaMti apaDilehite ya ThANAdINi kareMti |"--aacaaraanggcuurnni (Cf. Ayarangasuttam, "prastavana" (Gujarati), Jaina Agama 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 Itihasa, 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. 18--therassa NaM ajjadhaNagirissa vAsiTTasagutassa ajjasiva bhui there aMtevAsI kucchasagutte / 19--therassa NaM ajjasivabhUissa kucchasaguttasya ajjabhadde there antevAsI kAsavagutte / and : vandAmi phaggumittaM ca, goyamaM dhaNagiri ca vAsiDheM / kucchaM sivabhUimpiya, kosiya dujjata kaNhe a||1|| 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 NAmeNa ya sivabhUI kevalaNANI phuDaM jAo / / -bhAvapAhuDa 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 jAvaNiyasaMghabhAvo sirikalasAdo hu sevaDado // 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.