Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism

Author(s): S N Shrivastava
Publisher: Rekha Publication Gorakhpur
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/006576/1

Page #1

A STUDY IN THE ORIGINS
AND DEVELOPMENT OF JAINISM
S. N. Srivastava
Rekha Publication
Gorakhpur

Page #2

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
QF
Prof. Sachchidanand Srivastava
Dept. of Ancient History, Archaeology and Culture D.D.U. Gorakhpur University,
Gorakhpur-273009 U.P.
Ph.D.
Rekha Publication Gorakhpur

Page #3

Published By:
Rekha Publication
Ashok Nagar, Humayunpur North Gorakhpur-273015
C Srivastava, S. N.
Edition:
Price:
Ist 2002
Rs. 325
Laser Composing & Design By:
Rekha Publication
Ashok Nagar, Humayunpur North Gorakhpur-273015, U. P.
Printed By: Rastriya Printers
Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahadara
Delhi-32

Page #4

Dedicated
To The Sacred Memory
of
My Parents Surya Nath Lal Srivastava
Prema Devi Srivastava

Page #5


Page #6

CONTENTS
Acknowledgement
(i-iv)
Introduction
(v-vi)
1
The Origin, Antiquity and Profile of the Śramaņa Tradition
1-18
2
19-53
The Antiquarian Significance of Some of the Basic Concepts of Jain Philosophy
The Concept of DHARMA and ADHARMA 20-23 The Doctrine of Karma and Transmigration 24-32 Tribal or Non-Aryan Origin
32-36 Śramaņa Origin of the Doctrine of Karma 36-37 and Rebirth The Buddhist Doctrine of Karma and Rebirth 37-41 Jain Kriyãvãda
41-48 Animism
52-53
Socio-Cultural Milieu of the Origin and Development of Jainism
54-71
Early History of Jainism
Rişabha Nãtha Pārśva Nãtha Vardhamãna Mahãvira
72-100 75-79 79-84 84-98

Page #7

5 Gaṇadharas of Mahāvīra
6.
Jain Samgha after Mahāvīra Schisms in the Jain Samgha
The Doctrines of Jainism
Philosophy Jain Ethics
The Astika-Nastika Dichotomy-A Review
General Bibliography
101-113
102-103
103-113
114-133
118-127
128-133
134-138
139-148

Page #8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the very outset I remember my teacher Prof. V. S. Pathak to whom I shall ever remain indebted. He has always been a source of knowledge and inspiration to me from whom, as an uncared surrogate, I derived strength and vitality whenever needed. I have always been yearning for his blessings which have been granted to me not much less than others. The present work is a material efflorescence of his spiritual seeds. I wish to remain down to his feet.
My elder brother Prof. V. B. Rao graciousaly played the role of my Guru without whose affection and indulgence the present work could not have seen the light of the day. His friendly touch courteous behaviour and matured intellectual suggestions have not only bolstered my courage but has also given me the strength to survive by worldly ordeals in direct or rebound manners. Words are failing to express my gratitude to him.
I feel deeply indebted to Prof. Shail nath Chaturvedi who was my teacher in the true sense of the term. Though later I happened to be his colleague, but his elderly affections and inspirations have gone a long way in shaping my intellectural personality.
I am highly indebted to Prof. Mata Prasad Tripathi who has cooperated with me at every step and has always been encouraging me to get the work completed and published as soon as posible. I express my high senge of gratitude to him.
Dr. Ram Pyare Mishra, my old student and presently working as part-time lecturer in the Dept. has rendered great help to me by undertaking the task of proofreading and getting the typing errors corrected. I express my gratitude to him.
And, lastly, I express my all gratitude to one whose name has led us to worship Saraswati, who, being my Dharmachari, has always

Page #9

goaded, encouraged and helped me at every step without apparent encumbrances. Without her help and co-operation the completion of the present work could not have been possible.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava has taken great pain in collecting and re-arranging the written matters and getting it typed & published. His ready services at any call is some thing very valuable. I express my gratitude to him.
Krishna Janmāștami
2000 A. D.
S. N. Srivastava

Page #10

INTRODUCTION
A number of theories regarding the origin of Religion have been propounded by scholars, and almost all of them proceed with the basic assumption that all the religions, which have come into existence in human history so far, have acquired their typical personalities owing to their specific course of historical development. Though generalisation is no more considered to be out of the purview of history, broad generalisations often engulf the particular which history is required to deal with. As such, the origin and development of a particular religion should be inquired in its specific historical perspective. It is satisfying to note that this field of inquiry is no more ignored.
Though several volumes on the history of Jain religion have appeared in past years, the question of the origin and early development of Jainism is still an enigma in ancient Indian history. A critical analysis of modern Jain historiography reveals that the approach of scholars was vitiated because of certain specific reasons. Many of the scholars who took interest in the history of Jainism happen to belong to the Jain community. Owing to their inherent psychological attitude they could not transcend the clouds of sectarian spiritual zeal, and they either blindly took legends for history or consciously advanced arguments based upon flimsy grounds in support of their traditional belief.
On the other hand, the European scholars, who seriously undertook the task of working out the history of ancient Indian religious tradition and whose writings on the Brahmaṇical religio-philosophical tradition are still considered to be standard ones, have, by and large, rejected the early Jain tradition as a product of fiction. They are not prepared to take the antiquity of Jainism beyond Mahāvīra. The tradition of Tirthankaras is not acceptable to them. Even some of them ventured to suggest that Jainism is only an offshoot of Buddhism and that Mahāvīra was an imaginary person whose personality was conceived on the model

Page #11

(iv)
of the Buddha. But a few European scholars, among whom H. Jacobi outstands, genuinely delved into the problem of the early history of Jainism. H. Jacobi rendered invaluable service to Jainology by writing a number of research articles published in the reputed journals of the time as well as Introductions of the Jain Texts published in the two volumes of the S.B.E. series.
He strenuously collected data from the Buddhist and Jain sources and after subjecting them to careful and critical scrutiny convincingly asserted that Parsva Natha, the 23rd Tirthankara of the Jain tradition, was a historical person. He did a sterling job by pointing out the antiquarian significance of some of the basic concepts of Jain philosophy and, thus, paved the way for further researches. It is sad to note that the scholars to follow did not take up the task left by him. They remained busy with traversing the beaten track.
Undoubtedly, the task was in no way very easy. The existing Jain literature does not take us beyond sixth century B.C., leaving the scholars only to speculate about the history of Jainism in pre-Mahāvīra times. At times, some references from the Vedic literature were picked up by scholars and were utilised in support of their conjectures. Instead, attempt ought to have been made in the direction of tracing out the ideological development and stream-lining the interactions between different currents of thoughts during pre-Mahavīra times and their bearing upon the early history of Jainism.
In past few years efforts have been made in this direction by some scholars which have yielded good results. For instance, G.C. Pande has strenuously tried to establish that the Śramana tradition is non-Aryan in origin and its antiquity may be traced back to pre-Rigvedic times and that it has exercised profound influence on the ideological development taking place during later Vedic period. While his contention about the origin of Buddhism is convincing to a great extent, his opinion that the

Page #12

(v)
Śramana tradition is a non-Aryan tradition is not maintainable. V.S. Pathak on the otherhand, has convincingly pleaded on linguistic and other grounds that Šramaņa tradition is non-Vedic Aryan tradition and its antiquity may be traced back to the Indo-Iranian period. The writer of these lines is in full agreement with Pathak's views.
In the present work the problems of the origin, antiquity and profile of the Sramaņa tradition have been exhaustively dealt with. The myth that whatever is non-Vedic is essentially non-Aryan has been exploded. The Aryan culture-complex had various shades, the ritualistic trend, though initially dominant, is one such. Muni of the Rigveda is not a non-Aryan figure, but a representative of the non-Vedic Aryan tradition whose weltanshauung is different from that of the Vedic.
Though much has been written about the doctrine of karma and rebirth and its place in ancient Indian traditions, scholars are not unanimous on the point of its origin and development. While a great number of scholars believe that it was natural outcome of the development of the Vedic ideas in course of time, there are many who plead that the eschatological beliefs of non-Aryan aborigines of the Gangetic Valley were adopted by the Aryans when they forward the suggestion that through ethicisation the primitive eschatological beliefs turned into the doctrine of karma and rebirth and they have given the credit of ethicisation to the Buddha. In the present work this matter has been given exhaustive treatment and it has been demonstrated that it originated and developed in the Śramanic hot-house. The primitive character of the Jain doctrine of karma and its pivotal position in Jain religion is of particular importance in this context. In addition to it, the element of animism in Jain philosophy and the concepts of dharma and adharma, which have great antiquarian significance, have been critically discussed.
The Purăņus are taken to be historical compositions as they are supposed to contain the early tales of the Aryans. Undoubtedly, their

Page #13

(vi)
historical character was somewhat polluted later on but this does not mean that the kernel of truth in them would be rejected outrightly. They need to be carefully examined and utilised in the reconstruction of early history of India. It is somewhat surprising that their evidence has been unhesitatingly utilised in the reconstruction of cultural history of India but the dynastic accounts in them which are of immense historical value have not been given their due importance. Had they been properly scrutinised they would had thrown sufficient light on the early expansion and settlements of the Aryans particularly in the lower Gangetic valley and the regions adjoining Hiamalayana foot-hills. A few have made attempts in this direction of whom Pargiter is the first and foremost but his reconstruction is full of errors and presents a misconceived picture. The evidence of the Puranas indicate that there was an Aryan settlement in the abovementioned region at a very early time.
In the reconstruction of the early history of Śramaņa tradition, particularly of Jainism, the evidence related to the Vratyas has not been taken into account. The texture of the Vratya culture complex appears to have variegated fabric and there are indications that some of them had Sramanic connections.
In the present work an humble attempt has been made to review the early history of Jainism not only in the light of fresh interpretations of the known facts but, also in the light of new facts and their interpretations. The work deals with the history of Jainsim from its beginning to the time of the schism of the Jain Order into Digambara and Svetāmbara sects.

Page #14

The Origin, Antiquity and Profile of the
Śramana Tradition
At least since the third or fourth century B. C. the religiophilosophic culture of India appears to have been divided into two major streams, namely, the Brāhmaṇa and the Śramaņa as is evident from the numerous references of the compound Brāhmaṇa-Śramana in the Pāli texts, Jain scriptures, works of Pãnini and Patañjali, records of the Greek historians and the inscriptions of Asoka'. The tradition of such a bifurcation is corroborated by the division of dharma into pravritti (world accepting) and nivritti (world negating) by Sankarãchãrya. It is further supported by the use of the terms āstika and năstika denoting two major categories of ancient Indian tradition. These two terms have been variously explained but the commonly accepted view is that the ăstikas are those who believe in the authority of the Vedas whereas the năstikas rejected the Vedas as authority (năstiko veda nindakań). Needless to say that the Śramanas held a world view which was entirely different from the worldview of the followers of the Vedic tradition.
Though the Śramaņa is rarely mentioned in the early Brāhmaṇical literature, the first being in the Taittiriya Ārumaka, its profuse use in the Buddhist and Jain literature is conspicuous denoting a specific religious

Page #15

2
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
connotation and has become a nickname of the heretical tradition.
As has been meticulously brought out by many scholars, the Śramaņa tradition had a long history and passed through many stages of development before it could blossom into several schools and sects during the sixth century B.C. Though these schools assumed distinct personalities of their own, apparently quite different from one another, there are certain common essential features which justify their Šramaņa calling. A critical study of these schools and the antecedent developments taken together reveals the following characteristic features of the Śramaņa tradition.
(a)
it believes in wandering as a religious practice leading to the realisation of the highest spiritual goal. it is ascetic.
(b)
(c)
(d)
it holds a theory of rebirth postulating continuity of cyclical nature and regarding death merely a prelude to renewed life. a theory of karna which postulates that karma is the driving force of life and one's present and future existence is determined by the past and present actions respectively. it holds a theory of saṁsāra which postulates that all existing things are in the cycle of endless continuity. it envisages a theory of salvation which postulated, interalia, the cessation of rebirth and, thus, mişery.
(e)
(g)
(h)
it adhered to brahmacharya, having a definite connotation, as an essential exercise of the religious discipline. it did not delve into the problem of the origin of universe and took the world as it is, thus, rendering its attitude to be atheistic and realistic.

Page #16

Origin, Antiquity
3
(i)
it had its own world-view and rejected the authority of the Vedas.
(j)
it is pluralistic.
(k) it considers pleasure seeking, egoism and violence as main evils. Origin and Antiquity
The problem of the origin and antiquity of Śramaṇa tradition has been one of the baffling problems of ancient Indian cultural history. Since, the literature pertaining to the Śramaṇa tradition does not predate the age of the Buddha, it has been a real problem for the historians to work out the pre-Buddhistic history of the Śramaṇa tradition, and more so, of its early reaches. The Jain tradition believes in the existence of pūrva literature in pre-Mahāvīra times, but it is said to have been lost and the portion preserved in the driṣtivada, the twelvth anga, is in its contaminated and altered form. It helps us in no way in reconstructing the early history of the Śramana tradition. Thus, being handicapped by the nonavailability of the Śramana literature, we are left with no alternative but to depend upon the early Brahmanical literature to find out the glimpses of the Śramana tradition, the ideological and philosophical developments in ancient India in order to trace out the Śramanic ideas and their impact on the Indian tradition and, finally, the linguistic study so that we may be able to lay bare the threads of cultural patterns and identify the ideological structure by way of studying the terms in which the meanings are enshrined.
The problem of the origin and antiquity of the Śramana tradition has drawn the attention of scholars here and abroad and has been tackled by them from different angles. The views expressed, so far, in this regard may be classed into three categories.
(a) Śramana tradition is purely non-Aryan tradition

Page #17

4
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
(b)
it originated out of the intellectual ferment and the socio-economic changes during the later Vedic period.
(c) it is purely Aryan but non-Vedic tradition. (a) Since the ideological contents and ontological perspectives of the Šramaņa tradition, mainly consisting of Jainism. Buddhism and Ajivikism, were different from and opposed to the Vedic tradition, it was taken to be non-Vedic tradition by many scholars and its roots were searched in the non-Aryan culture complex of ancient India. Certain basic tenets of the Sramana tradition such as atomism,. doctrine of transmigration, the idea of salvation etc. were taken by some scholars to be continuation of the thought stream of the aborigines of the Gangetic valley.
Commenting on the contribution of the proto-Austroloids to the development of Indian culture S. K. Chatterjee writes, "The bed-rock of Indian civilization is agriculture, and that, in all likelihood in connection with the cultivation of rice, goes back to the Austric proto-Austroloids of India. The germs of the idea of transmigration which has been so potent a force in Indian thought, religion and life, would probably go to this source". Since no traces of yoga are found in the Rigveda’, its existence in the Indus Valley culture is taken as an evidence to suggest that the Śramana tradition had pre-Vedic non-Aryan roots“. The references of muni and yati in the Rigveda and later-vedic texts have been taken as pieces of evidence to prove the existence of alien Šramaņa tradition in the Rigvedic and Pre-Vedic period?.
In fact, vățarasanã muni and yati have been taken to be the representatives of the śramaņa tradition during Vedic and Pre-Vedic period. Vãtarasanã in collocation with Muni has been mentioned at several places, the first being the Kesi Sūkta of the Rigvedal. The reference of the Rigveda, Taittirīya' Āramyaka and Bhõgavata Purīna'' are cited in order to show that their features and practices

Page #18

Origin, Antiquity
5
were alien and hence were out of the pale of Vedic society. Since. the Võtarasană Munis are associated with Śramana in two references, they were readily taken to be belonging to Śramaṇa tradition. Risabha, the first Jain tīrthankara, is said in the Bhāgavata Purāņa to have taken birth as Visņu-incarnate to elucidate the dharma of vatarasanā Śramaṇa risis. On the basis of these reference some scholars believed that there was a continuing tradition of vãtarasanã muni Śramaṇas at least from the Rigvedic age to the time of Bhāgavata Purāņa. G. C. Pandey writes, "However we cannot overlook the possibility of the Bhagavata Purāņa actually having Kesi Sūkta in mind. In any case, it is clearly arguable that the Śramana tradition existed in the Vedic period as an independent. though little known, tradition" Referring to these pieces of evidence. attempt has also been made to take back the antiquity of Jain religion to the Rigvedic period. Some scholars have tried to read the names of some Jain tirthankaras in the epigraphs on Indus clay sealings and identify a human figure on one of them with Jain tirthankara. G. C. Pandey has rigorously tried to draw parallel between the Brahmaṇa tradition and the Śramaṇa tradition and prove that many of the ideas during the later Vedic period are results of the interaction between them12. He attributes the origin of Buddhism' to this interaction and believes that it exercised profound effects on the origin and development of Sãṁkhya and Vedanta11. In this context, attention has been drawn to the institution of mendicancy and is stated that it was quite foreign to the Vedic Aryan society and originated in an environment outside the pale of Aryan culturels.
(b)
Scholars in great number are of the view that the Śramaṇa tradition came into existence during the later Vedic period as a result of changing cultural and historical milieu. It is stated that a new religieux called Śramanas was formed during the days of Yagyavalkya, not long before the time of the Buddha. They were different from both the hermits who practised penance into the woods and the Brahmaṇas who were

Page #19

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
householders'6. The order of the Śramaņas is said to have been 'evolved originally from the Brahmachârins, who did not enter upon the stage of the house-holder and who customarily begged their food?!7. It is further stated that the Śramaņas broke away from the past traditions and revolted against the Vedic system and dissented from the later form of the Brāhmaṇic religion, superstition and mysticism. Their dissent is expressed in shaving their hair, the rejection of the authority of scriptures, the search for inner purity and enlightenment in place of external religiosity and their concern for humanity at large instead of caste-distinctions obtaining in society18. The cause of misery, which is sine-qua-non of the Śramaņa tradition, is also attributed to the existing conditions during the sixth century B.C.!The issue of moral distinctions was raised which was variously tackled by the philosophers of the time. The new ethical consciousness necessitated the abandonment of such ideas as time, providence, chance, fate, nature or soul as the first cause of our happiness or misery and led the thinkers to concentrate their mind to manly strength.20
The rise and development of the Śramaņa tradition has been viewed and explained by many scholars in the light of the changed historical milieu during first millennium B.C.2 Around seventh century B.C. iron came to be used on wider scale providing effective weapons which brought cultivation on higher plane resulting into surplus produce which helped the growth of towns. Trade and commerce, a concomitant of this phenomenon, also played an important role in this process of urbanisation. The complex of economic activities had corresponding changes in social life. While new social groups of artisans and settis emerged in urban centres, a new class of peasant proprietors called gahapatis came into existence in the countryside which owned greater part of agricultural land. The emergence of these new wealthy classes of setthis and gahapatis dealt a death blow to tribal life characterised by kinship and equality. The growing social inequality resulted into four fold social stratification.

Page #20

Origin, Antiquity
The changes in the socio-economic structures during the first half of the first millenium B.C. exercised profound impact on the mind of the thinkers of the time. Old Vedic sacrificial religion was subjected to criticism. A new ideological perspective came into being which rejected the older explanations of life and universe. This ideological perspective keeping in with the basic changes in the material and social life of the period developed in the teachings of what came to be called the heterodox sects."? Scholars, while attributing the emergence of the Sramanic sects to this changed historical contexts, have delineated their views differently. A. L. Bãsham. for example, thinks that this 'stirring of thought, which produced first the early Upanişads and then the numerous heterodox systems of which Buddhism was the chief, seems to have been in some way connected with the belief in transmigration". 23 It has also been stated that 'the craving for salvation, which seems to have possessed many of the minds at the time of the Buddha, must have sprang from a deepseated fear of change and a profound sense of insecurity". 24 The process of breaking of the tribal oligarchies during the life-time of the Buddha, or soon after, added to this fear of change and sense of insecurity. This prepared the ground of the origin and development of the new ideologies which, though propagated by men of kshatriya stock, appealed to the emerging new classes.25 The material condition of flux created an ideological atmosphere in which permanence could no more be feasible or possible. An alternative system was to be envisaged which would subsume changing material conditions and yet remain viable26. In this context attention has also been drawn to the despondence and despair in the urban life of the Gangetic valley which ultimately resulted into pessimistic world view.
Upani şads are also regarded to have been the springhead of Śramanism. The latter is said to be a degeneration of the Upanişadic philosophy.??

Page #21

8
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Brahmaṇa-Kshatriya skirmish is also said to be responsible for the rise of Śramanism in later Vedic period. Under the leadership of Mahāvīra and the Buddha the Kshatriyas launched a movement against the Brahmaṇa ceremonial doctrines. The Upanisadic philosophy and, afterward, the Buddhism and Jainism were worked out by them as a reaction to the Vedic ideology.28 The point of Brahmana-Kshatriya skirmish has been widely accepted by the scholars29 and some of them believe that it played a limited role, interalia, in the origin of the Śramaṇa tradition.30
(c)
Recently, a few articles have appeared in which the earlier theories have been rejected after critical examination of the corpus of evidence both literary and archaeological, and it has been convincingly proved that the Śramana tradition is Aryan but non-Vedic31. The antecedents of the developed Śramaņa tradition as witnessed in the Buddhist, Jain and later literature have also been brilliantly worked out, though many a points still need further elaboration and investigation which will be taken up later on.
The term Śramana has been hither to etymologically explained as either derived from the root sram in the sense of 'toil' or 'labour'32 or from the root sam to quieten, to control33. Such explanations are meticulous and are based on the assumption that the Śramaņas pursued harder spiritual exercises than others and they controlled their physical and psychic functions to the extreme. The term 'Śramana' is derived from Indo-European root klem-kram= śram and its primary meaning is 'wanderer34. The verbal forms of the root áram occur in collocation of char in several passages of Śatapatha Brahmaṇa definitely in the sense of movement or wandering.35 This meaning is clearly brought out from a verse of Aitereya Brahmaṇa in the context of the significance of movement or wandering where it is stated that, 'all the sins are done away with on the path by śrama or wandering.36 Even in the Rigveda there are a few

Page #22

Origin, Antiquity
references in which the word 'Sama' is associated with movement. V. S. Pathak has drawn the attention of scholars to the cognates of the term Šramaņa' in Indo European languages and the Finno-Ugrian word 'Shaman' meaning priest. Pointing out the contacts between these two groups of languages at a very early stage, he has tried to establish that the Śramaņa was a wanderer and that wandering was regarded a religious practice in the proto-Vedic period. Thus, according to V. S. Pathak, the Śramaņa tradition is pre-Rigvedic Aryan tradition.37
There were atleast two Indo-European religious groups of wanderers-Śramaņa and Charana. The profiles of these groups are entirely different from each other but for one common feature i.e. wandering. The Charaṇa wanderers are devoted to various gods and offered oblations. The Churaņu institution had its own course of development. We shall dwell upon the distinct profile of the Sramaņa group of wanderers a little later.
A study of terms Arhata and Tirthańkara used for the preceptor in Śramaņa organisation also lends support to our contention that the Sramana tradition is not only Aryan but its antiquity goes back to the Indo-Iranian period. The word arhata is derived from the Sanskrit root 'arh' whose Indo-Europen form is root'algu'. Initially, the words begotten ofit are of economic connotation such as Greek alphe-alphano, Iranian arjah and Sanskrit argha all meaning value or valuable. A number of other words also originated from it denoting worth and worthy. In the Rigveda the term arhana is often used in the sense of worshipful but sometimes it denoted Agni as the proto-type of human priest. 38 The Āvestan form of arhata is aregi which occurs in yasna (53.9). According to Bartholomae areji denotes prophet. 39 In the păli and ardhamãgadhi texts the terms arhata is used in the sense of enlightened being or spiritual teacher. The derivations and explanations of this term given in ltivuttakaAtthakathã, Dhavalā-tīka and elsewhere are fanciful. On the basis of

Page #23

10
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
these facts it can be safely asserted, agreeing with V. S. Pathak, that the word arhata or its cognates had acquired a religious connotation at a very early stage, probably in the Indo-Iranian period. 40
The word tirthařkara is derived from the root'tri' in the sense of 'tarare'. The word 'tirtha', derived from this root, means bridge. Thus, tirthankara is bridge-maker. It is to be noted here that bridge had become a spiritual symbol in many Indo-European traditions. In the Avestã one chinavata is mentioned which separates the world of men from the world of Ahurmazdã. Zoroaster is said to escort the worshippers of Āhurmazdã across the bridge. According to the Iranian belief the myth of Chinavata bridge is pre-Zoroastrian. If so, bridge had acquired spiritual significance at a very early stage. It is interesting to note that the term pontiff which denotes priest originally meant bridge-maker (pons=bridge, ficare=maker). Incidentally, the concept of such a separating bridge is not found in the Rigveda. But this idea occurs in the Upanisads. Thus, it is clear that the concept of Tīrthankara or the bridge maker having spiritual connotation is Aryan at the same time non-Vedic. As the concept of 'arhata tīrthankar' is typically Śramana concept it might have been a part of the primitive Śramaņa ideology. His status in the Śramana tradition may be equalled to the status enjoyed by the priest and the god in the Vedic charaņas.41 Tīrthankara, by virtue of his spiritual achievements, is at par with god and by way of his teachings leads his followers from this miserable world to his position. It is to be pointed out here that, inspite of this striking parallel between primitive Śramaņa and charaṇa traditions there is difference in their ontological perspective and world-view.
As is clear from the above discussion that the śramaņa tradition is non-Vedic Aryan tradition and its antiquity goes back to the preRigvedic times, but before we conclude our investigation of its genesis, it is incumbent on us to examine the validity and relevance of the views and arguments referred to earlier. So far as the proto-austoloid origin of the Śramaņa tradition is concerned, there is no positive evidence and it is

Page #24

Origin, Antiquity
more based on argumentum ab silentia and guess than any direct evidence. The arguments adduced and the evidence produced to prove that the Śramana tradition is non-Aryan culture existing in pre-Rigvedic time in the Gangetic valley is not worth tenable. If at all any culture, so rich and advanced was existing in the region stretching from ancient Kośala to Magadha alongside the Himalayana foot-hills covering a major part of the Gangetic valley, it may be surmised to be Aryan, the evidence of which will be discussed later on. The conjecture that there is depiction of Jain Tīrthankara on the clay sealing of the Indus valley is merely fanciful and the reading of the name of a tīrthankara on Indus clay sealing is really fantastic as the Indus script is yet not finally deciphered. The association of the Śramaņa tradition with the munis and yatis in the Vedic literature is also not maintainable though their Śramanic and non-Aryan complexion has been stressed by several scholars in high sounding tones as mentioned earlier. It is compelling to re-examine the meaning of these terms in the contexts in which they are used. We would like to refer to a note written by V. S. Pathak in which he has brilliantly worked out the cultural connotations of these terms and had successfully removed the illusion which has darkened the vision of historians so far.
The term muni has been interpreted by grammarians and commentators in two senses, firstly, muni means 'mute'42 and secondly, one having extra-sensory perception - at indriyãrthadar și43 (Rigveda X. 136.2). The word muni cannot be etymologically derived from the root 'muk'.
The word muni meaning ‘at indriyârthadar si has been used at many places in the Brāhmaṇa, Buddhist and Jain literature. 44 The Sanskrita grammarians have derived this term from root 'man=gyãne'. The root 'man' is very important in the Indo-Iranian religious literature as many terms like 'mati', 'man-dha-mazda' etc have been derived from it. But the word muni cannot be grammatically derived from the root 'man', though the grammarians have dogmatically tried to do so.

Page #25

12
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
In fact, muni is derived from the root 'mun=pratigvāne"45 and the Dhammapada explains it in this sense. 46 The absence of this root in the Vedic and classical Sanskrita literature is conspicuous excepting one in the Taittiriya Aranyaka.“7 But it has been profusely used in the Pāli and Prákarit literature. Piscel has cited a number of contexts in which various forms of this root have been used. 48 Agreeing with V. S. pathaka“, it can be safely concluded that the root 'mun' and the word muni derived from it belongs to the pre-Rigvedic Indo-European vocabulary, the legacy of which is to be found in the prâkrit languages.
Here it is to be noted that the 'muni' or the vãtarasanã muni of the Rigveda is no way connected with the samaņa tradition. V. S. Pathakaso has critically examined all the contexts of the Rigveda, Taittiriya Aranyaka Bhāgavata Purīna and has convincingly established that the vãtarasana munis of Rigveda are different from the vaturasanã sishi of the Taittirīya Aranyaka. The Vūtarasunã muni of the Rigveda is described as clad in ochrecoloured garment and engaged in meditation by the exercise of controlling the breath and remained in high state of ecstasy. The võtarsanā sages of the Taittiriya Aranyaka, on the otherhand, were associated with Rudra and performed fireworship and kuşmãnda rite. He has also pointed out the contradictions in the details of the life history of Risabha Nãths as described in the Bhāgavata Purāņa and the Jain Adi Purāņa. It is historically unintelligible to take Rişabha Nãtha, a progenitor of hundred sons and follower of grihastha dharma, so described in Bhāgavata Purasa as vãtarasanã ūdhwamanthi and śramaņa. In fact what appears to be true is that the Bhāgavata account of Rişabha Nãtha is an attempt to present Jain legend in the Bhāgavata fold. The terminology of vãturasanã ữrdhwamanthi must have been in circulation among the Vaikhãnasa and not in the Jain tradition. This contention is supported by Śridharaswami the commentator of Bhãgavata Purăņa who says that the term vãturasana has been used in the context of Risabhanātha in the Bhūgavata Purāņain order to distinguish him from Digambara Risabhadeo of Jain tradition.

Page #26

Origin, Antiquity
Bhāgavata Purūņa was composed, at least, a millenium years after the Taittiriya Āranyaka and the latter was composed a millenium years after the Rigveda. Thus, on the basis of the facts mentioned above it is not proper to connect the śramaņas with the vãtarasanã munis and reconstruct their history. In fact the vãtarasunā ūdhwamanthi sages were connected with Rudra.
There appears to have been two traditions of muni in the Vedic literature as has been pointed out by V. S. Pathaka, one, preserved in the Kesi Sūkta of the Rigveda, and the other in the narrative of muni Turakāvaseya in the Taittirīya Aranyaka. They were perapatatics, rejected the study of the Vedas and agnicharyã as meaningless, wore ochre coloured garment and their main goal of spiritual strive was to realise brahma vidyã through breath-control and mediation.
In Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, Aitereya Āranyaka and Brihadāra nyaka Upanişad, Tura Kãvaseya is associated with brahma vidyã. He is said to have rejected the idea of swarga and the importance of agni-chiti2. It is to be noted here, that he is addressed as muni. In Aitareya Aranyaka? he is said to have questioned the validity of the study of the Vedas and Vedic sacrifices, talked of an alternative systems of prasopāsanã also known as outer agnihotra is referred in Kausitaki Upanişad. This is also known as Samyamana doctrine of Pratardana but in the opinion of B. M. Barua and V.S. Pathak the real propounder of this doctrine was muni Kãvaseya.54
The devotion of muni to brahma-vidya is proved by the references of muni in Brihadaranyaka Upanişads. It is said, 'One becomes muni after knowing brahma. Desiring for brahmaloka the parivrājakas renounce the world. Abandoning the desire of worldly honour, they resort to mendicancy'.
After the Upanişadic period the terms muni, bhikshi, parivrājaka

Page #27

14
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
and sanyasi became synonymous. The muni tradition got merged into sanyãsa.
The yatis were also not connected with śramaņa tradition as has been held by some scholars. The word yati is an Aryan term and is derived from the root yat-yãt. According to Benviniste. Belley, Toporov and V. S. Pathak the original meaning of this root is to 'assign the proper place' and 'distribute the necessities'. Derivatively, it meant 'god', particularly, Mitra who determines the fate of god worshipper.
The root yat-yãt has been numerously used in the Rigveda in the context of Mitravaruņa. It has been used in the Avestã as well in the context of Mithra-Mihira. Thus the conclusion becomes irresistible that the yati was associated with Mitra-Varuņa and Mithra-Mihira. The yatis are also associated with Bhriguss6. Angirasas" and Āsuras58. Bhrigus, Angirasas and Atharvans were pre-Rigvedic Indo-Aryans.
Thus, the tradition of yatis is Indo-Iranian tradition. It was gradually lost and the surviving term yati came to be used in sense of parivrājakas and śramaņas".

Page #28

Origin, Antiquity
15
1.
3.
R. E. VIII, IX, XI, XIII; STrabo, XV. 1.59 M'crindle, 1901, p. 65, Fn.; Udına, P.T.S. Edn. p. 66-67. Manusmriti II, 11. 'Perhaps the entire concept that a person's situation and experiences are, infact, the results of deeds committed in various lives may be not of Aryan origin at all, but rather may have developed as part of the indigenous Gangetic tradition from which the various Śramana move ments arose'. Jaini, P.S. 'Karma and Bebirth in Classical Indian Tradition.' p. 218 ; Gananath Obeyeskar, 'Karma and Rebirth' in Classical Indian Tradition. p. 137 fn. 'It is indeed possible to point to some other concepts in Indian thought, such as atomism, for which it is not possible to posit any Vedic origin. Further, a critical study of some later systems of Indian philosophy like Sãmkhya, Yoga, Vaišeşika, Buddhism and Jainism would show that there existed in these systems a substratum of common concepts which are definitely not derived from the Vedas but which might be traced back to a pre-Vedic Magadhan thought complex. The traditions regarding the various lives of Gautam. Buddha and the twenty four tirhankaras who preceded Mãhãvira are certainly quite significant in this connection. It would seem that the pre-Vedic current of thought with its ramifications continued through centuries to serve as a significant source for the later Indian thought to draw upon. The Vedic Aryan current which was in a sense, foreign to the Indian soil, never succeeded in superceding it completely. As a matter of fact, a large number of elements in the classical Hindu, way of life and thought clearly betray a pre-Vedic non-Aryan origin". Dandekar, R. N. Exercises in Indology, p. 339. Chatterjee, S. K. The Vedic Age, P. 151. Dandekar, R. N. Exercises in Indology, P. 338 Pandey G. C. Origins of Buddhism; Chakravorty, Harpad, Asceticism in Ancient India. Pandey G. C. Origins of Buddhism ; Dandekar R. N. Exercises in Indology p. 338. 'In this connection we may indeed speak, in very broad term, of two traditions- the pre-Vedic, non-Aryan Muni- Yati

Page #29

16
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
8. 9. 10. 11.
12.
14.
15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
tịadition and the Vedic Aryan Rişi tradition. Rigveda X. 136 Taittiriya Āranyaka, 1.23.2; 1.24-5;2.7 Bhagavata Purana 5.3.20 Pandey G. C., Śramana Tradition- Its history and contribution to Indian culture p. 3. ibid p. 4-5 Pandey G.C., A study in the Origins and Development of Buddhism. Pandey G. C., Śramana Tradition- Its history and contribution to Indian culture, p. 4. Dutta N., 'Early Buddhist Minachism'. p. 60-63. Barua B. M. 'Pre-Buddhistic Indian philosophy', 239. ibid p. 240; Originally this idea was expressed by Rhys Davids ibid. p. 242. ibid. p. 364-370 'If we think of the misery of the people, the domination of one caste over another, of men over women and masters over slaves and servants, the truthfulness of criminal laws, the system of usury, and such other corrupt social practices, we may almost say that the general conditions of society brought the problem of the misery to the fore-front" ibid. p. 371 Jha, D. N. Anct. India-An Introductory Outline p. 28-32 Sharma. R. S. - 'Material Milieu of the Birth of Buddhism' paper presented to the Twenty-Ninth International Congress of Orientatilists Paris, 1973. Thapar Romila. Ancient Indian Social History, p. 41. Thapar Romila, Studies in the Social History of Ancient India, p. 41. Basham, A. L. Studies in History of Buddhism p. 14. ibid. p. 15 ibid., p. 16-17 Thapar Romila- Ancient Indian Social History, p. 48
20. 21.
22.
24. 25. 26.

Page #30

Origin, Antiquity
17
27. 28.
29.
Sharm
30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
36.
37.
38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.
Deussen - Indian Antiquary Vol. xxix, p. 397 Rhys Davids - Buddhist India, p. 257 Sharma R. S. Material-Culture and Social Formation; Kosambi D. D. An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, p. 120. Basham, A. L., ibid., p. 16. Pathak V. S. Preface - A History of Indian Buddhism. Śrãmyati tapasyatīti śramaṇaḥ. N. Dutta, Early Buddhist Monachism, p. 63 Pathak V. S. preface - A History of Indian Buddhism, p. XIII Śatapatha Brāhmana - 1.2.5.8; 1.6.2.3; 1.5.3.3; 1.8.1.7; 1.8.1.10; 3.9.1.4; 11.1.6.7. Aitereya Brāhmaṇa, VII. 3. Pathak V.S. Preface- A History of Indian Buddhism, p. XIV. Rigveda II. 3.1; 11. 3.3. Worterbuck p. 34, n. 1. Pathak V. S. Preface- A History of Indian Buddhism, p. XVIII. Pathak V. S. Preface- A History of Indian Buddhism, p. XX. Vācham yamo muni- Amara Kośa 2.42. Sãyana Bhãşya, Rigveda X. 136.2 Viditvā munirbhavati - Brihadāraṇyaka Upanişad 4.4.22; Uttarãdhyayana Sūtra 25.32. V. S. Pathak Purovāk- Bauddha Samgha Kā Prārambhika Itihasap.7. Dhammapada- 269. Yo Munăti ubheloka muni ten pavucchati T. A.- 1.27.6 nși munantu- explained by Bhattabhāskara as narah pratijānantu. Piscel- Prākrit Grammer- 489. Pathaka V. S. ibid. p. 8. Pathaka, V. S. ibid., p. 12-15.
47.
48. 49. 50.

Page #31

18
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
V. S. Pathak ibid. p. 18.
Satapatha Brāhmaṇa 9.5.2. 15-16
Aitereya Aranyaka 3.2.6
Barua B. M. Pre-buddhistic Indian philosophy, p. 111-112. Pathak, V. S. Purovak-Buddha Samgha kā Prārambhika Itihas p. 17
Brh. Up. 4.4.2.2.- Etameva viditvä muniḥ bhavati Etameva pravajino Lokamicchanṭaḥ pravrajanti Lokaiṣaṇāścha vyuthaya
bhikṣacharyam charanti.
Rigveda- VIII. 6.18.
Rigveda- VIII. 3.9; V. 45.7- Commentary of Sāyaṇa them.
Atharvaveda II
Pathak, V. S. Purovak, Bauddha Samgha kā Prārambhik Itihasa - see for details.

Page #32

2
The Antiquarian Significance of Some of the Basic Concepts of Jain Philosophy
The elements of the Jain religion and philosophy may be traced back to inchoate thoughts of a very early period. About a century ago Hermann Jacobi had pointed out the ancient character of the Jain philosophy in his scholarly notes in the introductions of the Jain Sūtras, published in the Sacred Books of the East series'. While dwelling upon the data available from the Buddhist and the Jain literature regarding the antiquity of Jainism, he specifically took note of three points of the Jain philosophy which are of great antiquarian significance, viz.
1. The animistic beliefs of the Jains
2.
3.
The absence of the category of quality in their enumeration of the principal constituent elements of the universe.
The inclusion of dharma and adharma, the principles of motion and stationariness, in the class of substances2.
It is to be noted that H. Jacobi did the commendable task of drawing the attention of scholars to these important points of the Jain studies but left them to be taken up by the coming generations. It is

Page #33

20
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
strange that several volumes on the Jain religion and philosophy have appeared since then, but the issues raised by him have failed to catch the attention of scholars.
The Concept of DHARMA and ADHARMA
The concept of the dharma as action inherent in matter is the characteristic feature of the Jain philosophy, which distinguishes it from the contemporary Brāhmaṇical tradition. In the latter the term dharma was used in the sense of religious rite, duty, ordinance etc. While these connotations of the word dharma were well-established, it is baffling to note as to how Mahāvīra, a great philosopher of the time, used this term to denote a category of substance serving as conditions for motion. In fact, what appears to be true is that Mahavira did not coin this term to denote the above noted sense, but simply carried on the tradition coming from early times.
It is interesting to note that the term dharma in this sense occurs in some of the Rigvedic hymns. In the Rigveda two broad semantic traditions of this word are found;(1) in the sense of 'ordinance', 'religious ritual', 'sacrifice'etc;(2)-principle of action inherent in matter. The word dharma is mentioned one hundred and thirty four times in the Rigveda out of which it occurs sixty times without any prefix or being compounded with any other word, eighteen times in combination with the prefix 'vi' and fifty six times as a compound with 'sva'and 'satya'. It appears either as an adjective or as a noun and is found in neuter and masculine genders. So far as the first of the above noted semantic traditions is concerned, the Rigvedic references are numerous and they have been discussed by many scholarst. However, there are several hymns in which this word has been used and this sense does not suit the context and the second above noted semantic tradition is brought out. Thus, in the Rigveda X.175.1, the soma-grinding stones (grāvānuh) are invoked to squeeze the soma by virtue of dharma with the inspiration of Savitā. Here the

Page #34

Concept of Dharma and Adharma
21
term dharmaņā is used which has been interpreted by Sãyana as 'ātmiyena dhāramena karmaņã'. The efficacy of stones in squeezing the soma by virtue of dharma clearly indicates that the word dharma means 'power of action inherent' in them. This meaning is clearly brought out by the following verse :
पवमान धिया हितो भिऽयोनिः कनिक्रदत।
__ धर्मणा वायुमाविश ।।
(Pavamāna dhiyã hito bhihyonih kanikradat
dharmaņa vāyumavisa] Commenting on this verse Sãyana writes: He pavamına soma dhiyã karmaṇāsmad vyāpāreņa Angulyã vã hitah dhritah san kani kradat sabdam kurvayan yoni sthanam graham vã abhivišeti śesah. Tadevah. Dharmaņã vãyuí sambandhi pătramityarthaḥ. Tatãvića pravića. हे पवमान सोम धिया कर्मणास्मद् व्यापारेण अङगुल्या वा हितः धृतः सन् कनि क्रदत् शब्दं कुर्वन् योनिः स्थानं ग्रहं वा अभिविशेति शेषः । तदेवाह । धर्मणा वायुम् सम्बन्धि पात्रमित्यर्थः । तत् आविश प्रविश।
In the foot-note he explains dharmaņā as karmaņā. Here, soma is invoked to take its place making noise and enter into the pot by virtue of dharma. The word dharma undoubtedly, denoted the principle of action inherent in soma because of which the act of flowing and entering into the potsis rendered possible. It is interesting to note that the word dharma does not carry any other sense than a characteristic or condition of action or motion inherent in matter and reminds us of the Jain concept of dharma as a category of substance serving as conditions of motion. This term has been used in the same sense in another verse of Rigveda (X.175.1) where soma is invoked to flow and reach Indra and ascend

Page #35

22
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
vãyu or enter into the pot by virtue of dharma i.e. inherent power of action.
There are several other passages in the Rigveda, which lend support to our contention. For example, in the Rigveda 1.160.1 the sun is said to move between earth and sky by virtue of dharma. Here, the term has been used in the instrumental (dharmaņā) and has been interpreted by Sãyana as
प्रकाशोदकादादि धारणेन युक्तः सन् - Prakaśodakādādi dhāraņena yuktaḥ san But such an interpretation appears to be speculative and sun's movement by virtue of dharma may be explained taking dharma either to mean inherent power of action/movement or material factor serving as condition for movement. Likewise, in an another verse (R. V. VIII. 7.5) mountains and rivers are said to be self regulated for the chariots of the Marutas, Here the word 'vidharma ne' is used and is connected with 'yamaya'. The characteristics of chariot is movement.
Hence 'vidharmane' may be interpreted either as inherent characteristic of movement of chariot or as a material factor serving as condition for movement. If otherwise, 'yamuya' means 'for the movement of Marutas and the ‘sindhavaḥ' and 'giriḥ get regulated' (yemire) out of the fear of 'vidharmane suşmaya' the word dharma means inherent characteristic of action or movement. In the Rigveda IX.107.24 Soma is said to flow by virtue of dharma (pavasya ................ Soma dharmabhiņ) confirming above meaning of the word dharma. A very interesting reference of this word is found in the R.V.X. 44.5 in which Indra, who is master and bestower of riches, is invoked and prayed to be present in the sacrifice. His pots containing soma are said to be 'dharmaņā anādthirsyā ņi. Sãyaņa interprets 'dharmaņu' as 'karmana'. Its more

Page #36

Concept of Dharma and Adharma
3
acceptable interpretation may be that the pots are 'anādhrişyāņi' because of some characteristic inherent in the pots themselves.
In two passages of the Rigveda, the word 'dharmānam in masculine has been used as adjective. In Rig.veda 1.187.1 it is used as adjective to 'pitum. Sāyana interpretes 'pitum' as 'annaṁ and 'dharmāņam' as 'sarvasya dhārakan'. Anna sustains and its action of sustencence is inherent in it. Likewise, in the Rigveda X.92.2 it is used as adjective to Agni (dharmāņumagniṁ) who is said to be source of sacrifice and makes it fruitful. Sãyaņa interprets it as 'dhārakaṁ. The Ayni upholds the oblations and takes them to gods. Upholding is a characteristic inherent in Agni. Thus both the reference support our contention.
The above noted reference furnish us sufficient evidence to conclude that during the Rigvedic period the word dharma was used in the sense or 'principle of action inherent in matter' or 'matter serving as condition for action. This meaning of the word dharma was subsequently lost and it continued to be used in the sense of 'ordinance' ritual'etc. in the following periods. In this semantic tradition the meaning of the word dharma proliferted but this proliferation was organic one.
As has been pointed out earlier the survival of the word in thesense of 'inherent power of action' in the Jain tradition indicates that the word dharma was picked up by the Jain philosophers for a category of substance denoting principle of motion much before the sixth cent. B.C. Its antiquity may be taken back at least up to the Rigvedic period. 1. SB.E.Vol. XXII part I 1884, Reprinted 1964; SBE Vol. XLV
Part II 1895 Reprinted 1964. 2. S. B. E. Vol. XLV Part II 1964 Introduction P. XXXIII-IV 3. Aiterev Brălimanui, & Chhāndogya Upnişada 2.23 Taittira'a
Upunişada 1.11. 4. Kane, P. V. The History of Dharmasāştras Vol. I P. 1-2.

Page #37

24
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
The Doctrine of Karma and Transmigration
The doctrine of Karma and transmigration is one of the most important doctrines of ancient Indian religions and systems of philosophies. All the major ancient Indian religio-philosophic traditions, except the Charvakas, upheld it, though they developed it in their own distinctive ways, as a result several theories of karma and rebirth emerged. The doctrine of karma and rebirth or transmigration is a complex of a number of ideas, viz. (i) beings can not escape from the fruits of their deeds, their present and future situation and experiences are determined by their deeds done in past and present lives respectively (ii) an entity, spiritual or otherwise, different from body, survives the death; (iii) this surviving entity is subjected to repeated incarnations, that is, the idea of samsăra. Inspite of divergence of approaches to this doctrine, these ideas are commonly shared by the major traditions. The doctrine was so important that all the schools have paid a great deal of attention to it and copious literature on this subject has emerged in ancient India.
The problem of the origin of the doctrine of karma and trasmigration has been a matter of investigation for more than a century in morden times. The origin of this doctrine has often been viewed in terms of Aryan and non-Aryan. As early as 1882 A.D., Gough pointed out that there is no clear reference to transmigration of soul in the Vedic literature prior to the Upanisads. He conjectured that the Hindus borrowed this idea from the indigenes in the process of intermingling of the Aryans and the indigenous non-Aryans. Sincere efforts in the direction of solving the problem of the origin of this doctrine are being made and as a result voluminous literature on the subject has come into existence. Though various aspects of the doctrine of karma and rebirth have been elaborately worked out, the intriguing question of its genesis is still evading a satisfactory explanation.

Page #38

The Doctrine of Karma and Transmigration
25
In the following statements, a humble attempt is being made to tackle this problem in historical perspective. This is not to say that in tackling this problem, the historical perspective has been overlooked, our humble submission is that a comparative study of the ideological development of various religio-philosophical traditions in historical contexts and the interactions obtaining between them have not been properly attempted.
We shall proceed with a critical review of the theories advanced so far.
1.
Vedic Origin of the Doctrine of Karma and Transmigration:
Many scholars have strongly advocated that the doctrine of karma and rebirth is Vedic in origin. The first rudiments of this doctrine may be seen in the Vedic sacrifices.' Some verses of the Rigveda have been picked up to show that the idea of transmigration was in formation during the Rigvedic period. P. V. kane has critically reviewed all the verses of the Rigveda which are said to contain the evidence of transmigration. He has convincingly established that in the said references there is nothing to prove that the idea of karma and rebirth was in existence during the Rigvedic period. In fact, the doctrine of karma and transmigration is conspicuous by its absence in the early Vedic thought.
Though there are a few indications of the idea of redeath in the Rigveda, the idea of rebirth appears nowhere in it. In the Rigveda IX.113.7-11 immortality is prayed in the pitriloka where the departed forefathers live. The prayer for immortality in the pit ņloka presupposes redeath otherise what is the sense of immortality. The distinction between mortal and immortal in the Rigvedic context may be explained only when it is assumed that there was an end to the lifeof mortal in the higher world.

Page #39

26
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
In the Rigveda nothing is clearly stated as to what happens to one whose sojourn in the pitriloka or heaven is terminated. It is difficult to agree with the contention that termination of sojourn in the pitriloka presupposes the return of the being from the pitriloka to the physical world. Had it been so, there would have been some indications of it in the Rigveda.
P. V. kane has elaborately dwelt upon the problem of the antiquity and origin of the doctrine of karma and rebirth. He, while critically reviewing the evidence and arguments adduced by Deussen, Ranade, Karandikar and others, has convincingly demonstrated that there is no clear statement on this doctrine in the Vedas. According to him, this doctrine had taken a definite shape in the Upanisadic period. In support of this view he cites the evidence of Brihadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and Chhandogya Upanisad. He makes no definite statement as to how the doctrine of karma and rebirth appeared in the Upaniṣadic period, but he appears to believe that it was a natural philosophical development occurring in the Vedic tradition. In this connection, he refers to the ideas of pitṛiyana, devayāna and punarmrityu as predating the idea of rebirth. Hedraws our attention to a passage of Taittiriya Samhita in which it is stated "whoever threatens, a Brahmaṇa, he shall atone for it with a hundred years. He who strikes him (shall atone) with a thousand years; he who sheds the blood of a Brahmaṇa would be moistened into a ball by the stream of blood". Commenting on this passage he writes, "This passage is important as conveying that for a very mortal sin the offender would have to suffer for a thousand years or even several thousand years and, therefore, would have to be born for several lives, since one human life was held to extend to one hundred years only"."
The first clear mention of the doctrine of karma and rebirth is found in a few references of Brihadaranyaka Upaniṣad and Chhandogya Upanisad. In the Brihadāraṇyaka Upanisad it is stated,

Page #40

The Doctrine of Karma and Transmigration
2277
'So truly as he works and according as he behaves, so will he be, a man of good deeds will become (be born) good, a man of evil deeds will become (be born) evil; he becomes holy by holy deeds, evil by evil deeds. Here they say a person consists of desires (or is fashioned out of) desires and as his desire so will he be, his (determination or) will and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deeds he does that he will become (reap). In another passage of Brihadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad, it is stated 'Just as the caterpillar, having reached the tip of one blade of grass, makes an approach to another blade, draws itself towards it and establishes itself thereon, so this (individual self) casting down this body in death, dispelling avidya and making approach to another body and establishes therein." Another significant passage of Bṛihadaraṇyaka Upanisad which bears an indubitable evidence of the doctrine of karma and transmigration, contains the dialogue between Yagyavalkya and Ärtabhaga about the question as to what happens to a man when the body expires. Yagyavalkya takes Ārtabhāga away and speaks in private, 'what they said was karma alone, what they praised was karma alone, that a man becomes good by good works and evil by evil works."
Discussing these and few other passages of Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanisad and Chhandogya Upanisad, P. V. kane writes, "The above Upanisad passages are enough to show how the doctrine of transmigration was being moulded in the Upanisadic period. The Rigveda knows the two paths of Devayana and Pitryāna and also that in heaven there were joys and delights but the Rig. Veda does not say how long the joys of heaven were to last and makes no clear and definite statement of the doctrine of transmigration. In the Brahmana period the two paths were referred to and the conception had dawned upon the minds of thinkers that man might have to pass through death several times (punarmrityu). But, even then there is hardly any definite theory of punarjanma based on good or bad deeds. The clearest statements (and probably earliest) of the origin of the doctrine of transmigration are the

Page #41

28
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
two passages. (Brh. Up. III.3.13; IV.4.5-7) in which Yagyavalkya emphasises that it is man's own works and conduct that lead a man to new births. In both these passages the Devayana and Pitryāna paths are not mentioned at all. But the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad VI.2.16 and Chhandogya Upanisad V.10. relate the two paths to transmigration and speak of a third place for those born as worms and flies."
Thus, P. V. Kane is inclined to show that the emergence of the law of karma and rebirth during Upanisad period is a natural outcome of the development of the Vedic tradition without having any influence ab extra.
Among other scholars who have tried to establish the Vedic origins of the karma theory, David M. knipe and Wendly Doniger O'Flaherty deserve special mention. Wendy Doiger O'Flahetry writes, The theory of rebirth does not appear in the Vedas; but the theory of re-death appears at very early stage indeed. It may be that ancient Indian ideas about death predate and indeed predetermine the later theory of birth. Moreover, the idea of karma in its broader sense, (including the concept of merit transfer) may well have preceded the idea of rebirth, giving strong grounds for postulating Vedic origins of the karma theory." The main arguments adduced in favour of the Vedic origin of the theory of karma and rebirth are: (1) The idea of redeath, which is mentioned in the Rigveda is earlier than the idea of rebirth and the later is a natural and logical outcome of the idea of redeath. (2) The concept of merit transfer, which is a basic component of karma theory in the Brahmaṇical tradition, is of Vedic origin and antiquity. (3) The origin of the theory of karma is connected with the Śrāddha and Sapindikaraṇa rites." The motivation underlying the Vedic funeral rites is either to prevent rebirth from heaven or to assume rebirth from hell. It is precisely the reason that son who performs the funeral rites is said to save his father from hell and in whose absence a man can not attain mukti. (4) The śraddha rites and rites at birth (jātakarman) are parallel in structure indicating there by that

Page #42

The Doctrine of Karma and Transmigration
29
śrāddha is linked with rebirth. It is worthwhile to quote Knipe, 'Incidentally, among the saṁsakāras (Vedic Hindu rites of passage), it is remarkable to note the parallel structures of these postcremation śrāddha and the rites at birth (jātakarman). In each case, following the day of birth/death there are ten days of offerings of rice, sesame, etc. ten being a homology to the human gestation period of ten(Lunar) months. It may be the case, then, that the completion of the temporary body on the tenth day in an intentional rebirth expression. Following this line of argument Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty writes: "Numerous peculiarities in the classical karma doctrine begin to make good sense when viewed as developments or inversions of the process of death and the view of after life implicit in the śrāddha ritual. That it can all be put together from an assumption of the primacy of death is a genuinely Brāhmaṇic ritualistic view; all the karma texts on rebirth begin with death and then proceed to describe birth ...... It is chicken-egg problem; śrāddha is the chicken, and birth is the egg. * Furthering this argument he writes, 'One linguistic clue to the manner in which the Vedic śrāddha system leads to the post-Vedic karma/rebirth model is the development of the word 'pinda'. The pinda is a ball of cooked rice ....... Now this ball of rice is often explicitly said to bee symbolic of seed .... The pinda is thus a food strongly symbolic of the commingled substances of human procreation."15
An analysis of the facts and arguments given in support of the Vedic origin of the theory of karma and rebirth reveals that it is not a linear development from the Vedic and Upanişadic ideas. In fact, the karma and rebirth theory is of composite structure. Any attempt to explain the genesis of this doctrine would necessarily entail to separate the various strands and determine the chronological order of their development. Though all the schools of philosophy in ancient India, except the Chārvāka, accepted the theory of karma and rebirth, each one developed it in its own way and no two theories of karma and rebirth are identical. While it is generally agreed in all the schools and traditions that man's

Page #43

30
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
situations and experiences are determined or influenced by his deeds, they differ in matters of detail. The theory of karma and rebirth in Brāhmanical tradition had typical features. One of the basic components of this theory is merit transfer, that is, merit accruing to some one on account of his deeds may be transferred to another person. The concept of merit transfer is Vedic in origin and remains in existence even in later times in the Brāhmanical tradition. But on the basis of the presence of merit transfer in the Vedic texts, its association with theory of karma and rebirth later, it would not be proper to assume that the doctrine of karma and rebirth developed out of it. This concept is associated with the Vedic eschatology and continued to remain in later times as an archaism when eschatology outlooks underwent transformation. In fact, when the theory of karma and transmigration came to be accepted in the Brāhmanical tradition during the Upanişadic period, it was super imposed on the Vedic eschatology and the concept of merit transfer without superceding them. The argument that the rudiments of the karma theory may be seen in the Vedic sacrifice on account of the fact that the term karma is often used in the Rigveda for religious rites or sacrifice is a very frail argument and needs no serious consideration.
The urge of immortality in the Rigveda emanates from the fear of death. To discern any idea of transmigration from the longing for immortality would be a historical fallacy since the idea of transmigration has certain pre-requisites such as the concepts of soul and saṁsāra etc. and no traces of these concepts are available in the Rigveda. So far as the Rigvedic evidence is concerned, no doubt, the idea of redeath predates the idea of rebirth, but the idea of redeath should be viewed in the context of the Vedic eschatology. Redeath simply means termination from the heaven or pitriloka. Thus, rebirth is not linked with redeath and idea of rebirth can not be said to be natural outcome of the idea of redeath.
The śrāddha rite and doctrine of karma and transmigration are irreconciliable. While the latter believes in the cycle of birth and death

Page #44

The Doctrine of Karma and Transmigration
caused by karma, the former is directly linked with the Vedic eschatological beliefs. Though the Vedic eschatological beliefs underwent tremmendous changes in later period, some beliefs and connected rituals persisted stubbornly amidst the changes and the srãddha rite is one of them. It remained in vogue even after the doctrine of karma and transmigration was accepted in the Brāhmaṇical tradition. In fact, it was superimposed on the existing system. It would be anachronistic to search the roots of the doctrine of karma and transmigration in the rituals of jātakarma and sapindikaraņa. These rituals are later developments and might have been partly influenced by the doctrine of karma and rebirth.
It is significant to note here that in the Upanişads where the doctrine of karma and transmigration first appears, karma is not considered to be the sole factor shaping one's destiny; it is one of the many factors. In the Mahābhārata and Purăņas, though the inoxerable nature of karma is accepted the importance of gifts to Brāhmaṇas, visits to holy places, baths in holy rivers and divine grace which emerged in the form of bhakti ran parallel to the doctrine of karma. When the belief in omnipotence of God was established, the affairs of the world were sought to be explained in terms of divine ordination, the world was conceived as a divine scheme, controlled and regulated by divine agencies. In such an ontological perspective, worldly well-being, spiritual progress and realisation of ultimate goal could be possible only on account of divine grace. As such devotion to God emerged as a powerful mode of spiritual exercise. Any amount of sin accruing to a misdoer could be done away with by devotion to God. How could, then, karma be taken as a sole potent force in shaping one's destiny? The idea of divine grace has a long course of antecedent development. Right from the Rigvedic period to the Purăņas, there has been an unbroken tradition of the world being a divine scheme and the supremacy of the divine agencies in temporal affairs. As the doctrine of karma had received wide acceptance, a compromise between the two contradictory view points was rendered inevitable. In fact, what

Page #45

32
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
appears to be true is that the doctrine of karma and transmigration was grafted into the existing Brāhmaṇical tradition when the contact between the Brāhmaṇa and śramaņa traditions was established and the process of intermingling had started.
Thus, the theory of the Vedic origin of the doctrine of karma and transmigration is not historically maintainable. Tribal or Non-Aryan Origin :
The absence of a clear statement about the doctrine of karma and rebirth in the Vedas has led a number of scholars to speculate the tribal or non-Aryan origin of the doctrine of karma and rebirth. A. L. Basham writes, - “The theory of transmigration must have been developed from older animist theories very widespread among primitive peoples, and its first propagators may have been non-Aryans stimulated by the invaders to develop their cruder ideas of metempsychosis by giving them an ethical basis in the form of karma. 16 In the same vein Padmanabha S. Jaini writes, 'perhaps the entire concept that a person's situation and experiences are, infact, the results of deeds committed in various lives may not be of Aryan origin at all, but rather may have developed as part of the indigenous Gangetic tradition from which the various Śramana movements arose"7. Gananāth Obeyeskere has dwelt upon this problem at some length and tried to give logical and evidential basis of this conclusion. The main idea underlying this assumption is that the Śramaņa religions originated out of the indigenous Gangetic tradition and are nonAryan. The reasons for the assumption that the Śramana tradition is of non-Aryan roots are precisely ;(1) it had antagonistic attitude to the Brāhmaṇical tradition, (2) its locus classicus was the Gangetic region and not Brahmavarta.
In support of the tribal origin of the doctrine of karma and rebirth, it is stated that rebirth theories were wide spread in tribal peoples in

Page #46

Tribal or non-Aryan Origin
different parts of the world. Such theories were held even by tribal peoples of Gangetic region where the Śramaņa religions flourished. Indian religious philosophers did not invent rebirth theory, they simply transformed the simple, to use the terms of Gananath Obeyeskere," 'rebirth' to 'karmic eschatology' through the process of 'ethicisation'. The rebirth theory of the tribal people lacks ethicisation; the deeds of individual have no retributive character because they are not morally or religiously evaluated. The conversion of moral evaluation into religious evaluation evolves out of primitive base. In the primitive rebirth eschatology the other world is for all; the transfer to the other world depends on the proper performance of the funeral rites. But when this system is ethicised, entry to the otherworld must be contingent., depending on the ethical nature of person's this worldly actions". 18 The other world is logically split into twoworlds of retribution and reward i.e. hell and heaven. Souls stay in heaven or hell is temporary and are reborn in human world which is already ethicised. Souls quality of life in human world is determined by the character of deeds done in previous life. Thus ethicisation of a rebirth eschatology, pushed to its logical extreme, links one life time with another or in a continuing series of ethical links: which simply means that the South Asian theory of Saṁsāra and karma has fully developed'.'' One of the three factors i.e. (i) a highly specialised priesthood engaged in speculative activity (ii) ethical prophesy (iii) ethical asceticism, is said to be responsible for ethicisation."
Two categories of ethicisation have been envisaged i.e. primary ethicisation and secondary ethicisation. In primary 'ethicisation a social and secular morality is converted into religious morality'while, 'the imposition of symbolic ethical meaning on preexisting beliefs is secondary ethicisation'.
Ethicisation of ancient Indian religions occurred through ethical asceticism and Obeyesker gives the credit of it to the Buddha. The

Page #47

34
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Buddha not only ethicised the simple rebirth eschatology but also gave 'a radical secondary ethical interpretation to popular Brāhmanic beliefs and institutions that prevailed in the middle Ganges'.21 The intellectualclimate of the Buddha's times was conducive to it. It is also stated that a systematic ethicisation of a religion occurs only in relation to a lay community. The Upanişadic ascetics were seekers of individual salvation and were not interested in lay soteriology. It was precisely the reason that 'the Upanişad produced a great speculative soteriology but not an ethical religon.22 The Buddhism and Jainism on the other hand were interested in lay community and hence maximum ethicisation occurred in them.
Thus, the doctrine of karma and transmigration is said to have developed out of tribal eschatology of the Gangetic region through the speculative activities of the Śramaņas who belonged to the non-Aryan Gangetic tradition. The credit of ethicisation has been given to the Buddha particularly though the contributions of the thinkers of other Śramaņa schools and community and community consiciousness are not denied.
A critical appraisal of the thesis of tribal origin of the doctrine of karma and transmigration reveals that it is based mainly on two fundamental assumptions : 1. the tribal stratum came first; the tribes of the Gangetic region had
a simple theory of rebirth.
2.
the Śramaņas, particularly the Buddha converted this primitive tribal eschatology into the theory of karma and rebirth.
If the Brāhmanic (Vedic) origin of the doctrine of karma and rebirth is denied it is quite natural to look for it to the Śramana tradition. We have already noted that Brāhmaṇism and śramanism were the two major religio-philosophical traditions of ancient India. If the Brāhmanical tradition is Aryan and there is no doubt about it, will it be, then, proper to assume that the Śramana tradition is non-Aryan all because it is antagonistic to

Page #48

Tribal or non-Aryan Origin
35
the former? Here lies the crux of the matter, Most of the historians have dubbed the Śramana tradition as non-Aryan under the effect of the basic assumption that the Vedic culture, which is the springhead of the Brāhmaṇa tradition, is of monolithic structure and non-conformers are non-Aryan. But now it is generally accepted that the Vedas represented only one aspect of the Aryan culture and some glimpses of the other aspects may be gathered from the Vedas themselves. There were men who did not conform to the Vedic ritualism and maintained different view points. As has been shown earlier, the munis of the Rigveda were men of this category. The possibility of the presence of the Aryans in the region stretching from Košala to Magadha prior to the Rigvedic Aryan is not ruled out and some pieces of linguistic, literary and archaeological evidence have already been pointed out. It was among the Aryan that the roots of the Gramaņa tradition originated though the climate and other material conditions of the Gangetic valley provided the conducive grounds for its development. It is precisely the reason that the śramaņa tradition, though Aryan in origin, could develop and flourish in India and no where else.
So far as the tribes of the Gangetic region, before the advent of Aryans there, are concerned, we virtually know nothing about them. Since, nothing definite is known about these non-Aryan tribes during the Buddha's time or a little before him from any of the sources- the Buddhist, Jain or Brāhmaṇical any opinion about them is a mere conjecture Instead, the peoples, who had tribal names and structure during this period and who had developed democratic institutions, were in all probability the Aryan peoples. The Śākyas, Mallas, Ugras, Gyātrikas, Moriyas etc. were most probably the Aryan peoples as is suggested by their language and lineage. Moreover, in the absence of any definite information about the non-Aryan tribes and their culture in the Gangetic region, is it reasonable to surmise about them and draw a parallel between them and the modern tribes? As such, any conclusion, thus drawn, would be purely hypothetical and cannot be historically maintained.

Page #49

36
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
So far as the speculation about the ethicisation of the simple tribal birth eschatology and its consequent conversion into an ethical system by the Buddha is concerned, it is to be noted that this doctrine had already come into existence before him. The Buddhist texts inform us that the Buddha used to discuss the shortcomings of the Jain doctrine of karma and rebirth indicating thereby that the Jain doctrine was popularly known during the Buddha's time and that the Buddha's doctrine of karma and rebirth must be posterior to the Jain doctrine. In fact, the Buddha is indebted to both the Brāhmana and śramana traditions for his doctrine of karma and rebirth, as will be shown a little later. The credit for ethicisation or developing an ethical system should be given to the preBuddhistic Śramana tradition.
Drawing a distinction between the Upnişadic ascetic ethicisation and Áramaņa ascetic ethicisation on account of the concern for lay community is based on wrong notions. Infact, the difference between them is ontological. Moreover, the Buddhism and the Jainism were primarily concerned with individual personal salvation and in them laity concern is a later development.Once we reject the view of the tribal origin of the theory of karma and rebirth, the question of primary ethicisation disappears. So far as the secondary ethicisation, that is, symbolic interpretation of earlier beliefs, is concerned, it should be noted that inner ideological developments and changing ontological perspectives in the Vedic tradition necessitated such interpertation and the vedantins and mimãnsakas are good examples of it. Śramaņa Origin of the Doctrine of Karma and Rebirth
One of the original contributions of the Śramana tradition to ancient Indian culture is the doctrine of karma and rebirth. This doctrine originally grew up in the śramaņa hothouse and was later adopted by the Brāhmaṇical tradition when the contact between the two was fully established during the later Vedic period. As we have seen earlier that

Page #50

Śramaņa Origin of the Doctrine of Karma and Rebirth
37
the earliest references of this doctrine are found in the Brihadāramaka and Chhāndogya Upani şads and the contexts reveal that it was a less known doctrine. When asked by Yãgyavalkya about the root from which man is born again and again after death in a symposium at the court of Janaka, the gathering remains silent and he himself answers that a man becomes good by good work and evil by evil works. Silence on the part of the gathering of scholars clearly shows that it was not a well known theory in the Brāhmaṇical fold.
In order to show that the doctrine of karma and transmigration is basically a śramaņa doctrine, we shall have to survey the doctrine of karma and rebirth as held in different Śramaņa schools. As is well known, the Ajīvikas did not entertain any theory of karma and rebirth, we shall, therefore take up the Buddhist and Jain doctrines of karma and rebirth.
The Buddhist Doctrine of Karma and Rebirth
Instead of going into the details of the doctrine of karma as developed in the Buddhist tradition, we shall keep ourselves confined to its salient features, particularly to its position in early Buddhism. It is of pivotal significance in early Buddhist tradition according to which a person's situation and experiences are the results of deeds committed by him in previous lives. Beings pass from one life to other in accordance with the nature of their deeds. Thus the Majjhima Nikāya states: “......With divine, purified, superhuman eyes he (Buddha) sees beings passing away and being reborn, he knows that beings are inferior, exalted, beautiful, ugly, -well-faring ill-faring according to their karma.24 In the same text it is stated, 'Indeed, these venerable beings who are endowed with good conduct of body of speech and of mind, who do not abuse noble ones, who are of right view, acquiring for them selves the kamma of the right view, after the breaking up of the body after death, there are the ones who attain happiness (sugati), a heaven (saggam lokaṁ) ........they are ones who attain existence among men. Indeed these

Page #51

38
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
venerable beings who are endowed with disconduct of body, of speed, and ......of mind, who abuse noble ones, who are of wrong views, acquiring for themselves the kamma of the wrong view, they, after the breaking up the body after death, are ones who attain existence in the realm of the shades ......... in an animal womb (Tirchhanayoni).... who attain a state of loss (apaya), a miserable course (duggati), destruction (vinipāta), niraya.”:25 This refrain is frequent in the this text.26
This basic idea of karma has assumed somewhat different shapes in the various schools of Buddhism, a discussion of which is not desirable here. On the whole what we find is that the problem of karma and rebirth has been approached from a purely psychological point of view. Infact, the Buddhists have attached much importance to the state of mind (chetană) and sometimes karma has been defined as chetană' implying thereby that an action is a manifestation of will. Karma is determined by will which exercises its power over the mental faculties. Only for volitional or intentional actions one is morally responsible. Further, volitional deeds (sanchetikā) can not be annulled; the doer will have to experience their results inevitably.28
The doctrine of karma is so pervasive that even the gods are subjected to its control. They are doomed to births in lower states if their deeds are not righteous. Even the beginning of cosmic periods has been explained in terms of karmic effects. The cycles of rebirths and cosmic periods are said to be innumerable and unending. 29
The general moral character of a man has also a role to play in the fruition of karma. Individual's thoughts and deeds at the time of death are said to affect rebirth. This is not to say that the effects of accumulated karmas are negated by the thoughts and deeds of last moment; only an extra weightage is given to it. But the proper outlook at the time of death is indicative of general moral character of man.

Page #52

The Buddhist Doctrine of Karma and Rebirth
What the Buddha has said in connection with retribution of karma, has been variously developed by the different schools of Buddhism. The Vaibhăşikas have discussed the retribution in terms of svabhāva, prāpti and avigyapti. Avigyapti is an intermediary form which operates as a means by which merit and demerit are rewarded. Contrary to it, the Sautrāntikas hold a different position and believe that deeds cease to be as soon as they are done, but they affect the psycho-physical series. The potentiality working behind it is called bīja.30
A significant feature of the Buddhist doctrine of karma is transfer of merit. Though generally, the personal nature of karma is recognised through out the Pāli texts, transfer of merit has been mentioned at several palces. Thus, in the Petavatthu, the importance of gifts to the samgha has been frequently discussed. The act of charity by the benefactor becomes the act of the peta to whom it is ascribed. The merit ultimately goes to the peta. The Jātakas, Mahāparinibbāna Sutta and Anguttara Nikāya also furnish some very important pieces of evidence in support of merit transfer. In Arguttara Nikāya the mother of Nand is mentioned who gives food to monks in the name of King Vessavana for his welfare.31 Likewise Machhudāna Jātaka mentions an act of gift by the Buddha to a fish from which the spirit of river benefitted.32
The karma is inoxerable in nature and its effects can not be negated by any means. The Buddha rejected the idea of self-mortification or severe austerity as a means to counteracting the effects of karma. Karmanirodha, which involves both the exhaustion of past deleterious deeds and avoidance of further accumulation of such deeds, is possible only by recoursing to the eightfold path.
A critical analysis of the preceding remarks shows that the Buddha formulated his doctrine of karma and transmigration mainly drawing upon an older Śramaņa tradition and incorporating certain ideas from the Vedic tradition. While he accepted the idea of karma as the sole basis of

Page #53

40
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Samsara, a Śramana idea, he adopted some Vedic ideas such as merit transfer. Merit is basically linked with the śraddha rites. Though the Buddha denied the efficacy of the śraddha rites but he could not keep his thinking aloof from the influences of such popular beliefs. The current popular beliefs affected his doctrine of karma is evident from a reference of Devadutta-Sutta where it is stated that Yama is the lord of netherworld, who looks into the deeds of sinners and awards punishments accordingly.
34
A very significant point, which has been given due importance and which puts a question mark to the Buddhist origin of the doctrine of karma, is that the idea of samsara and transmigration presupposes a spiritual entity which does not perish with body and survives the death. The Buddha, who believes in the doctrine of saṁsăra i.e. karma and transmigration, and does not clearly admit the existence of soul as permanent entity, makes rigorous efforts to reconcile the two opposite views. His basic tenet of ksha nikavāda does not permit him to accept the idea of self as permanent entity and he is constrained to deny it owing to his commitment to the ideas of saṁsăra and transmigration. In order to reconcile this tension he envisages the theories of pratityasamutpada and pańch-skandhas. But this tension remains in Buddhism from the very beginning to the later times. It is precisely the reason that there is divergence of opinion about birth mechanism in later Buddhism. The Pudgalavādins maintain that pudgala, a personal entity, exists after death and by force of karma migrates from existence to existence. It is neither identical with the panch-skandha nor different from it. The relationship between pudgala and pańch-skandha is ineffable. The Theravada, on the otherhand, does not accept any intermediate state of being existing between death and rebirth. The Vibhajyavadins and Mahāsāṁghikas also appear to share the views of Theravada in as much as they do not clearly speak about the intermediate state (antarābhāva). The Sarvãstivādins and a few others, though, accept the antarābāva but they explain it differently. Thus, it may be assumed

Page #54

The Buddhist Doctrine of Karma and Rebirth
41
that the doctrine of karma and transmigration (the idea of saṁsāra) which is not consonant with Kshaṇikavāda is not a natural corollary of it. The Buddha picked up the idea of karma and rebirth or saṁsara from the pre-existing Śramana tradition and, after fashioning it in his own way, utilised it as one of the basic tenets of his system of thought.
Jain Kriyavada
The evidence of the early Jain texts indicates that the four major schools of thoughts which were in existence in the time of Mahavira were: 1. Akriyāvāda 2. Agyānavāda 3. Vinayavāda and 4. Kriyāvāda. Of these Kriyavada was the creed upheld and preached by Mahāvīra. It is interesting to note that Mahāvīra himself designates his creed as Kriyavada and it is quite possible that it was the philosophical name of Jainism in the time of Mahavīra though it is evident from the references of the Buddhist and the Jain texts that the creed was popularly known as nigantha or nirgrantha. Notionally, the terms kriyāvāda and nirgrantha are coincidal.
The kiriyam or Kriyavada has not been defined in the early Jain texts. But, we can have an idea of it once we critically look into the contexts in which this term has been used in contradistinction to other schools of thoughts. Thus, in the Sutrakritäńga where Kriyāvāda is mentioned as one of the four creeds above mentioned, after the critique of contemporary philosophical doctrines, it is stated. "The (kriyāvādin) Śramaṇas and Brāhmaṇas, understanding the world, speak thus: misery is produced by one's own works not by those of somebody else. But right knowledge and conduct lead to liberation".37 The same text further states: "Sinners can not annihilate their works by new works; the pious annihilate their works by abstention from works; the wise and happy men who got rid of the effects of greed, do not commit sins"38. While commenting on this term, Silanka has quoted averse from a canonical source 'acchittikiriyāvādi vayanti nacchitti, akiriyāvādiya, (the

Page #55

42
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
kriyāvādins speak of existence, while the akriyāvādins of non-existence) and says 'kriyā jivādi padārthostityādikas vadituṁ silaṁ yeşāṁ te kriyāvādinaḥ. Etad viparyasta akriyāvādinaḥ, lokāyatikaḥ, sākyadayaśca teşāṁ ātmaiva năsti kutastat kriyā tajjanito vă karmabandha iti'. Obviously, here Silãnka has soul as the substratum of kriya in his mind while discussing kriyāvāda. These references and a number of others found in the Jain and the Buddhist texts amply prove that the Kriyavāda is a doctrine of action opposed to the Akriyāvāda and distinguished from the Vinayavāda and the Agyānavāda. This doctrine of action has been called 'Kammavāda' by the Buddha.4)
In order to comprehend the kriyāvāda properly, we shall have to look into other doctrines in contrast to which it has often been referred to in the Jain and the Buddhist texts. According to Sūtrakritānga, the akriyāvādins believe in the annihilation of good deeds by denying the potentiality of karma in future existence." They 'do not understand the truth, bring forward various opinions; many men believing in them will whirl round in the endless cycle of births.'2 'As a blind man, though he have a light, does not see colours .............., because he is deprived of his eye (sight), so the kriyāvadin having a perverted intellect, does not recognise the action (of the soul) though it does exist'43. Thus, akriyāvāda is a theory of life and existence which does not believe in the fruition of action and that one's present experiences and situations are determined by his deeds in previous life and his future in determined by his present deeds. Mahāvīra had contemptuous attitude towards it and bitterly condemned it as it was diametrically opposed to kriyavāda.
That akriyāvāda was a very popular and important doctrine is indicated by the fact that it was adhered to by a number of schools of thought. In the Şthânănga Sūtra eight types of philosophers have been designated as akriyůvädins, viz. (1) Ekkavādins or monists; (2) Anikkavādins or pluralists; (3) Mitavaidins or extensionalists; (4)

Page #56

Jain Kriyavāda
43
Nimmitavidins or cosmogonists; (5) Sayavādins or sensualists; (6) Samucchedavadins or annihilationists; (7) Niyavādins or eternalists; (8) Na-santi-paralokavādins or materialists.-+ In his commentary on the Achārănga Sütra, śilāíka also mentions six types of akriyāvāda - (i) Kālavāda; (ii) Isvaravāda; (iii) Ātmavāda; (iv) Niyativāda; (v) Svabhāvavãda and (vi) Yadricchã-vāda.45 These schools of thoughts have been mentioned several times in the Jain and the Buddhist texts and sometimes their view points have been critically discussed. It is to be noted in this context that silārka, commenting on some passages of the Sūtrakritānga, identifies the Buddhists with the akriyāvādins, perhaps, the underlying idea was that the Buddhists maintained the theory of momentariness of existence and, hence, there can not be any connection between the thing as it is now and as it will be in the next moment.46 But Silãńka was misled by later polemics and there is no doubt in the fact that the Buddhists were kriyāvādins.
In the fine, we may say that akriyāvāda is doctrine which envisages either that a soul does not exist or it does not act or is not affected by
acts.7
The next heretical doctrine mentioned in the Sūtrakritānga and other Jain texts48 is that of the agyānikas. About the agyanikas it is stated in the Sūtrakritānga, though they (pretend to) be clever, reason incoherently and do not get beyond the confusion of their ideas. Ignorant (teachers) speak to ignorant (pupils), and without reflection they speak untruth'."But statements of the Jain texts do not bring out clearly as to what were the central ideas of the agyānavāda. However, from the Buddhist texts and the commentary of silānka we are able to discern as to what agyānavāda denoted. Agyānavāda refers to the views of Sanjaya Belatthiputta. The śamañňa phala Sutta provides the following account about the doctrine of Sanjaya: 'If you inquire of me whether there be a future state of being, I answer: If I experience a future state of

Page #57

44
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
existence, I will then explain the nature of that state. If you inquire, is it after this manner? that is not my concern. Is it after that fashion? that is not my concern. Is it different from these? that is not my concern. Is it not? that is not my concern. No, is it not? It is no concern of mine '50. According to silāńka, they think : 'Even if we avowedly, maintain a view- 'that this is good (Kusala), we are conscious that we are not aquainted with truth, the matter is not familiar to our knowledge. Indeed we have not as yet got beyond perplexity-perplexity which is blindness and delusion of the mind (cittāśuddhi, cittabhrānti)'1.
The Buddhist and the Jain treatment of doctrine of agyānavādins is not very fair and their views have been loosely analysed and sometimes misstated. Yet, what we are able to gather from the references of the Buddhist and Jain sources is that the agyānavādins believed that the transcendental issues evade the efficacy of human speculation and they suspended their judgement on such matters. In their eyes such inquiries tend to be fruitless and serve no purpose in the realisation of summum bonum.
If the philosophical position of agyānavādins is viewed from the Jain spectacle, it will appear that they were not kriyāvādins and infact, their philosophical standpoint could not permit them to uphold such a doctrine which gives a definite moral explanation of life and existence.
The last heretical creed which has been dealt with in the Jain texts is Vinayavāda. This has been mentioned in the Buddhist texts as Śilbbata-paramāsa or śīlabbatam. According to Sūtrakritānga the adherents of Vinayavāda believed truth to be untruth and called a bad man good. Without perceiving the truth they say that the object of desire (atthā?) is realised by vinaya alones?. According to śilărka the Vainayikas thought of gaining the desired other world through vinaya only 3. In the opinion of H. Jacobi, the Vainayikas believed in idolatry or sought salvation through bhaktiS+ B. M. Barua, on the otherhand,

Page #58

Jain Kriyavada
45
mainly dwelling upon the references about Silabbata-paramāsa or Śilabbatam and taking it identical with Vinayavāda, thinks that the vainayikas were moralists. But the morality as held by them was different from that of the Buddha and Mahāvīra. On the basis of the collective evidence available from the Buddhist and the Jain texts about Vinayavāda, Barua says that the moral teachings and practices prevalent in the time of Mahāvīra and the Buddha represent three systems of moral discipline viz. (i). system as expounded in the Dharmasutras and Grihya-Sutras; (ii). system detailed in the Niti literature; (iii). system embodied in the Kāma-Sūtras. It is interesting to note that these systems of moral discipline are distinguished from Anvikshaki which was a system of speculation about moksha or salvation." This is quite in keeping with the stand taken by Mahāvīra and the Buddha who in their respective contexts have condemned Vinayavada and have shown their disagreement with it. The Vinayvāda, no less than the Akriyāvāda and Agyanavāda, is opposed to the Jain doctrine of Kriyāvāda. The adherents of Vinayvāda observed only a set of moral rules of conduct and did not bother about ontological issues.
The above short account of the prominent creeds existing in the time of Mahāvīra has been given only in order to bring out the distinctive position of the kriyāvāda which constitutes the core of Jainism. Though the Buddha also believed in the kriyāvāda which he called kammavāda, but his kammavāda differed a little from the Jain kriyāvāda. While, according of Mahāvīra an individual is morally responsible for any act or deed done at the mental, oral or physical level, whether willfully or unintentionally, the Buddha disagreeing with Mahāvīra, advocated that one is morally responsible only for those acts which are done volitionally. This point is often referred to in both the Buddhist and the Jain sources.56
According to Mahavīra the experiences and situations of the self is brought about by one's deeds and not by any other cause. Thus, he was individualistic and denied any kind of merit transfer.

Page #59

46
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
As is clear from the above discussion that the kriyāvāda is the doctrine of action which envisages that deed is the prime-mover of life in this universe. The basic premise of the kriyāvāda, as upheld in Jainism, is the retribution of karma and the emancipation from the bondage arising out of it.
In the Jain view the world or saṁsāra is a process of transformation of 'living' (jiva) through the interaction of non-living (ajiva) the two ultimate entities (dravyas) without beginning and end. The contact between jīva and ajiva is caused by the deeds done mentally, vocally or physically by the being. Thus, the deed is the determining factor of the process of transformation of the living. In this unending process of transformation, death is only the prelude to renewed life. The termination of this process is possible only by recoursing to restraint from deeds of anykind, mental, vocal or physical, (sarivara) and subjecting oneself to severe austerity (nirjarā). Bondage is thus eliminated and mukti or emancipation is achieved.
A critical review of the Jain kriyāvāda reveals certain glaring facts which have greatbearing on the problem of the origin of the doctrine of karma and transmigration. The first point to be noted in this context is that the doctrine of kriyāvāda is mentioned in the earliest Jain texts such as the Sūtrakritānga, Āchărānga, Sthânănga etc. The angas are oldest texts of the Jain canonical literature. As is indicated by the Jain tradition, they were compiled in the council of Pataliputra held in the fourth century B. C. But it should be kept in mind that the contents of the anga texts were preserved orally as the original teachings of Mahāvīra from his very time. The angas were orally preserved is indicated by the evidence of the Jain texts that the celebrated Jain monk Bhadrabahu was master of all the twelve angas and Sthūlabhadra was having the knowledge of eleven angas at the time of Pataliputra council. This fact is very important from the point of view that the kriyāvāda is an original tenet of Jainism

Page #60

Jain Kriyavāda
and not a later development though subtleties and details were worked out afterward. It is from the standpoint of kriyāvāda that Mahāvīra distinguished his creed from the rest others and condemned them.
If we carefully look into the categories of contemporary philosophical doctrines of Agyānavāda, Vinayavāda and Akriyavāda and the subcategores of the latter, as mentioned above, it appears that Mahavira had the entire gamut of contemporary philosophical speculations in his purview while expounding his distinct philosophical position from the point of view of the kriyāvāda. It is highly significant to note that he dubbs all the existing doctrines as Akriyāvāda explicitly or implicitly. The lists of the subcategories of the Akriyāvāda available from the Jain texts are really confusing, as has been pointed out by Barua, but there remains little doubt that the lists refer to all the major schools of the Brāhmaṇical tradition, the Ājivikas and the materialists. The Buddhism is conspicuous by its absence from the lists opposed to the Jain kriyāvāda but the reason for it is that the Buddhism was also committed to the kriyāvāda and the part of it which was opposed to the Jain stand point was clearly criticised. Later on the Buddhist doctrine was also declared as akriyāvāda as is clear from the statement of silāńka mentioned above.
The fact that Mahāvīra designates his creed as kriyāvāda and rest other opposite doctrines as akriyāvāda leads us to the irresistible conclusion that it is a Jain invention in the hothouse of śramaņa tradition. How and when it was invented is shrouded in mystery, but it appears to be almost certain that it was an established doctrine in the time of Mahāvīra. There is no evidence to suggest that it was invented by Mahāvīra like many other ideas of Jainism; he simply preached it and there is strong possibility that it was a legacy of the past and Mahāvīra simply carried it on.

Page #61

48
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
This contention gets further support by the Jain concept of karmaparamāņu. When jiva acts at any level of speech, mind or body, there is created a stirring in the inner regions of jīva and the atoms (paramāņu, the smallest particle of matter as conceived in Jainism) scattered round it, endowed with different potentialities, are attracted according to the nature of deeds and they cling to the inner regions. Thus, the bodage between jīva and karma-parmā nu is created. The karma-parmāņus, inturn, control the oral, mental and physical functions of jiva. Untill the effects of karma-parmāņu are exhausted, jīva remains under their influence. This is a materialistic conception of karma, unique in the history of Indian philosophy. An attempt to draw a parallel between the concept of lińga-śarīra in the Sãmkhya-Yoga and Vedānta is based on wrong notions57. The concept of linga-sarīra pertains to that subtle-body which transmigrates to the next birth after death. At most this is comparable with the concept of subtle kırma ņa-śarira of the Jains. This atomic concept of karma betrays its primitive character.
It is interesting to note in this connection that some animistic beliefs were upheld in Jainism which will be discussed a little later. Links between the concept of transmigration and animism have often been pointed out. 58 It is quite possible that the Jain thinkers developed their concept of karma and transmigration out of their animistic beliefs without any influence ab extra.

Page #62

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Jain Kriyǎväda
19.
49
'It is interesting to note in this connection that it is here (sacrifice) that we find the first germs of the law of karma, which exercise such a dominating control over Indian thought upto present day'. Das Gupta, S. N. AHistory of Indian Philosophy, 1975, Vol. I. P. 22.
Ranade, R. D. Constructive Survey of the Upnisadic philosophy p. 145-166.
Kane, P. V., History of Dharmasastras, Vol. V, Part-II, 1537-44. Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. I. p. 207.
Taittiriya Samhita II, 6. 10. 2.
-
Kane P. V. History of Dharmasastras, Vol. V, Part II, p. 1545. Brihadaranyaka Upnisad IV. 4.5-7.
ibid. IV. 4.3; Kane P. V. History of Dharmasastras, p. 1546
Atha yatprasanśasatuh karma haiva tatprasanśasatuḥ. Punyo vai puṇyena karmanã bhavati papaḥ pãpeneti. Ibid. III. 3.13.
Kane, P. V. History of Dharmasastras, Vol. V, pt. II, 1977 p. 1551 Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Tradition p. 3 Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Tradition p. 4-5.
"Sapindikarana : The Hindu Rite of Entry into heaven" - David M. Knipe, p. 115 of Religious Encounters with Death, Insights from the History and Anthropology of Religions, edited by Frank Reynolds and Earle H. Waugh (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977) Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions p. 5-6.
ibid.
Obeyeskere, Gananath, 'Rebirth eschatology and its transformation, -in 'Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Tradition. p. 149. Obeyesker, Gana Nath: 'Rebirth eschatology and its Transformation' in Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Tradition'. p. 149.
20.
ibid. p. 147
21. ibid. p. 159
Basham, A. L. History and Doctrine of the Ajivikas 1981, p. 4-5. Jaini, Padmanabh S. Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Tradition p. 218.

Page #63

50
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
22. 23.
25. 26. 27.
28.
29.
31. 32. 33.
ibid. p. 160. Pandey, G. C., Fundamentals of Indian Culture Vol. I. p. 68. "The doctrine of karman in its original Śramaņa form was wholly individualistic and had little direct interests in social welfare." Majjhima-Nikaya, 1.183 (P. T. S.) Majjhima-Nikaya - 3. 178-179. Majjhima-Nikaya1.23; 1.482; 2.331; 3.203, 3.178-187 etc Anguttar-Nikāya (PTS) III. p. 415. Cf. Atthasãlini pp. 88ff. Anguttar-Nikāya (PTS) v. 292. Digha Nikâya 1. 17-18. Abhidharma Kosa - Sects 20-26; Also see 'Sautrântika Theory of bija' - Jaini P.S. Bulletin of the school of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 22, p. 236-249. Anguttar-Nikaya 4.63. Fausball. Jatakās, no. 88 Vol. 2. p. 423. Samyukta Nikấya 4.400-401. It describes an encounter between the Buddha and Vacchagotra about self (attā). The Buddha remains silent. Later he explains his silence to his disciple Anand - 'to say there is self is to side with the eternalists, to say that there is no self is to side with the annihilationist who rejeced any idea of rebirth as untenable. Thus the Buddha takes the middle view and remains silent.' In Samyukta Nikāya 2.76. The Buddha points out that there are two extremes which are to be avoided- (1) The doer experiences the results of deeds (2) one who does the deed is different from one who experiences the results. In this connection the commentary of Silãnka on Sūtrakritānga assumes significance. He brackets the Buddhists with Lokayatikas as Akriyavādins saying that they did not believe in the existence of soul hence the question of soul's deeds and the consequent bondage does not arise. This statement of Silãnka in the context of kriyāvada indicates that this tension was noticed even in ancient times. Sūtrakritânga. I. 12.1. ibid. I. 12.11.
34.
35. 36.

Page #64

The Buddhist Doctrine of Karma and Rebirth
51
37. 38. 39. 40.
41.
46. 47. 48.
49.
50.
ibid. 1. 12. 15. Sūtrakritānga (Ed. Dhanapati), p. 456. Anguttar Nikāya p. p. 286. Sūtrakritânga 1. 12. 8, S. B. E. XLV, II. p. 317. Sūtrakritānga 1. 12.4. ibid. 1. 12.6. Sthânănga Sūtra IV. 4; See also Barua B. M. 'Pre-Buddhistic Indian philosophy', 1981, p. 197. Achãrânga Tīkā (Ed. Dhanapati) p. 14. S. B. E. XLV, Jain Sutras Vol. II. p. 316, f.n. 3. Jacobi H. SBE XLV, Jain Sutras Vol. II, p. XXV Uttarãdhyayan Sūtra XVIII. 23. Sūtrakritâng 1. 12.2. Taken from S.B.E. Vol. XLV p. 26-27. Sūtrakritānga Tīkā p. 451-452 - taken from Barua B. M. PreBuddhistic Philosophies of India, p. 330. Sūtrakritānga 1.12 3-4, SBE XLV, II, p. 316. Sūtrakritânga Tikã p. 447 - Vainayikānam Vinayad eva kevala paralokam apicchatam. S. B. E. Vol. XLV. Jain Sutra S. p. 83 Barua, B. M. ibid, p. 335-36 Sūtrakritānga I, 1.2.28; Jacobi H, SBE, Jain Sutras pt. II, p. 414. Majjhima Nikāya, S. 377, The Cultural Heritage of India Vol. I. 1970, p. 438. The Primitive Heritage -Ed. by Margaret Mead and Nicolas Colas. 'Animism' -'Edward B. Tylor - It is habitually found that the theory of animism divides into two great dogmas, forming parts of one consistent doctrine; first concering souls of individual creatures, capable of continued existence after the death or destruction of body; second, concerning other spirits, upward to the rank of powerful deities.' p.48. Thapar Romila - Ancient India Social History, p. 70
51.
53. 54. 55.
56. 57.

Page #65

52
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Animism
Another element of the Jain philosophy which is of immense value from the point of view of the origin and antiquity of Jainism is the animistic belief. Animism is the belief that the objects in nature posses or are abodes of souls or spirits'. Tylor takes it as a general belief in spiritual beings, spiritual not in particular sense but in the sense of wider acceptation2. He writes, 'Animism is, infact, the groundwork of the philosophy of religion from that of savages upto that of civilization. And although it may at first sight seem to afford but a bare and meagre definition of a minimum of religion, it will be found practically sufficient: for where the root is, the branches will generally be produced3. It is this concept which later develops into the theories of soul and divinities, Thus animism constitutes the earliest phase of religious consciousness.
The Jains divide the existents of the world into two broad categories of jīva and ajīva. Jīva is a spiritual entity and is absolutely different from ajīva. It is conceived as substance (dravya) ever existing without beginning and end. jīva, in its purest state, is possessed of infinite knowledge, infinite bliss and infinite power. Jīva attains this state only after liberation from bondage. But the number of such jīvas is limited. In worldly state the purity of jivas is contaminated by karmic bondage. Jivas are infinite in number and occupy innumerable space points of lokākāśa. Even the earth, water, air and fire are regarded as living beings. The particles of earth possess souls; the entire lokākāśa is full of lowest kind of jivas called nigodas.
This concept of jiva of the Jains amounts to animism. As has been pointed out, animistic beliefs constitute the early phase of religious consciousness as such the primitive character of the Jain philosophy is brought out beyond doubt.

Page #66

Animism
The point to be noted here is that the during the middle of first millenium B. C. when religious thinking had reached a very advanced stage leaving animism far behind, is it plausible to hold, firstly, that such an animistic concept was envisaged and articulated by Mahāvīra and, secondly, that the people among whom Jainism originated and was being spread were still in primitive stage ready to accept animistic beliefs? May it not be humbly suggested that it is not an invention of sixth century B. C.; such an animistic conception is an archaism and Mahāvīra simply carried it on like many other ideas bequeathed by early Tirthankaras.
1.
2.
53
The animistic belief in Jainism takes its antiquity back to the early reaches of religious consciousness. As such it may not be taken to have come into existence as a revolt or reaction against any established religious tradition at a later stage, rather, it had an independent and natural course of origin at a very early stage.
3.
Drever James - A Dictionary of Psychology, 1961-p. 15.
Edward B. Tylor - 'Animism' - in Primitive Heritage Ed. Margaret Mead and Nicolas Calas - "It is habitually found that the theory of animism divides into two great dogmas, forming parts of one consistent doctrine; first concerning souls of an individual creatures, capable of continued existence after the death or destruction of body; second, concerning other spirits, upwards to the rank of powerful deities. p.48
Ibid. p. 48.

Page #67

3
Socio-Cultural Milieu of the Origin and Development of Jainism
There has been an attempt on the part of a number of scholars to search the roots of Jainism, Buddhism and some other non-ordhodox schools in the socio-economic and cultural milieu of sixth cent B. C. In this context attention has been drawn to the interactions between the Brāhmaṇic and the Śramanic traditions and their consequent impact on the intellectual activity during the first half of the first millennium B. C. Attention has also been focused on the unprecedented economic changes during this period due to introduction of iron technology. Forests were cleared, new fields of agriculture were prepared resulting into surplus production. This change in economy affected all the spheres of life. Trade and commerce activities enhanced, new market centres came into existence and finally, a number of urban centres emerged. This change is designated as 'second urban revolution'. Massive developments in the fields of agriculture, trade and commerce paved the way for the rise of a neocapitalist class often mentioned as setthis in the Buddhist and Jain texts. These setthis, though rich and influential, were vaisyas enjoying only relatively lower position in the Varna heirarchy. As such their dissatisfaction with existing orthodox social order is plausible. In this

Page #68

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
55
context, growing rituatism in Brāhmaṇical tradition, violence in Vedic sacrifices, damaging animal power which was greatly needed for cultivation, monopoly of the Brāhmaṇas over religious and ritualistic activities, Brāhmaṇa-Kshatriya rivalry for spiritual supremacy were, inter alia, some of the facts overwhich attention was paid. These factors were sufficient to convince these scholars that the existing orthodox view of life and ethos was no longer satisfying to the urges and aspirations of some sensitive men, in particular, and a section of people, in general, in changed circumstances. Search for alternative view of life, new ethos and values began which resulted into the emergence of a number of new ideologies of which Jainism, Buddhism and Ājīvikism were most important.
So for as the origins of Buddhism and Ājīvikism are concerned, the facts and arguments pointed out above are highly enlightening and convincing to a great extent, though the textures of historical constructions by different historians are not identical. But the same can not be said to be true about Jainism. It appears that there was a specific socio-cultural milieu in which Jainism grew and developed and we shall dwell upon it a little later.
It is significant to note that the changed situations in the first half of the first millennium B. C. provided the congenial atmosphere for the proliferation and growth of pre-existing Śramana tradition. We have seen earlier that the antiquity of the Śramaṇa tradition may be traced back to the Vedic and pre-Vedic times. Of the several sects of the Śramana tradition Jainism is the oldest. Mahāvīra, who flourished in the sixth cent. B. C., was the twenty fourth Tirthankara. According to Jain tradition as preserved in the Jain literature twenty three Tirthankara existed before Mahāvīra. Of these the historicity of Parsvanatha, the twenty third Tirthankara, has been convincingly established by Hermann Jacoby. If

Page #69

56
Socio-Cultural Milieu
any reliance can be placed on Jain tradition, Parsvanatha obtained moksha two hundred fifty years before Mahāvīra. As such he may have flourished in at least eighth cent. B. C. According to some historians the theory of twenty four Tirthankaras is a later fabrication and, hence, should not be accorded historical value. So far as historical value of tradition is concerned, we should have sober attitude. Any tradition which develops in long course of time necessarily contains some historical truth. Even myths contain in themselves some historical reality how so ever wrapped they may be in fanciful imaginations. Instead of rejecting any tradition lock, stock and barrel it is profitable to cull out the historical reality from the stock of legendary, imaginary and fictitious elements. Moreover, tradition is a good source of history. We have seen earlier that the concept of Tīrthankara and Arhat is very old and its antiquity may be traced back to Indo-European period. As such, the possibility of the existence of such enlightened persons who professed some faith and preached people may not be ruled out. It is true that the historicity of first Tirthankara Risabha Natha and others can not be proved beyond doubt for paucity of evidence though a few have tried to do so. No doubt, the evidence and arguments put forth by them are not very conclusive and convincing, yet, it is not proper to reject outrightly the historicity of the first Tirthankara Riṣabha Natha. The existence of a renowned ascetic is referred to in a number of texts some of which belong to the Brahmaṇical tradition. Not only he has been mentioned in the Mahabharata, his detailed biography is also found in the Bhagawata Purana. In the latter work he is said to be an incarnation of Viṣṇu, the purpose of which was the exposition of Śramana religion. It is of great significance to note that many a details of his biography as described in the Bhagawata Purāṇa are indentical to those preserved in the Jain texts. Even the name of Bharata of this country is said to have been given after the name of his son Bharata. These and a few other facts clearly

Page #70

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
57
indicate that a person named Rişabha Nátha, most probably a king who renouced the world and adopted śramaņa way of life, existed in flesh and blood in early times whose echo of presence is preserved in the texts of later times.
Of the other Tīrtharkaras we have some informations about Nami Nãth and Ariştanemi. Nami Nãth, who is said to be the 21st Tīrthańkara was an ascetic of repute. His biography is not only described in the Jain texts, he has attracted the authors of the Brahamaņical texts as well. For instance, the Mahābhārata describes his equanimity in high sounding words. Some of his utterances display sense of resignation and detachment were very popular and are quoted both in the Jain texts and the Mahābhārata. Aristanemi, the twenty second Tirtharkara, is said to be a cousin of Krişna. His life history has not only been described in detail in the Jain texts, but his name figures in the non-Jain sources as well.
Thus, there are indications that the tradition of twenty four Tirtharkaras contains some elements of truth and its outright rejection will be a disservice to history.
As has already been discussed and also pointed out by Hermann Jacobi, some basic concepts of Jain philosophy indicate its high antiquity. The concepts of dharma and adharma as categories of substance, the doctrine of karma and transmigration as also animistic belief all point to the fact that Jainism came into existence in very early times. Its antiquity goes back to Vedic/preVedic times.
If these points are kept into mind while delving into the problem of the origins and antiquity of Jainism, the explanations given in the context of the material and cultural milieu of the sixth cent B.C. become redundant. As such, we shall have to search that socio-cultural milieu in which Jainism emerged and developed. On this point we have some suggestions.

Page #71

58
Socio-Cultural Milieu
It is a well known fact that all the prominent sects of Śramana tradition, namely Jainism, Buddhism and Ajīvikism flourished in the region stretching from Kośala to Magadha-Videha covering modern eastern Uttar-Pradesh and north-western Bihar touching Himalayan foot-hills. This region has long remained away from the influence of the culture of the Rigvedic Aryans. The extension of Rigvedic culture in this area could be possible only in the later Vedic period. Initially, it was believed and still sorne scholars hold, that this area was inhibited by the non-Aryans. It was also believed that the Rigveda represents the Aryan culture and any culture which ins not Rigvedic in its complexion is necessarily nonAryan. It is precisely the reason that the Śramaņa sects including Jainism whose weltanschauung was entirely different from that of the Vedic were designated as non-Aryan. We have already discussed that the Śramana tradition, though non-Vedic, is not non-Aryan. Now, it is being generally accepted that the Aryan culture had different streams and the Rigvedic tradition is one of them.
Recently, a number of scholars have come forward to assert that there was an Aryan settlement in the region which was cradle land of Śramaņa sects parallel to the settlement of the Rigvedic Aryans in the north-western India or even earlier than that. In order to prove this point a number of literary, linguistic and archaeological evidence have been advanced. A critical study of the Purāņic accounts shows that, of the eight sons of Manu, Ikshwāku, the eldest had established a kingdom in Kośal with Ayodhyā as its capital. The dynasty of Ikshwāku mustered enough political power in course of time so much so that it influenced the entire politics of Indian sub continent for quite some time. In the Purāņic tradition the dynasty of Ikshwāku appears to be the most important where as in the Vedic tradition it enjoyed no special status. Though Ikshwākus are mentioned in the Rigveda, most important people of the Rigveda are Bharatas, Kurus, Purus, Tritsus and Yadus. This clearly indicates that the Ikshwakus did not constitute the core of the Rigvedic Aryans and

Page #72

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
: 59
perhaps they are distantly related with the latter. The antiquity of the presence of the Ikshwākus in the eastern regions is established beyond doubt by the Purāṇic tradition.
There has been controversy about the relative value of the Purăņic accounts as against the information furnished by the Vedic tradition as source of Indian history and culture. Recent works on ancient Indian historigraphy have disclosed that Purīna was one of the forms of earliest historical compositions along with Nārāśaṁsi, Gāthā, Akhyāna and Itihāsa. The intimate connection of Purāņa with Itihāsa is clearly brought out by the compound Itihăsa-Purāņa often mentioned as such in ancient Indian literary works. Thus, initially Purāsa was a literary composition dealing with the deeds of kings and greatmen. As the tradition goes, there was a professional class preserving the accounts of great men and events Later on, there was proliferation in Purāņic literature and also the authorship passed on to the hands of priests and the Brāhmaṇas. As such, the Purāņic literature could not remain secular and matters related with religion crept into it. By virtue of being handled down from generation to generation, its historical character contaminated.
Pargiter points out that there must have been two great streams of distinct traditions; Kshatriya tradition and Brāhmana tradition. Sacred lore is the subject matter of the literature connected with the Brāhmaṇa tradition and references to secular matters are generally incidental for the purpose of illustrating some religious points. He writes, "The ancient portion of the Purāņas consists largely of the royal geneologies and Kshatriya ballads and tales, while most of their teaching on religious matters was added by Brāhmaṇas in later times. Dynastic accounts and heroic tales were principal subjects of the Kshatriya record. He further remarks, "It is absurd to suppose that all the genuine Kshatriya tradition has been lost or utterly corrupted, and that the traditions which we have now are spurious. If the Brāhmaṇas could and did preserve their religious

Page #73

60
Socio-Cultural Milieu
compositions with the most scrupulous care and fidelity, it is absurd to suppose the opposite about the Kshatriya tradition, when there were men whose business it was to preserve such tradition. The general trusworthiness of tradition is the fact demonstrated, wherever it has been possible to test tradition by the result of discoveries and excavations, and we should distrust scepticism born of ignorance. The position now is this - there is strong presumption in favour of tradition, if any one contests tradition, the burden lies on him to show that it is wrong: and till he does that tradition holds the field?".
According to the tradition as preserved in the Purāņas, all the dynasties which ruled in India in the beginning descended from a primaeval king Manu Vaivasvanta son of Vivasvanta (the sun). Manu had ten sons of whom Ila was the eldest. Tla while on conquest entered Siva's groove Saravana and became changed into a woman Ilã. Ilã was consorted with Buddha, son of Soma, and had by him a son named Purūravas Aila. The other nine sons of Manu were Ikshvāku, Nābhāga, Dhrista, Śaryāti, Narisyanta, Prımśu, Nābhānedistha, Karusa and Prisadhra. Manu divided the earth, that is India in ten portions and distributed them among his sons. According to Pargiter, 'three different myths appear to have blended together in an attempt to unify the origins of three different dominant races which are said to have been derived from Manu, Purūravas and Sudyumna. They constituted three different stocks. Ikshavãku, the eldest and chief son obtained Madhyadesha and was progenitor of the solar race or dynasty with its capital at Ayodhyā. His eldest son Vikukshi succeeded him and reigned at Ayodhyā. From Ikshvāku's another son Nimi or Nemi sprang the dynasty that reigned in Videha whose capital Mithilã was named after his son Mithi', Another son of Manu, Nābhānedistha reigned in Vaiśāli and from him started a dynasty later on called the Vaiśālakas?.
Thus, it is indicated by the tradition that the regions stretching from ancient Košala of Videha was ruled by the descendants of Manu and are called Mänavas. Of these Mãnavas, Ikshvãkus were the most important.

Page #74

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
61
Pargiter takes Aila race, which began in a small principality at Allahabad and in course of time, dominated the whole of north India with the exception of Ayodhya, Videha and Vaiśāli, as the Aryan race by equating Aila with Arya on the one hand, and, the expansion of Ailas with the expansion of Aryans on the other. In his opinion the Manavas were Dravidians1. In support of his contention Pargiter refers to the evidence of language as set out by G. Grierson. It is very difficult to agree with Pargiter's contention that the descendants of Manu, at least the Ikshavākus, were Dravidians. Hehimself admits that "in the geneological accounts the post of honour in being described first is always given to the Solar or Manava race"5, Moveover, the high esteem which has been accorded to the legendary figures like Sagar, Mãndhātā, Rāma etc. in tradition could not have been possible if they had any affiliation with Dravidian race. The conception of Rama being God incarnate and saviour of Aryan faith and culture also contradicts such a conclusion. In fact, when Pargiter was writing there was no conception that there was an Aryan settlement in eastern regions simultaneous with or prior to the settlement of the Rigvedic Aryans in the northwest and the upper Gangetic valley. Though he himself rejects the theory of Aryan migration from North-west and pleads for the immigration of the Ailas from the middle Himalayan region.
The presence of Aryans in this region is indicated by archaeological as well as literacy sources. Recently G. R. Sharma has drawn the attention of scholars to the discovery of horse bone from Koldihawã dating 6th millennium B. C. Referring to Aluar he says that the tradition of horse-taming had reached south India by fourth millenium B. C. Aryans's association with horse is well-known and it is one of the grounds on the basis of which attempts have been made to determine their original homeland. Moveover, the tradition of horse-sacrifice was established in India in very early times.
In this context the evidence of the vratyas known from the xvth chapter of Atharva Veda, Pañchavimśa Brāhmaṇa and Dharm Sūtras

Page #75

62
Socio-Cultural Milieu
is very interesting and enlightening. The term 'vrătya' is usually derived from vrata meaning miltitude, group, horde etc. though attempts have also been made to derive it from 'vrata' meaning 'vow'. If vrātya is to be taken as a derivative of 'vrata' which seems to be proper, it indicates that vrátya people had a very primitive type of organisation. The evidence of Panchavimśa Brāhmaṇa clearly shows that the vrătyas neither pursued the occupation of agriculture nor trade and commerce. Naturally, they were in primitive stage and must have been cattle rearers. That they were nomadic people is born out by the evidence of Atharva Veda.
The vrătya problem has been one of the knotty problems of Indian history and has attracted the attention of scholars both here and abroad and a great volume of literature has appeared on this subject. Scholars are not unanimous on the point as to the whether the vrâtyas are Aryans or non-Aryans. But there are strong indications, as has been pointed out by Zimmer, Bloomfield, Weber, Kshetresh Chandra Chattopadhayaya, Rahul Sankrityayana G. R. Sharma and several others, that the vrátyas are Aryans though different from the Rigvedic Aryans. Thus, the Pañchavimśa Brāhmaṇa states that they spoke the language of the initiated though being not initiated?. Commenting on it A.B. Keith writes, "That they (vrátyas) were non-Aryans is not probable for it is expressly said that though unconsecrated, they spoke the tongue of the consecrated they were, thus, apparently Aryans"8. Like Aryans they also moved by chariot drawn by horse called 'vipatha' which according to Látyāyana Śrauta Sūtra was 'prāchyaratha'that is, eastern chariot. The knowledge and use of horse by the vratyas is of great significance so for as the question of their association with the Aryan community is concerned. They have highly been glorified in the AtharvaVeda and had they belonged to some non-Aryan stock they would had received the treatment otherwise. Here a comment of Śankara about the 'vrătya' in Praśnopanişad (2.11) is worth mentioning. According to him 'vrătya' means 'uninitiated' because of his being the first born, and there being no one

Page #76

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
63
else to initiate him. This note-worthy characterisation is quite in consonance with the dignity which has been accorded to vratya in the Atharva Veda.
That the 'vratyas' belonged to the eastern region is clearly brought out by the references of Atharva Veda and Latyāyana Śrauta Sūtra. In the latter he is expressly called 'Magadhadeśīya'. It is precisely the reason that 'vipatha' the chariot of vratya, is called 'prãchya-ratha'. Whether they originally belonged to this region or came from out side is a matter of debate. But one thing is quite clear that they have been living in eastern region since very early times much before the vratya-kanda of Atharva Veda was composed. The vratya deification had reached its highest point in eka vratya who is represented as a cosmogonic power in the Atharva Veda xv. It must have taken a long course of time for antecedent development.
Thus, the vratyas were a branch of Aryans different from the Rigvedic Aryans. They had settled in Magadha and adjoining regions in a very early time. They had a long tradition of nomadic life. The fact that they neither pursued the profession of agriculture nor trade indicates that they were pastoral people. Their culture was quite distinct from the culture of the Rigvedic Aryans. They did not subscribe to the Vedic ritualism, and wandering and asceticism characterise their religious life.
Close relationship between the religious cult of the vratyas and the worship of Rudra has been pointed out by R. N. Dandekar. Bhandarkar has identified eka vratya of Atharva Veda with the original Śiva. No doubt, the religious cult of the vratyas had some elements of the cult of Rudra, but bringing the vratya cult within the fold of Saivism is not warranted by the evidence. The religious ideology of the vratya appers to the unarticulated and broad based. In fact, the vratya religious ideology, is spring head of a number of cults.
Due attention has not been paid to the historical significance of the vratya community being broadly divided into two classes, namely

Page #77

64
Socio-Cultural Milieu
(1) arhatas, (2) yaudhãs as according to Pañchavim sa Brāhmaṇa. The term yaudhaḥ clearly denotes the class of warriors. Bhandarkar and many others following him have equated arhatãs with Brāhmaṇas, but this conjecture is not maintainable. The term arhata is typically a Śramana term and has a specific connotation. Arhata is an honourable term and is applied to such persons who have either attained salvation or reached the stage of salvation in the Jain and Buddhist traditions. The equation of arhatas and yaudhãs of the vratya community with the Brāhmaṇas and Kshatriyas of the orthodox society is misleading.
It is significant to note that the classification of the vratya community into yaudhas and arhatas has a great bearing on the cultural history of India. Coming from the same stock, the arhatas, like the Brahmaņas, were men who were spiritual seekers while the yaudhãs, like the Kshatriyas, were engaged in managing the mundane affairs. Both these groups constituted the vratya rajanya class. There is no trace of the division of the vratya community into Brāhmaṇa, Vaisya and Śūdra categories in the early literature. The classification of the vratyas in these categories is a later development when people coming from different stocks were included in these categories opposed to Vedic orthodoxy. Infact, the arhatas as a category of the vratyas belonging to Śramaṇa tradition had a definite religious ideology and were wandering ascetics. Their weltanschauung was opposed to the Vedic outlooks. Since the arhatas were related with Śramana tradition and belonged to the rajanya class, it is quite reasonable to conclude that Jainism developed from the institution of these arhatas.
This inference gets support from another reference of the Panchaviṁsa Brahmaṇa in which it is stated that the vratyas were divided into four classes, namely, hīna, gargira, samanichmedhra and nindita. In the opinion of R. N. Dandekar the categories of gargira and samanichamedhra indicate close relatioship between Rudra and the

Page #78

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
65
cult of vrãtyas. Of these four categoreis, samanichamedhra is of great significance from the point of view of Jainism. Smanīchmedhra were the people whose penis hanged down through the control of passion. Needless to say that austerity and control over senses constitute the core of the Jain ethics and without which emanicipation from the bondage of karma and rebirth and realisation of highest bliss and knowledge is not possible. Moreover, the portrayal of penis hanging down is a characteristic feature of the Jain iconography where as penis erectus and phallic worship are associated with Saivism. Thus, the category of samanīchamedhra indicates the association of Jainism with the vrătyas.
The cult of the vrătyas was different from the orthodox Brāhmaṇism. They appear to be associated with the 'rājanya' class. The retinue of the vrátya comprising 'pumschali' (hetaria), magadha, pariskanda' (attendant), 'vipathavāha' (chariot horses), 'vipatha' (chariot) with 'sārathi'(charioter) and 'puraħsara' (foverunner) clearly indicates that they were not associated with the Brāhmaṇa class. We agree with the observation fo A. C. Banerjee who writes, "The peculiar out fit consisting of the 'pravartan' (two round ornaments), the maņi, (jewel), the 'uşniśa' (turban) can hardly be considered to be fit for a Brāhmaṇa"'l. In his opinion, the reference of 'āsandi' in connection with the eka vrătya of the Atharva Veda clearly shows the association of vrátyas with the răjanya class because 'asandi' is usually meant for a rājanya and not Brāhmaṇa as is clear from the description of Rājaswa in the Brāhmaṇa texts. In this context it is worthwhile to quote Banerjee 'The Rajanya like character of the divine Vrãtya as well as his earthy prototypes presupposes that the supposed ritual of rituals should be meant specially for the Rājanya sacrificer. Now, the Rājasūya according to the Brāhmaṇas and the Sūtras, is to be performed only by the Rajanya or Kshatra, and not by the Brāhmaṇa, who is given the option of performing the Vājapeya. Secondly, the mention of the Sãman in the context of the abhişechaniya (sprinkling ceremony in the Rājasuya)

Page #79

66
Socio-Cultural Milieu
while the king is made to ascend the regions, and bringing forth of the throne seat (āsandi) made of 'khadira', clinch the suggested connection still further. Again the supreme position of the vrấtya among the immortals as well as the mortal beings, reminds us of the Absolute sovereignity of the consecrated monarch (rājyābhi şikta) and the Atharvan Eka Vrātya seems more akin to the Eka-rãt of the Brāhmaṇas, than to the Ekarşi of the Upanişads as suggested by Hauer" 13 At another place he writes. "The setting out of the vrãtya to all directions, can only remind us of the 'symbolic conquest in all directions' mentioned in the context of the Rājasūya. Similar is the case with the receptions of the vratyas as an honoured guest referred to towards the end of this book, who is none other than the king or warrior-noble as guest. These characterstics of the Atharvan vrâtya link up his followers, the earthly vrátya with the original Rājanya, who remained independent and had a glorious tradition and were disliked by the Brāhamanas!4.
The association of the vrătyas with the rājanya class and the assumption that the Śramana tradition, and in that particularly the Jainism, was related with the vrătyas enable us to explain the Kshatriya bias and anti Brāhmaņa attitude of the Jains. The story of transfer of the embryo of Mahāvīra from the womb Brāhmaṇi Devānandã to that of Kshatrāņi Trišala as described in the Kalpasūtra clearly brings out the Kshatriya bias of the Jains. In the Kalpasūtra it is stated, 'It never has happened, nor does it happen, nor will it happen, that Arhats, Chakravartins, Baladevas, or Vasudevas, in the past, present or future, should be born in low families, poor families, indigent families, begger families or Brāhmanical families. For indeed, Arhatas, Chakravartins, Baladevas and Väsudevas, in the past, present and future, are born in high families, noble families, royal families. noblemen's families, in families belonging to the race of Ikshvāku or of Hari, or in other such like families of pure descent on both sides ........ This venerable Ascetic Mahāvīra, now in the continent Jambūdvīpa, in Bhārata Varsa, in the Brāhmaṇical part of the town Kundagrāma, has

Page #80

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
67
taken the form of an embryo in the womb of the Brāhmaṇi Devenandã of Jālandharāyaṇa gotra, wife of the Brāhmaṇa Risabhadatta of the gotra of Kodāl. Hence, it is established custom of all past, present and future Śakras, cheif and king of the gods to cause the Arhatas and Bhăgawatas to be removed from such like low, mean, & C families to such like high, noble & C.families. It is therefore, better that I should cause the Venerable ascetic Mahāvīra, the last of the Tīrthankars, to be removed from the Brāhmaṇical part of the town Kundagrāma, from the womb of the Brāhmaṇi Devānandã of the Jalandharāyaṇa gotra wife of the Brāhmaņa Rişabhadatta of the gotra of Kodal to the Kshatriya part of the town Kundagrāma, and to be placed as an embryo in the womb of the Kshatriyā ņi Trisalā of the Vaśiştha gotra, wife of Kshatriya Siddhārtha of the Kõsyapa gotra, belonging to the clan of the gyātri Kshatriyas; and to cause the embryo of the Kshatriyani Trišala of the vasiştha gotra to be palced in the womb of the Brāhmaṇi Devānandă of the Jālandharāyaṇa gotra”:15. The fact that all the twenty four Tirthařkaras were born in the Kshatriya class lends support to this contention.
A significant point to be noted in this connection is that the Jains rejected the heirarchy of the Varsas as accepted in the Brāhmaṇical tradition. They are inclined to place Kshatriyas in higher position than the Brāhmaṇas. According to the Jain conception abeing's position in this world is determined by the nature of his deeds. As such, if a being has reached near liberation and is to be born for the last time in this world only to be liberated and become an arhata or tīrthankara, he must necessarily be born in the highest class i.e. the Brāhmaṇa class. This clearly indicates that in the opinion of the Jains, the Kshatriya class is superior to the Brāhmaṇa class.
Once it is accepted that there was a pre-Rigvedic Aryan settlement in the middle Gangetic valley, including the region stretching from kośala to videh enjoining Himalayan foot-hills; that Atharvavedic Aryans who had settled in the eastern regions and were pre-Rigvedic Aryans; that the vrátyus

Page #81

68
Socio-Cultural Milieu
were pre-Rigvedic nomadic Aryans, the problem of the origin and development of Śramaṇa tradition in general, and Jainism in particular, is obviated. It is not an accident that all the Śramana sects originated and develped in this region. The socio-cultural milieu of this region provided the background and congenial atomosphere necessary for it.
It is to be noted that the socio-political development of this region is not identical with that of the central and north-western regions of north India. On political plane we see that the states, which existed during Buddha's time and about whom informations are furnished by the Buddhist and Jain texts, did not have uniform political organisation. The states which existed in this region viz., Šakyas, Mallas, Licchavisa etc. had republican form of government as against the states of other regions. They also bear tribal names instead of territonal ones. This clearly indicates that they still had tribal organisation, howsoever loose that might be, and their republican form of political organisation was an outcome of initial tribal collectivism. The people who developed republican form of government have been dubbed as non-Aryans by earlier historians because, then, they did not have the imagination that this region was inhibited by Aryans from very early times. But as we have seen earlier, they were Aryan people and had distinct cultural profile from the Rigvedic Aryans.
The social development of these people was also not identical with the people of the Saraswati-Pańchanada regions. While Rig-vedic Aryans inhibiting in the Saraswati-Panchanada regions evolved social stratification in the form of chaturvarna the same could not occur in the social development of eastern people. In fact, the emergence of varna system gave death-below to the tribal organisation of the Rigvedic Aryans, while, the absence of such a development gave a lease of life to the tribal pattern of social organisation of these eastern Aryans.
It is very important to understand the pattern of social organisation of the Indo-European people in order to understand the socio-cultural development of the different groups of the Indo-Aryans who settled in different

Page #82

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
69
parts of India. During Indo-European period the concept of jana denoting a certain community coming down from an ancestor had already developed. In the Rigved there are a number of references of the term jana denoting an unit of social organisation. That the Rigvedic society was divided into janas such as Puru-jana, Kuru-jana, Bharata-jana, Druhyu-jana etc. clearly indicates that the jana organisation was the characterstic feature of the social organisation of the Rigvedic Aryans. The Pāli and Prākrita texts also provide ample evidence of such organisation in the form of jana. Ikshvākus, Licchavis, Śãkyas and Mallas are some examples of such an orgaisation. The concept of jana is also seen in the Graeco-Roman tradition.
The Greek term genos and Latin term gene are synonyms of Sanskrit term jana. Like jana, the terms genos and gene also denote a community descending from a common ancestor. The gene organisation turns into tribus (tribhava) when three important communities of Romans got merged into one. Thus, the cumulative evidence of ancient Greek, Roman and Indian traditions make it amply clear that the concept of jana had already come into existence during Indo-European stage.
Though there appears to be somewhat similarity in the general features of the development of the concept of jana and social organisation based on it in the Greek, Roman, Iranian and Rigvedic Indian traditions, it takes a different course in the Śramana tradition. In the Rigvedic tradition jana is replaced by varņa organisation. Jana' gets divided into brahma, kshatra and vis. Its political organisation is characterised by monarchy. In the Śramaņa tradition jana remained unstratified and entire jana came to be known as khattiyas as is evident from the Buddhist and Jain sourses others who did not subscribe to the śramana way of life maitained their social identities on professional and ritualistic basis.
The jana organisations which remained away from the pale of varņa organisation succeeded in maintaining their collective identity for a long period of time. They were divided into kulas (families). Since, collectivism was their binding force, they developed republican form of political organisation represented by all the heads of the kulas on the

Page #83

70
Socio-Cultural Milieu
basis of equality. This political system was known as gama-rājya. It is remarkable to note that this political collectivism in the form of ganarăjya is nothing but a natural manifestation of social collectivism in the form of jana. If this correspondence between social reality and political actuality is kept into mind, the confusion about the meaning of the term gana is automatically abviated. In this light, we can very well understand as to how corporate bodies of traders and artisans known as sreņis as also saṁgh type religious organisations emerged in this region.
The khattiya of the Śramaņa tradition can not be equated with the kshatriya of the Rigvedic varņa institution, though the term kshatriya is Sanskrit form of the Pãli-Prākrit term khattiya. The term kshatriya has been derived from the term kshatra which has been etymologically explained by Indian commentators in different ways. But the explaination given by V. Pokorni appears to be more realistic according to which the term kshatra has been derived from the Sanskrit root 'kshi' as also from Avestan root 'si' to be powerful or to rule from which the term kshathra =ruler has been derived.18 This term is connected with the Sanskrit and Avestan term kshaya which, in the latter, denoted not only dwelling but also royal authority as weall as royal territory.
As in Iran the Avestan kshathra could not be denotive of a particular class in the social stratification, so also, in the social segment covered by Śramana tradition the term khattiya (kshatriya), Avestan kshayathiyā was used for the ruling class, not to be likened with the kshatiriyas of the varņa organisation of the Rigvedic Aryans. Thus, the khattiyas are not the same as kshatriyas of the varma organisation of the Rigvedic traditions. Thus, the khattiyas belonged to the Indo-Iranian stock who got settled in the region covered by modern eastern U.P. and western and northern Bihar. Their language was Pāli and Prākrit. Because of their association with the Śramaņa tradition and the Vrátyas, whose cultural profile was entirely different from that of the vedic tradition, they

Page #84

A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
71
have been regarded as degraded people by the vedic authorities. Viewed in this light, it becomes clear as to why Manu designates peoples like Licchavis and Mallas as vrátyas."
As we have seen earlier, the khattiyas constituted the ruling class of the region which they occupied their rajanya character is obvious. Since the Śramaņa tradition originated and developed in the socio-cultural milleu dominated by the khattiyas the rājanya or kshatriya bias of the Śramana tradition, particularly of Jainism, is rendered intelligible.
aj nNoo
Pargiter, F. E., The Ancient Indian Historical Tradition p. 5. 2. ibid p. 6.
Pargiter, F. E., Ancient Indian Historical Tradition p. 288. ibid p. 296. ibid p. 296. Sharma G. R. Bhârtiya Sanskriti ke Purãtãtvika Ādhāra. Pancha vissa Brāhmaṇa. 17.1.2-7 har ariel, 7 of 7 aifupi
J. R. A. S, 1913 Vol. VI-II, p. 155. 9. Dandekar, R. N. Vedic Mythological Tract p. 209-10. 10. ibid p. 210 (R. N. Dandekar) 11. Banerjee A. C. "Studies in the Brāhmaņas" p. 126. 12. ibid. p. 126. 13. ibid. p. 129. 14. ibid p. 126-27 15. S. B. E. Vol. XXII, Jain Sūtras Vol. I. p. 225-27; Kalpasūtra 1.17-22 16. The region stretching from Anga-magadha in the east, Kośãmbi in
the south, Sthūņa in the west and Kuņāla in the north has been said to be Arya-kshetra in the Jain texts- Brihadkalpasūtra-1.50; In the Gilgit Manuscript of the Vinaya Pitaka Magadha people have been called wiser than people of other regions- Indian Historical Quarterly,
1938, p. 416. 17. Mishra, S. N. - Prãchina Bhārata men Grãma evam Grāmya
Sankritiyan, p. 165. 18. ibid p. 165. 19. Manusmriti-X. 20, 21, 22, 23; II. 39, 40

Page #85

Early History of Jainism
Inspite of sincere and meticulous effort by a host of historians, it has not been possible to bring out convincing details of the early history of Jainism. Though, the Jain tradition records its hoary antiquity, the literature pertaining to it dates not much earlier than a few centuries before the Christian era. As such, it is very difficuit to cull out the historical facts from the legendary tales preserved in the tradition. However, some glimpses of the early history of Jainism can be gleaned from the Jain literature itself.
The Jains do not believe in the existence of a primordial cause and take the world as existing without beginning or end. It is eternal. Time is likened by them with wheel having twelve spokes. The wheel of time is turning round and round infinitely. In turning half, the wheel is ascending while in the rest half, it is descending. The ascending and descending orders have been termed as utsarpiņi and avasarpiņi respectively. They are further divided into sub-periods. The Jain believe that their religion is eternal as it has been revealed again and again in every one of the succeeding eras or periods by Tirthańkars. The present period belongs to avasarpiņi whose eras are - (i) Suşamă Suşumā, (ii) Suşamă, (iii) Suşamã, Duşamă, (iv) Duşamă Suşamā (v) Duşamā (vi) Duşamā Duşamă.

Page #86

Early History of Jainism
73
The same eras occur in utsarpiņi period also but the order is reverse. According to the Jain tradition the history of Jainism begins from the ending period of the third era i.e. suşamā-duşamă.
It is stated in the Jain Purā ņas that in the most ancient time's man depended on nature and its resources for his livelihood. He had not to earn his livelihood rather he had to live on the resources provided by nature. This period has been called 'bhoga-bhūmi' by the Jain authors simply because man, then, was consumer and not a producer. Because of absolute dependence on nature and its vegetation the concept of 'kalpa-vriksha', so popular in Jainism as well as Hinduism, originated. Looked upon historically, this period may be compared with the stage of 'hunting and food-gathering economy' of the history of mankind. According to the Jain tradition the period which followed 'bhoga-bhūmi' is 'karma-bh ūmi'. It is during this period that man learnt the art of cultivation, taming and domestication of animals, various crafts, industries and commerce. This again is comparable with the stage of civilisation which succeeded the hunting and food-gathering economy of the general history of mankind. It is significant to note here that the ancient Jains had a view of history very akin to the modern view of history.
The credit of bringing about the change from 'bhoga-bhūmi' to 'karma-bhūmi' has been given to greatmen who have been called kulaklaras and salākāpuru şas and their number is stated to be sixtythree. The list of sixty-three salākāpuruşas (distinguished men) consists of twenty-four Tirthankaras, twelve Chakravartins, nine Balabhadras, nine Võsudevas and nine Prati Vasudevas. In Digambara tradition the names of the categories of these dintinguished men are a little different. In place of Vāsudevas and Prati Vāsudevas, this tradition mentions Nārāyaṇas and Prati Nārāya ņas respectively. The Kulaklaras preceded the Tirtharkaras and the first Tirtharíkara Rișabha was also the last kulakara. Though there are stray references of these distinguished

Page #87

74
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
persons in various texts of the Jain literature, a systematic and detailed description of these are found in the Triṣa şti salakapuruşa Charit of Hema chandra. Their names are:
TIRTHANKARA 1. Risabha Natha 2. Ajitanatha 3. Sambhavanatha 4. Abhinandan 5. Sumati 6. Padamaprabha or Suprabha 7. Supărśva 8. Chandraprabha 9. Puspadanta or Suvidhi 10. Śitalanatha 11. Sreyamsa 12. Vasupūjya 13. Vimala 14. Ananta 15. Dharmanatha 16. Santinatha 17. Kunthu 18. Aranatha 19. Malli 20. Suvrata 21. Naminatha 22. Aristanemi 23. Pārsvanatha 24. Mahāvīra
-
CHAKRAVARTI- 1. Bharata 2. Sagara 3. Madhava 4. Sanatkumãra 5. Shanti 6. Kunthu 7. Arah 8. Subhūma 9. Mahāpadma 10. Hariṣena 11. Jaya 12. Brahmadatta.
BALABHADRA- 1. Achala 2. Vijai 3. Bhadra 4. Suprabha 5. Sudarsana 6. Ananda 7. Nandana 8. Padma 9. Balarama.
VASUDEVA- 1. Tripriṣṭha 2. Dvipriṣṭha 3. Svayambhū 4. Purusottama 5. Puruşa Singh 6. Puruşa Pundarika 7. Datta 8. Nārāyaṇa 9. Kriśṇa.
PRATI-VASUDEVA- 1. Aśvagrīva 2. Tāraka 3. Meraka 4. Madhu 5. Nisumbha 6. Bali 7. Prahalada 8. Ravana 9. Jarāsamdha.
A perusal of these lists of names shows that some of the names are overlapping. They also contain the names of Hindu deities, which indicates intermingling of traditions.
The Jain tradition gives credit of rise, development and propagation of Jainism to these distinguished men. It is unfortunate to note that excepting a few Tirthankaras, no details of these distinguished men are available and only their names are mentioned in Jain texts. More unfortunate is the fact that whatever detailed accounts of some of the Tirthankaras are

Page #88

Rişabha Nãtha
75
available they are legendary in character and are so stereotyped that a modern student of history will at first look reject them as unhistorical. In fact, traditional accounts often mix up facts with fiction and the Jain tradition is not an exception to it. But tradition as such can not be rejected lock, stock and barrel. Efforts should be made, how so ever rigorous it may be, in order to bring out the historical reality to whatever extent it is possible.
Some scholars have outrightly rejected the theory of Tirtharkaras and have ventured to suggest that is was fabricated after a few centuries of the death of Mahāvīra. Such a conjecture has no solid basis and now it has become a matter of general acceptance that the twenty-third Tirtharkara Pãrśva Nátha is a historical person. We shall now see what informations are furnished by our sources and critically analyse them. Rişabha Nātha:
Though, detailed accounts of the life-history of Risabha Nãtha are found in the later Jain texts, some early texts like Kalpasūtra, Samavãyānga Sūtra. Avasyaka Niryukti, Bhāgawati Sūtra and Bhāgawata Purāņa throw sufficient light on the biography of Rişabha Nátha. All the texts are unanimous in declaring him to be the first Tirthańkara of the present avasarpiņi. He is said to be the son of Kulakara Nãbhi born of Marudevi. He belonged to Kośala as is evident by his nickname Kosaliye. He was king of Kośala and belonged to the dynasty of Ikshavāku though his name does not figure in the Purāņalist of the Ikshavāku kings of Ayodhya.
The description of his personality and life-span as given in canonical texts is simply incredible as he is said to be five hundred dhanusas (bowlengths) tall and lived for 84 lac years. The Ava syaka Niryukti informs us that he had two wives named Sumangalā and Sunandã and had hundred sons of which Bharata was the eldest. It is said in the same text

Page #89

76
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
that he taught his people 72 kalās, 64 mahilākalās, 100 arts and 3 occupations. After dividing his kinddom among his hundred sons he renounced the world and started living the life of an ascetic wandering from place to place. During his wanderings he visited a number of places in eastern and southern India. Finally, he attained omniscience at Purimatala which is said to be located near Ayodhya. According to Bhagawata Puraṇa he died burnt of fire set ablaze in bamboo jungle at Kutakachala mountain in south India. It is said in Kalpasūtra and Samavāyānga that he had established a monastic order, which consisted of 84 ganas, each under the leadership of an ganadhara. The number of monks and nuns is stated to be 84000 and 3 lacs respectively. The monks were organised under the leadership of Risabha sen and the nuns under the leadership of Brahmi and Sundari. Śreyāṁśa and Subhadrã are said to be his chief disciples.
The above account of the life of Risabha Natha in all its details should not be treated as historical facts for many reasons. The fact that Risabha Natha, in individual capacity, taught men about various arts. crafts and occupations can not be taken as historical reality. We know that man acquired the knowledge of all these in a long process of historical development. The process of the acquisition of knowledge was gradual. All that which can be inferred from such statements is that he belonged to very ancient times. Likewise, the number of monks, nuns and laydisciples and also their organisation in samgha can not be taken for granted. If we look into the historical contexts in which beginning of monastic life could have been possible, it does not appear feasible that it will have begun with the first Tirthankara, Risabha Natha. The statements of Jain texts in this regard should be outrightly rejected.
The Bhagawata Pūraṇa, a Brāhmaṇical text, gives us some important informations about Risabha Natha. In this text he is described as a son of Nãbhiraja born of Marudevi. He is Viṣṇu-incarnate and the

Page #90

Risabha Natha
77
cause of this incarnation is said to be the promulgation of the dharma of the Vatarasana Śramaņas'. He had long and scattered hair. He moved naked and ultimately died in South India. Much of the details of the life of Risabha Natha given in the Bhagawata Pūraṇa are similar to those found in the Jain texts. The fact that he came on this earth in order to promulgate Śramaņa dharma leaves on doubt that Ṛiṣabha Nath in reference is no other than Risabha Nãtha, the first Jain Tirthankara. Because of being renouned and revered as a spiritual seeder as also the assimilative attitude of the Brāhmaṇical tradition he is dubbed as Vişnuincarnate. It is interesting to note that while the author of the Bhagawata Pūraṇa shows all respect to him, he condemns his followers. They are said to be indulged in disparaging Brahma, Brāhmaṇa and Yagya2. The anti-orthodoxical views of the Jains are well known and it is precisely the reason that the Bhagawata Pūraṇa is critical about them. But the reverence shown to the first Tirthankara by its author in this context assumes significance. This clearly shows that the Tīrthankara Ṛiṣabha Nätha had earned a high reputation as a spiritual seeker and he was not considered a property exclusively of Jain tradition. Even the Brahmaṇical tradition held him in high esteem as is evident from conceiving him as Vişņu-incarnate. This fact strongly supports the historicity and remote antiquity of the first Tīrthankara Ṛiṣabha Natha.
We do not know anything about the identity of king Risabha mentioned in the Satapatha Brahmaṇa or a Risabha son of Viswamitra mentioned in the Aitereya Brāhmaṇa3. The Mahābhārata also mentions a king as well as saint Risabha Natha. A tīrtha named Risabha is also mentioned in the Mahabharata+
Attempt has been made at finding out the references of the first Tirthankara Risabha Natha in the Rigveda. But the evidence produced in this context is highly speculative and unconvincing. There is no doubt that reference of the vatarasana muni in the Rigveda is of great historical

Page #91

78
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
value. The entire Sūkta in which the vătarasanã Muni is mentioned does not fit in the cutlture-complex of the Rigveda. The vãtarasanã Muni appears to be quite an alien, when the description of vãtarasană Muni in the Rigveda and the account of the vãtarasană Sramana in the Bhāgawata Pūraņa are read together, it becomes almost clear that in this sūkta of the Rigveda there is a reference of the Śramaņas. Since Rişabha Nãtha is said to be the progenitor of the Śramaņas, it may be inferred that Risabha Nãtha was well known when this sūkta was composed. However, V.S. Pathak holds a different opinion". According to him the vātarasanã risis and munis mentioned in the Rigveda (x. 136), Taittirīya Āramyaka (1.23.2; 1-24, 2-5; 2.7) and Bhāgawata Pūraņa (5.3.20) are distinct from the Śramaņas. He has very succinctly brought out that the muni of the Rigveda, Taittirīya Āramyaka is an ascetic seeking transcendental knowledge through praṇopăsanã and has a profile quite distinct from Vedic sacrificers and śramaņas. Pathaka's elucidation is so brilliant that one can hardly disagree with him so far as the profile of müni is concerned. But the association of the Śramaņas with the Vătarasanās can hardly be denied. Neither the cannotaion of the term Vãtarasanã as fixed by Pathaka nor the time-gap between the Rigveda and the Taittiriya Aranyaka or between the latter and the Bhāgawata Pūrasa creates any problem in accepting the continuity of the Śramana tradition. It is also very difficult to agree with him that Risabha Nãtha of the Bhāgawata Pūraņa is district from Risabha Nãtha, the first Tirthańkara of the Jain tradition.
H. L Jain has identified Keśi of the Rigveda (x. 136) with Rişabha Nãtha?. He also sees a glimpse of Şişabha Nātha in some other verses of the Rigveda'. But viewed in the light of entire contexts his interpretations are quite unconvincing.
Though in the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to fix the place of Rişabha Nātha in historical time-scale, the historicity of an ascetic nemed Rişabha Nátha and his association with Jain tradition

Page #92

Pãráva Nátha
79
can not be rejected outrightly. The view that he was inducted in Jain tradition in the third cent B. C. or a little afterward, as suggested by some scholars, is hardly maintainable'. He was regularly worshipped, as a Tirtharkara in the early centuries of Christian era is evident from the epigraphic, sculptural and literary sources.
Pārśva Nátha :
In the series of twenty-four tirthańkaras Pãráva Nátha is reckoned as twenty-third. The early Jain texts, which furnish some valuable informations about him, are Sūtrakritānga, Bhagwati Sūtra, Kalpa Sutra, Uttarādhyayana Sữra, Nirvāvalika and Nāyādhammakahão. A brief account of the life of Păráva Nãtha has been given in the Kalpa Sūtra, according to which he was son of Aśva Sena, king of Vārāṇasi by his wife Vámã. He lived the life of a householder up to the age of thirty and then renounced the world. He practiced penance for eightythree days and obtained omniscience. He lived the life of a kevalin for seventy years and at the age of hundred he breathed his last on the summit of Sammed Mountain.
Now, it is a matter of general acceptance among historians that Parśva Nātha was historical person. Hermann Jacobi has critically dealt with the problem taking into account all the pieces of evidence available from the Buddhist and Jain records 10. According to him the châturyāma described in the Sāmaññayaphala Sutta of Dīgha Nikāya and ascribed to Nigantha Nãtaputta was infact chăturyāma dhamma of Pārsva Nãtha. The dhamma of Mahāvīra was poularly known as pańchamahāvrata. Jacobi writes - "Here, then the Buddhists, I suppose, have made a mistake in ascribing to Nãtaputta Mahāvīra a doctrine which properly belonged to his predecessor Pārsva. This is a significant mistake; for the Budhhists could not have used the above term as descriptive of the Nigantha creed unless they had heard it from followers of Pārśva, and they would not have used it if the reforms of Mahāvīra had already

Page #93

80
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
been generally adopted by the Niganthas at the time of the Buddha. I therefore look on this blunder of the Buddhists as a proof for the correctness of the Jain tradition, that followers of Pārśva actually existed at the time of Mahāvīra."'1 He further holds that the niganthas existed before Mahāvīra. They are frequently mentioned in the Pitakas as opponents or converts of the Buddha. This clearly indicates that the nigańhas must have been an important sect in the time of the Buddha. In his opinion they had been in existence for a considerable period of time before the advent of the Buddha. In support of his contention he refers to the division of mankind into six classes by Mankkhali Gośāla, a contemporary of Buddha and Mahāvīra in which the nigarthas constitute the third class. In his opinion, "Gośāla probably would not have ranked them as a separate i.e. fundamental subdivision of mankind, if they had only recently come into existence, he must have looked upon them as a very important and at the same time, an old sect."12 The historicity of Pārsva Nãtha is also proved by the fact that his followers, some of whom were contemporary of Mahāvīra, are frequently mentioned in the Jain Sūtras. In the Uttarādhyayan Sūtra a dialogue between Keśi and Gautama is recorded." Kesi and Gautama were heads of the orders of Pārśva and Mahāvīra respectively. They met in a park near Śravasti and realising that there is no difference in the fundamental ethical ideas of their creeds they held discussions concerning differences in number of vows and use and nonuse of clothes by the monks. Ultimately, unity in the two orders was established. The fact that the samgha established by Pārśva Nātha remained in operation for more than two centuries after his demise leaves no room for doubt about the historicity of Pārsva Nãtha.
The Jain authors have depicted all their Tīrthařkaras as scions of royal families. Since no king of Vārāṇasi named Aśvasena is known from the Brāhmaṇa records as has been pointed out by Charpentier the statement of Kalpa Sūtra should not be readily accepted. He might have belonged to a well-to-do kshatriya family.

Page #94

Parsva Nätha
81
A. K. Chattergee is right in his surmise that being associated with Vārāṇasi, which has been spiritual and intellectual centre of India from most ancient times, he might have received 'serious training in religion and philosophy in his early youth.'
14
Jainism appears to have been indebted much to Parsva Natha both on philosophical and organisational levels. As has been pointed out by Jacobi the followers of Parsva Nãtha were known as nigarthas, and we get some glimpses of their doctrine from the early Buddhist texts. They held that the cause of misery is deed done by the beings. Deeds are accomplished at the levels of mind, body and speech. If deeds cease misery ends. If deeds done are done away with austerity, the being is blessed with omniscience and highest bliss. Jiva is eternal and it is never subjected to contamination once it is released. They had strong belief in the doctrine of karma and rebirth. They stricly adhered to the principle of non-violence. These ideas of the nigarthas comprise some of the fundamental tenets of Jainism known from the early Jain Sutras as has rightly been pointed out by Jacobi.15 The practices of uposatha and var şăvăsa also appear to have been in prevalence in the time of Parsva Natha.
The doctrine of Parsva Nãtha has been described as 'chaturyāma dharma' in the Jain Sutras. The 'chaturyama dharma' has been mentioned in the Pāli texts in connection with the niganthas who, according to Jacobi were the followers of Parsva Nãtha. According to the Jain canonical texts these four yamas or doctrinal principles are: 1) sarvaprātikrama se viramaņa, 2) sarva mṛṣāvāda se viramaņa 3) sarva adattādāna se viramaṇa, 4) sarva bahisthādāna se viramaņa. These four precepts of Parsva Natha are identical with four of the five vows taught by Mahāvīra which are truthfulness, non-violence, nonsteeling and non-possession respectively. To this list of four vows, Mahāvīra added celiberacy as the fifth one. 16 The Jains believe that in the fourth precept of Parsva Natha i.e. non-possession the vow of celibacy

Page #95

82
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
is included and it becomes plausible once we take into account the explanation given by Guatama to Kesi when the latter raised the question of difference in the number of vows preached by Parsva Nãtha and Mahāvīra as depicted in the 'Gautama Kesi Saṁavada' of Uttaradhyayana Sutra. This text also tells us that the followers of Pārsva Nätha used to wear clothes.
The four precepts preached by Parsva are only ethical regulations and have only practical implications. Because of the practical nature of his teaching B. M .Barua dubs him as a religious leader and his order merely as a 'religious order' different from that of Mahāvīra which was not only a religious order, but also a distinct school of thought'." But it is very difficult to agree with Barua on this point. No religious teacher can convince his followers unless he tells them that the rules taught by him are not arbitrary and will lead them to the summum bonum of life. For it is required an ontological perspective in which the spectacles of flux and constant of life and world could be systematically explained. It is true that the Păli and Jain texts do not give us any information about the philosophical ideas of Parsva Natha. But it will be unwise to take that he had no philosophical justification of his ethical teachings. Had he not been a philosopher, he would not have been able in attracting people in a great number, which necessitated the establishment of saṁgha comprising thousands of monks and nuns and remained in function even centuries after his demise. It is too much to give all the credit to Mahavīra for all the doctrinal propositions, which constitute the early Jainism. It may be surmised that a great part of that was coming from earlier Tīrthankaras and, particularly, from Parsva Natha. No doubt, Mahāvīra christened, developed and systematised it. Unfortunately, purva literature is lost otherwise we would had been more accurate on the form of Jainism before Mahāvīra and also on the point of contribution of Parsva Nãtha to Jainism.
Parsva Natha played a great role in propagating Jainism to masses.

Page #96

Pārsva Nãtha
For its propularisation he established a samgha which consisted of eight gamas each under the leadership of a ganadhara. The Swetămbara tradition has recorded the names of gañadharas, which are śubha. Āryaghoşa, Vašiştha, Brahma Chãrin, Saumya, Sridhara, Virabhadra and Yasa. The number of monks is stated to be 16000 and those of nuns 38000 who were organised under the leadership of Āryadatta and Puspachūlā respectively. The number of lay followers both male and females are stated to be 164000 and 372000 respectively. These figures are undoubtedly exaggerated. Only this much can be said in this regard that he attracted a large number of followers. The Digambara tradition does not agree with Svetămbara tradition on the points of number of gamas and followers.
The important places which Páráva Nãtha visited in course of his wanderings are stated to be Ahichchhatra, Amalakappa, Śrāvasti, Kampilyapura, Rājagriha and Kośãmbi etc.
The Jain texts tell us that a number of contemporary kings were converted to his faith by Pãrśva Nátha. Some of them are Nagnajit, king of Gandhāra, Nimi, king of Videha, Durmukha, king of Pāńchāla, Bhīma, king of Vidarbha and Karkandu, king of Kalinga. We are neither sure as to whether Pāráva Nãtha traversed such long distances in order to propagate his faith, nor the historicity of these kings can be verified. Hence, there is no need to take such statements very seriously. Only this much is proper to say the Pãrýva Nātha succeeded in bringing some contemporary rulers under influence.
As a result of Pārśva Nãtha's effort Jainism became very popular in different parts of north India. The followers of Păráva Nátha who were contemporary of Mahāvīra have frequently been mentioned in the Jain Sūtras. In the Bhagawati Sūtra dialogues between the followers of Pārśva and Mahāvīra and his followers are described. Kālāsavesiyaputta and Gãngeya were followers of Pārśva who had entered in dialogue

Page #97

84
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
with Mahāvīra and the latter had finally succeeded in converting them to his faith. Other followers of Pārsva who have been mentioned in the Jain Sūtras are Kāliyaputta, Mehila, Kısava, Anandarakkhiya and Udaya Pedhâlputta. According to Achārănga Sūtra the parents of Mahāvīra were also followers of Pārsva. We learn from the Anguttar Nikāya, Chatukkanipāta and its Atthakathì that even Bappã Sãkya, the uncle of Gautama Buddha, was also his follower. A significant feature of the monastic organisation of Pārsva Nãtha was that women were free to join his order. Nirayāvalikã and Nāyādhammankahão have recorded severral events of women being admitted into his order.
In Jain texts, it is stated that Pārśva Nãtha died 250 years before the nirvāņa of Mahāvīra.18 Since, the scholars are not unanimous on the exact date of the demise of Mahāvīra, it must have occurred some time in the second half of the sixth or first half of the fifth cent. BC. Thus, Pārśva Nãtha may conveniently he placed in the second half of the ninth or the first half of the eighth cent BC. Vardhamana Mahāvīra
Vardhamana Mahāvīra, a contemporary of Gautam Buddha was twenty-fourth and last Tirthařkara of the Jains. He was a great ascetic, a great philosopher and efficient organiser and as a result of his talents and efforts Jainism took its final shape, got itself established on such a firm foundation that it is still existing almost in its original form.
Mahāvīra-Great Hero- was not the personal name of the twentyfourth Tirthańkara. According to Kalpa Sūtra he was named 'Vardhamāna the increasing one-as the riches of the family went on increasing from the time of his birth. He was probably nicknamed as Mahāvīra because of his spiritual strength in fighting out vices, fears and dangers. The Buddhist and Jain texts call him also by such names as Samaņa, Māhaņa, Nigaắtha Nātaputta, Vesālie and Videhadiñña.

Page #98

Mahavira
85
He was known as 'samana' because he always remained equiposed and enagaged in penances. The term 'mãhana' is a prākrit metathesis of 'brāhamana' and is used as an epithet of Mahāvīra because of his high spiritual life and attainments. The Buddhist texts often mention him as nigantha because he was a scion of gyātri clan of kshatriyas pronounced as nãya and nāta in prākrit and pāli respectively. The epithet nigantha denotes his physical nakedness as well as his emancipation from worldly bonds. Since, he was born in suburbs of Vaisāli, which lay within the territory of Videha, he has been called vesālie and vidahadiñña.
Because of close proximity in time the authors of Jain canonical text are supposed to have better and more informations about Mahāvīra's life, consequently it has received extensive treatment by them as compared to earlier tirthańkaras. The early Jain texts, which throw considerable light on the life history of Mahāvīra are Acharãnga Sūtra, Bhagawati Sūtra and Kalpa Sūtra of which Āchārānga Sūtra is the earliest.
The Jain texts unanimously tell us that he was a scion of gyātri clan of the kshatriyas who were, perhaps an important constituent of the Vajji Samgha during sixth cent. BC. His father Siddhārtha was an influential member of the gyatri clan. The Achārānga Sūtra and Kalpa Sūtra inform us that Mahavira entered in the womb of Devānandā, a brāhmaṇa woman of the Jālandharāyaṇa gotra, wife of the Brāhmaņa Risbhadatta of the Kodāla gotra belonging to the Brāhmaṇical part of Kundagrāma, when the moon was in conjuction with the asterism uttaraphālguni. The Kalpa Sūtra mentions the fourteen objects which Devānandā had seen in dream on this occasion. The Kalpa Sūtra further tells us that the following idea occurred to the head of Sakra: "It never has happened, nor does it happen that Arhatas, Chakravartins, Baladevas or Vasudevas, in the past, present or future should be born in low families mean families, indigent families, beggar's families of

Page #99

86
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Brāhmanical families .......... (they) are born in high families, noble families, in families belonging to the race of Ikashvāku, or of Hari or in other such families of pure descent on both sides."19 Śakra, then ordered Harinegamesi, the commander of army to transfer the embryo of Mahāvīra from the womb of Devānandă to that of Trisalã of the Vašīştha gotra wife of kshatriya Kundagrama. According to Kalpa Sūtra the event of the transfer of embryo took place on the eighty-third day after the conception of Devanandã. It is also stated in this text that in the night of eighty-third day Trišalã also saw all those fourteen objects in dream which Devānanda had seen. The embryo-transfer event occurred on the thirteenth day of the dark half of the month of Ăśvina when the moon was in conjunction with uttarpahālguni.
Needless to say that the above-mentioned story of embryo transfer is a fiction. But the question to be answered is as to why this story was concocted by Bhadrabahu, the author of Kalpa Sūtra. On this point the opinion of Jacobi is that 'Siddhartha had two wives, the brāhmaņi Devănandã, the real mother of Mahāvīra, and the kshatriyāni Trišală”. According to him, 'the name of the alleged husband of the former, viz. Rişabhadatta cannot be very old because its prākrit form would in that case probably be Uşabhadiñña instead of Uşabhadatta. Besides, the name is such as could be given to a Jain only not to a brāhmaṇa. I therefore, make no doubt that Rişabhadatta has been invented by the Jains to provide Devanandã with another husband'.20 In his view the marriage of Siddhārtha with Trisalā had brought him in connection with 'persons of high rank and great influence. It was, therefore probably thought more profitable to give out that Mahāvīra was the son, and not merely the step son of Trisalã, for this reason that he should be entitled to the patronage of her relations'. He further writes, 'But as the real state of things could not totally have been erased from the memory of the people, the story of the transfer of the embryo was invented'. ?? According to A. K. Chatterjee, Devānandã was probably the real mother of

Page #100

Mahāvīra
87
Mahāvīra. He was adopted as son by kshatriya Siddhartha. In this connection he refers to the story described in the Bhagawati Sūtra in which it is stated that when Devanandã saw Mahāvīra in the Brahmanical part of Kundagrāma milk oozed from her breast. Mahāvīra explained this event by saying that Devanandã was his mother and because of motherly affection milk oozed from her breasts. Chatterji writes, "This beautiful incident narrated in such an early text as the Bhagawati abundantyly explodes the popular Jain belief that Mahāvīra was the son of the kshatriya lady Triśalā."23 He does not endorse the view of Jacobi that Devananda was another wife of Siddhartha. But they both agree on the point that the invention of embryo story was inspired by the story of Krisna's birth as told in the Purāņas.
The embryo-transfer story of Mahāvīra as narrated in the Kalpasūtra and the related evidence of the Bhagawati Sūtra deserve a more serious thought. If we carefully read the passage of the Kalpasūtra depicting the story of embryo-transfer, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the author of this passage had kshatriya bias and was having antagonistic attitude of the Brahmaņa class. The hostility between the brāhmaṇas and śramaņas is clearly attested by other sources where their prevailing relationship is characterised as 'ahi-nakulawat', 'gobyaghrawat' during a few conturies preceding Christian era. Probably this was the period in which Kalpa Sutra was composed. The author of the Kalpa Sutra brackets the Brahmaṇical familes with 'low families, mean families, degraded families, poor families, indigent families, beggar's families', and says that 'it has never happened, nor does it happen that arhats, chakravartins, baladevas, or vasudevas, in the past, present or future should be born in such families. On the other hand, he has every sense of respect and honour for the race of Ikśvāku or Hari and brackets them with high families, noble families, royal families, noblemen's families' and calls them of pure descent. It is this anti-Brāhmaṇical attitude of the Jains, which led the Jain author to concoct the story of embryo

Page #101

88
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
transfer. Had Mahāvīra really been born of Devanandā, the Jain author would not had used such derogatory terms for the brāhmaṇas. The truth is that the embryo-transfer story is absolutely imaginary and it has no grain of historical truth. The intention of the author was simply to highlight the Kshatriya tradition and show his hatred for the brāhmaṇas and thereby the Brāhmaṇical tradition. We have shown elsewhere that the origin of Jainism is associated with the răjanya class. So far as the evidence of the Bhagawati Sūtra is concerned, Chatterjee has derived the conclusion from the expression 'puvva puttasineharāgeṇam'that Mahāvīra was the son of Devanandã. Had Mahāvīra been the son of Devanandã, there was no need to add 'puvva' before 'puttasineharāgenam'. Perhaps the intention of the author of the Bhagawati Sūtra was to tell that milk oozed from the breast of Devínandã after seeing Mahāvīra was because of her love and affection for her son in former life. The conjecture of receiving the inspration for the invention of embryo story by the Jain author from the story of Krisna's birth as told in the vaisnava literature 26 can be accepted only when chronological precedence of the latter is established over the former. Mahāvīra's embryo-transfer story may be earlier than the birth story of Krişņa.
There is a little controversy about the actual birthplace of Mahāvīra. The early texts of both the Digambara and the Svetambara traditions are unanimous on the point that Kundapur or Kundagrāma was his birthplace. While the Digambaras believe that Kundalapura near Nálandã is the ancient Kundapura the Svetāmbaras have identified it with Lachhuwāda or Lachhuāra in south Monghera. But the claims of both the traditions are not junstified as they are not keeping with the indications available from the early Jain texts. Mahāvīra belonged to the VidehaVaišãli region is evident from the fact that he was called by such names as Videhadiññ and Vesālia. As such his birthplace must be located somewhere in this region. Unfortunately both Lachhuwada and

Page #102

Mahavira
9
Kshtriyakunda held as Kundapura by Svetāmbaras and Digambaras respectively are situated in the Magadha region and not Videha or Vaiśāli region. Moveover, no traces of those places which are associated with Mahāvīra and situated in the nearby of Kundapura are found near Lachhuwada. H. Jacobi has identified Kundagāma of the Jain texts with Kotiggãma of Buddhist texts where the Buddha had sojourned for sometime. But this identification is doubtful as the Mahāvagga tells us that from Kotiggãma he went to the place wherer the nãtikas lived and stayed in their brickhall. Kundagãma was the capital of the gyātrikas (nātikas) and if Kotiggãma was Kundagāma of the Jain texts the birth place of Mahāvīra there was no question of the movement of the Buddha from Kotiggãma to the place where the nātikas lived. The indentification proposed by H. L Jain is highly convincing. He has identified Kundagāma with Vasukunda village situated near Vaišãli, modern Basãrha in Mujjafarpur district in Bihar. The residents of this village still hold it as the pious birthplace of Mahāvīra.27
The Achărănga and Kalpasūtra inform us that Mahāvīra was born on the 13th day of the bright half of chaitra month.
The Jain texts describe several legends and fanciful stories associated with the childhold of Mahāvīra which the students of history need not to take seriously. But the statement of Achărănga Sūtra that Mahāvīra's parents were followers of Pārśva Nãtha is of great historical value. Mahāvīra must have been deeply influenced by the teachings of Pãrýva Nãtha in his early years. We know from the early Jain texts that the followers of Pãrśva Nãtha were propagaing the nirgrantha religion in Vaiśāli and adjoining regions during this period. This spiritual orientation and the impact of prevailing religious phenomenon in the formative period of his life must have played crucial role in turning his career into that of a spiritual seeker.
Though, the Digambara tradition denies that Mahāvīra was.ever

Page #103

90
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
married the fact that the early texts like Āchārānga Sūtra and Kalpasūtra mention his marriage with Yasodã of kaundinya gotra leaves no room for doubt in his regard. It is stated in these texts that Mahāvīra had a daughter named Priyadarśanã also called Anojja from Yasoda. Proyadarsana's marriage and her daughter named Yasovati are mentioned in early Jain texts but is only in late Jain texts like Avasyaka Churni,28 Kalpasūtra Vritti?" and Uttaradhyayana Vritti that Jamali is referred to as her husband who is said to have led a nihnava in the life time of Mahāvīra.
Both Acharanga Sūtra and Kalpasūtra inform us that Mahavira lived the life of a householder upto the age of thirty. After the death of his parents and seeking the permission of his elder brother he renounced the worldly life and embarked upon the career of a monk. This event of renunciation is said to have taken place on the tenth day of the month of Marga sirsa. After leaving home, Mahāvīra put out his ornaments and plucked his hair in five handfuls. The Digambaras believe that he abandoned clothes also. But according to the Swetambaras he did not discard his clothes upto 13 months after his renouncement. Thenafter he wandered about naked.
Mahāvīra had to live a hard and strenuous ascetic life for twelve years before he obtained omniscience i.e. Kaivalya. The Kalpasūtra has succintly described the restraints he exercised and the hardships he underwent. Some of its passages are worth to be quoted:
"For more then twelve years the Venerable Ascetic Mahāvīra neglected his body and abandoned the care of it, he with equanimity bore, underwent, and suffered all pleasant or unpleasant occurrences arising from divine powers, men or animals."32
"Hence forth the Venerable ascetic Mahāvīra was houseless, circumspect in his walking circumspect in his speaking, cirrcumspect in his begging, circumspect in his accepting (anything), in the carrying of his

Page #104

Mahāvīra
91
outfit and drinking vessel; circumspect in evacuating excrements, urine, saliva, mucus, and uncleanliness of body; circumspect in his acts; guarding his thoughts, guarding his senses, guarding his chastity; without wrath, without pride, without deceit, without greed; calm, tranquil, composed, liberated, free from temptations, without egoism, without property; he had cut off all earthly ties, and was not stained by any worldliness; as water does not adhere to a copper vessel, or collyrium to mother of pearl (so sins found no place in him); his course was unobstructed like that of life; like the firmament he wanted no support; like the wind he knew no obstacles; his heart was pure like the water (of rivers or tanks) in autumn: nothing could soil him like the leaf of a lotus; his senses were well protected like those of a tortoise; he was single and alone like the horn of a rhinoceros; he was free like the fabulous bird bharunda; valorous like an elephant, strong like a bull; difficult to attact like a lion, steady and firm like mount Mandara, deep like the ocean, mild like the moon, refulgent like the sun, pure like excellent gold; like the earth he patiently bore everything; like a well-kindled fire he shone in his splendour33"
3411
"The Venerable one lived, except in the rainy season, all the eight months of summer and winter, in villages only a single night, he was indifferent alike to the smell of odour and of sandal, to straw and jewels, dirt and gold, pleasure and pain, attached neither to this world nor to that beyond, desiring neither life nor death; arrived at the other shore of the samsara, and he exerted himself for the suppression of the defilement of karman
"With supreme knowledge, with supreme intuition, with supreme conduct, in blameless lodgings, in blameless wandering, with supreme valour, with supreme uprightness, with supreme mildness, with supreme dexterity with supreme patience, with supreme freedom from passions, with supreme control, with supreme contentment, with supreme understanding, on the supreme path to final liberation, which is the fruit

Page #105

92
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
of veracity, control, penance, and good conduct, the Venerable One meditated on himself for twelve years.”35
According to the Kalpa Sūtra in the thirteenth year on the tenth day of the month vaišākha Mahāvīra obtained kaivalya in the field of the householder Samaga near the town Jrimbhikagrāma situated on the bank of the river Rijupālikā. Now, ascetic Mahāvīra had become a jina, an arhat, a kevalin endowed with omniscience.
The later Jain texts mention the names of places visited by Mahāvīra during his ascetic life.36 Some scholars have ventured to identify those places and fix chronological order of their visits by Mahāvīra37. But their conjectures are highly doubtful. Further researches and explorations are needed on this point.
The Kalpa Sūtra gives an account of the sojourns of Mahāvīra in forty two rainy seasons after his renunciation. It is stated, 'In that period, in that age the Venerable Ascetic Mahāvīra stayed the first rainy season in Asthikāgrāma, three rainy seasons in Champã and Pșiştichampã, twelve in Vaiśāli and Vaniyagrãma, fourteen in Rajagriha and the suburbs of Nãlandā, six in Mithilā, two in Bhadrikā, one in Alabhikã, one in Panitabhumi, one in Śrāvasti, one in the town of Pãpã in king Hastipāla's office of the writers: that was his very last rainy season.38" The Bhagawati Sūtra also gives a list of the places visited by Mahāvīra which includes Nãlandã, Rājagriha, Paniyabhumi, Siddhãrthagãma and Kumărgăma. According to Uvāsagadasão Vānijyagrãma, Polãspura, Rājagriha and Śrāvasti were visited by Mahāvīra. Thus, the accounts of the Bhagawati Sūtra and Uvāsagadasão do not tally with that of Kalpa Sūtra. A critical look upon these accounts reveal that, by and large, the movement of Mahāvīra remained confined to some parts of eastern Uttar Pradesh and Western Northern and Central parts of Bihar. He casually visited the places outside these regions.

Page #106

Mahavira
An important event of the early ascetic life of Mahāvīra is his meeting with Mankkhaliputta Gośāla. It is stated in the Bhagawati Sūtra that Gośāla, being attaracted by the extraordinary ascetic practices of Mahāvīra and the respect bestowed upon him by the people who mattered those days, met him at Nālandã and requested him to accept him as his desciple. Mahāvīra at first refused to oblige him, but accepted his request second time at Paņiyabhumi. Both Mahāvīra and Gośāla stayed at Paniyabhumi and practiced asceticism together. After six years they moved to Kurmāra gram a from Paņiyabhūmi and from there to Siddhartha grama. On their way to Siddhartha grāma a dispute between them arose on the point of the survival and fate of the seeds of a full bloomed sesamum plant which ultimately resulted into doctrinal difference between Mahāvīra and Gośāla. Gośāla then left the company of Mahāvīra, and afterwards, declared himself a 'jina' and founded his own sect known as 'Ajīvika'.
There are three points to be noted in the entire concerned account of the Bhagawati Sūtra: (1) the meeting of Gośāla with Mahāvīra took place in the second year of the ascetic life of Mahavīra after renunciation; (2) Gośāla joined the company of Mahāvīra as his disciple; (3) the doctrinal difference between Gośāla and Mahāvīra after six years led the former to separate from the latter and to found another sect called Ājīvika'. The fact that it was just the second year of the twelve years ascetic life of Mahāvīra presupposes that he was still a learner though by this time, it seems that he had earned reputation as an ascetic. He obtained enlightenment almost ten years after this incident. It is also clear from the relevant account of the Bhagawati Sūtra that Gośāla was not an ascetic in the true sense of the term when he was attarcted by the reputation of Mahāvīra as he is depicted wandering from palce to palce and showing pictures to people Thus it is clear that neither Gośāla was the leader of the Ājīvikas nor Mahāvīra had been able to crystilyse his doctrinal propositions and set up his independent organisation at the time of their

Page #107

94
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
39
meeting. So the suggestion of Jacobi 'that Mahāvīra and Gośāla associated with the intention of combining their sects and fusing them into one 'can hardly be accepted. So far as joining Mahāvīra by Gośāla as disciple is concerned, we should keep in our mind that the author of the Bhagawati Sūtra is simply placing his master at higher pedastal than Gośāla and most probably he is not very wrong. It is quite possible that the spiritual interest in Gośãla might have led him to Mahavīra who had already earned quite a good reputation as an ascetic in order to learn ascetic practices. We have no other source to tell us that Gośāla had turned to be an ascetic of repute before he joined Mahāvīra. Six years rigorous ascetic practices and constant spiritual thought churning might have brought them to the level of intelleutual thinking where doctrinal differences are quite natural. I feel constrained to agree with Basham and Chatterjee that 'Bhagawati account is pervaded by deadly sectarain prejudice. It is true that Gośãla was not a disciple of Mahavīra in the true sense of the term since Mahāvīra himself was not enlightened and master of the creed at that time. But it is quite unreasonable to say, as has been done by Barua, that 'Gośãla was not a disciple of Mahāvīra, but the latter was in all likelihood either a disciple of or at least in some way connected with, the former'41. In this context it has been asserted that Gośāla was a jīna when Mahāvīra was merely a learner and also Gośāla died about sixteen years before the death of Mahavīra, but these facts do not appear to have any bearing on the nature of relationship between Gośāla and Mahāvīra. When viewed from the point of view of history, Jinahood may be taken as a state of consummation of spiritual thinking and there may not be any fixed time limit for its attainment. The time gap of sixteen years between the death Gośala and that of Mahāvīra is contradicted by another passage of Bhagawati Sutra in which it is stated that the death of the former coincided with the battle fought between Ajataśatru and the joint forces of the Licchavis and Mallas. We know from the Buddhist sources that Ajātasatru became king eigth years before the death of the Buddha. The Buddhist sources also tellus that Mahāvīra

Page #108

Mahāvīra
95
died when Buddha was alive. Thus sixteen years gap between the death of Mahāvīra and that of Gośãla as given in the Bhagawati is rendered doubtful.
After obtaining enlightenment at the age of forty two Mahāvīra remained busy with propagating the cardinal tenets of his creed for the next thirty years. During his career as a teacher he visited a number of places in U. P., Bihar and West Bengal, the details of which are given in the Jain texts. The accounts of different texts do not tally and it is very difficult to determine a chronological order of his visits of different places. The accounts of the late Jain texts are quite undepedable as some of them mention the names of places visited by Mahāvīra which were not in existence at that time.
The Swetambara and Digambara traditions are not unanimous on the point as to when and where Mahavira delivered his first sermon. According to the Swetambara tradition the first samavasaraṇa i.e. religious conference was held on the bank of the river Ujjuvaliã but it could not be successful. After sometime next samavasaraṇa was convened in Majjhima Pāvā which proved to be successful and Mahāvīra converted eleven learned Brahmaņas who not only became his desciple but later on played vital role as gaṇadharas in the organisation and propagation of Jainism. Digambara tradition, on the otherhand, holds that Mahāvīra wandered for sixty three days observing the vow of silence after obtaining kaivalya at Jṛimbhikagrama reached Rajagriha. There, at Vipulachala near Rajagṛiha, a samavasaraṇa was held and he delivered his first sermon. It is here that Mahāvīra succeeded in converting the eleven learned Brahamans who are described as gaṇadharas in the Jain texts. It is also said that king Śrenika with his family and army attended this samavasaraṇa.
It is very difficult to determine as to which of the two accounts is correct. But it can be said with certainty that soon after obtaining.

Page #109

96
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
kaivalya Mahāvīra set him on the career of a religious teacher and his first achievement was the conversion of eleven learned Brāhmaṇas. The names of these first disciple are: Indra bhūti, Agnibhūti, Vãyubhūti, Vyakta, Sudharma, Mandikata, Mauryaputra, Akampita, Achalabhrātā, Metārya and Prabhāsa. The Jain texts mention the names of their gotra and place of residence also. In the Digambara tradition the names of these gasadharas are Indrabhūti, Vãyubhūti, Agnibhūti, Sudharma, Maurya, Maundra Putra, Mãitreya, Akampana, Andhavela or Anvachela and Prabhāsa.
The fact that all these first converts of Mahāvīra belonged to the Brāhmaṇa class clearly indicates that the animosity between the brāhmaṇas and sramaņas which we find in the centuries to follow was not in existence in the beginning.
Mahāvīra wandered far and wide propagating his creed. Late Jain texts describe his wandering exhaustively the details of which are harldy acceptable. The names of the place where he passed his thirty rainy seasons are stated to be :(1) Rājagriha, (2) Vaišãli, (3) Vānijyagrãma, (4) Rājagriha, (5) Vāņijyagrāma, (6) Rājagriha, (7) Rājagriha, (8) Vaiśāli, (9) Vaišãli, (10) Rājagriha, (11) Vānijyagrāma, (12) Rājagriha, (13) Rājagiri, (14) Champã, (15) Mithilā, (16) Vānijyagrāma, (17) Rājagriha, (18) Vānijyagrāma, (19) Vaiśāli, (20) Vaišãli, (21) Rājagriha, (22) Nãlandã, (23) Vaiśāli, (24) Vaišãli, (25) Rājagriha, (26) Nãlandã, (27) Mithilã, (29) Rājagriha, (30) Apãpãpuri.
Slowly and gradually the numbers of the followers of Mahāvīra increased. He succeeded in convincing most of the followers of Pārśva Nãtha to join his saṁgha. In this task he was helped by his eleven gañadharas who were well-versed in the Jain doctrine. There was no restriction of class, caste and sex in joining the samgha. As such people of all sections accepted his creed. Those who could not join the order as

Page #110

Mahăvira
97
monks were allowed to do so as lay disciples. As a result, a great number of householders became his lay disciples. Some of them were very rich and influential. Among them mention may be made of Upáli of Balakargrãma near Vaišãli, Vijai of Rajagriha Ananda and his wife Śivānandā from Vāņiyagrãma, Kamadeva and his wife Bhadrã from Champã, Suradeva and his wife Dhanyã from Vārānasi, Mahāśataka from Rājagriha and Mrigadhara from Śrāvasti.
One of the important factors which greatly helped Mahavira in establishing his order was his royal connections and royal patronage. Through his mother he was connected with Chetaka, the leader of the Licchavis. He himself hailed from the ruling clan of the Gyatsikas who were and important constituent of the Vajji confederacy. Śreņika, the king of Magadha, is said to have high regards for Mahāvīra though he appears to be more inclined towards Buddhism. His son Abhaya was deeply infuenced by Mahāvīra. It was under his patronage that Jivaka, a destitute child of a prostitute, was brought up who later on became a renowned physician. Ajātaśatru, son of Bimbisāra and king of Magadha, appears more favourably inclined towards Jainism though the Pāli texts paint him as a supporter of Budda. Because of his support to Jainism the Jain texts thoroughly absolve him of the charge of patricide. Moreover, the events of Ajātasatru's life have received extensive treatment in the Jain texts. Though the Jain texts mention a number of kings including Pradyota and Uddayana as his followers, nothing can he said with certainty. Infact, it is very difficult to indentify many of the contemporary kings mentioned in the Jain texts. A very exaggerated picture of the influence of Mahavira on the contemporary royal families has been presented in some late Jain texts.
In the fine, it can be said that Mahāvīra greatly succeeded in establishing his creed in Bihar and some parts of U. P. and Bengal. In his missionary efforts he received immense support and patronage from many of the comtemporary rulers.

Page #111

98
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
In order to regulate the ascetic life of adherents and perpetuate the propagation of the creed Mahāvīra established a saṁgha which consisted of monks, nuns, male lay disciples and female lay disciples. He divided his followers in four categories known as muni (monk), ãryikā (nun), śrāvaka (male lay disciple) and śrāvikā (female lay disciple). Monks and nuns were houseless wanders (paribrājakas) while śrāvaka and śrăvikā disciples were householders. He laid down separate rules for houseless wanderes and householder. While the monks and nuns had to observe ethical rules very strictly, the householders were granted some concessions.
The monks were organised under the leadership of Indrabhūti Gautama. Since the number of monks was very large and according to the Kalpa Sūtra43 their number was 14000, he further divided them in nine Gaņas each under the leadership of a competent disciple. They were known as ga nadharas. The nuns who were also in great number were placed under the supervision and headship of Chandanã who was either first cousin or aunt of Mahāvīra.
After preaching his doctrine for thirty years Mahāvīra died at the age of seventy two at Pãvã on the 15th day of the dark fortnight of kārtika. The Kalpa Sūtra states that the eighteen confederate kings of Kāśi and Košala, nine Mallakis and nine Likkhavis on the day of new moon, instituted an illumination .......... for they said; 'Since the light of intelligence is gone, let us make and illumination of material matter"? + The fact that Mahāvīra breathed his last at Pāvā is supported by the păli texts as well".
बर्हिषि तस्मिन्नेव विष्णुदत्त भगवान परमर्षिभिः प्रसादितो नाभः प्रियचिकीर्षया तदरोधायने Headli ent taffetal ATARATAT Secupei capell falladar-Bhagawata Purāņa -v.3.20 HJEMU 45 Tahuntes fagsychat: up to fefe Bhagawata Purāņa. v. 6.10.
2.

Page #112

99
3. 4. 5.
Aitereya Brāhmaṇa 7.17. Mahābhārata - III. 85. 10-11. Jain, H.L. - Bhãrtiya Sanskriti mein Jain Dharma kā Yogadāna - p. 13-17 Pathak, V. S. - Bauddha Samgha ke Vikāsa kā Itihãs, Purovāk p. 7-18. See for details - H. L. Jain
ibid.
11. 12. 13. 14.
15.
16.
Chatterjee, A. K. - Comprehensive History of Jainism, p-4. Indian Antiquary IX. 150 ff "On Mahavira and His Predecessors" S. B. E. XLV, p. 20-23. ibid. p. 21 S. B. E. XLV p. 21 Uttarãdhyayana Sūtra, chapter XXIII. Chatterjee, A. K. - Comprehensive History of Jainism, p. 12. S. B. E. XLV, p. 20. B. M. Barua writes, "we may conclude on the authority of both Jain and Buddhist texts that the first four of these precepts were originally laid down by Pārsva while the fifth was added later by Mahavira himself". "A History of Pre-Buddhistic indian Philosophy" p. 380 Ibid p. 381. Avasyaka Bhãşya-verse 17; Kalpa Sūtra - S. B. E. 27, p. 270, 275. Kalpa Sūtra S. B. E. vol. XXII p. 225. Kalpa Sūtra S. B. E. vol. XXII p. 31. Ibid p. 31 ibid p. 31 Chatterjee A. K. - Comprehensive History of Jainism. p. 19. Kalpa Sūtra S. B. E. vol. XXII. p. 225. Ibid p. 225. Chatterjee A. K. - Comprehensive History of Jainism. p. 19. ; Kalpa Sūtra S. B. E. vol. XXII.
17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Page #113

100
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
See for details: Jain, H. L. - Bhārtīya Sańskṛiti mein Jain Dharma kã Yogdana. p. 23-24.
Avasyakachurņi p. 416.
Kalpa Sutra Vritti (Dharma Sagare) p. 92. Uttaradhyayan Vritti (Santi Sūri) p. 154.
Kalpa Sutra S.B.E. Vol. XXII p. 256.
Ibid p. 260.
Ibid p. 260-261.
Ibid p. 262.
Ibid p. 263.
Avasyak Niryukti (458-527), Avaśyaka Churņi (268-333), Avasyaka Bhasya III, Kalpa Sūtra Tika, 5-121.
Law, B. C. - Mahāvīra ; His Life and Teachings, p. 32. Jain, K. C.- Lord Mahavira and His Times, p. 45-46.
Kalpa Sūtra S. B. E. vol. 22, p. 264.
S. B. E. vol. XLV, part 'B' p. 31-32.
Chatterjee A. K. - Comprehensive History of India - p. 343. Basham, A. L. - History and Doctrines of Agivikas p. 66.
Barua, B. M. - A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy, p. 300 See for detail - Chatterjee A. K. - Comprehensive History of Jainism, p. 344.
Kalpa Sūtra S. B. E. vol. XXII p. 267.
Ibid p. 266.
Digha Nikaya vol III. p. 91.
Majihim Nikaya vol. III. p. 37.

Page #114

Ganadharas of Mahāvīra
Soon after the attainment of kaivalya Mahāvīra visited Păvă and held religious discourse in the garden of one Mahãsena. In the same garden a Brāhmaṇa named Somila had made arrangement for a yagya and invited learned Brāhmaṇas. Eleven of them came to Mahāvīra with a desire to have religious discussion with him. They were influenced by the personality and spiritual attainments of Mahāvīra so, much so, that they decided to join him as his disciples. Incidentally, the first disciples of Mahāvīra turned to be his principal disciples known as Gaņadharas. They became well-versed in the twelve angas and fourteen pūrvas. Details about them are:
Name
Caste
Gotra
Residence
Indrabhūti
Brāhmana
Agnibhūti
Brāhmana
Vãyubhuti
Brāhmana
Brāhmana
Vyakta Sudharman
Gautama Gobbaragrāma Gautama Gobbaragrãma Gautama Gobbaragrãma Bhăradvāja Kottaga Sannivesa Agniveśyāyana Kottaga Sannivesa Vašista Mauriya Sannivesa Kāsyapa Mauriya Sannivesa
Brāhmana
Mandita
Brāhmana
Moriyaputra
Brāhmaṇa

Page #115

102
8.
9.
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Akampita
Brahmana
Achalabhrātā Brāhmaṇa
Brāhmaṇa
Brāhmaṇa
10.
Metarya
11. Prabhasa
Gautam
Haritayana
Kaundinya
Kaundinya
Mithila
Kośal
Tungiya Sannivesa
Rajagriha
Though the samgha consisted of only nine ganas all these eleven chief disciples were called ganadharas because they had instructed Śramanas in great number. The Kalpa Sutra' mentions exact number of Śramaņas instructed by each one of them, but we can not be sure on this point. Except Indrabhūti and Sudharman, rest nine gaṇadharas died in the very life time of Mahavira. Indrabhūti is said to have died twelve years after the nirvāņa of Mahāvīra at the age of 92. Though he was favourite of Mahāvīra and survived him, it was Sudharman who became head of the Jain Samgha after Mahāvīra2. Sudharman died twenty years after the demise of Mahāvīra. The Kalpa Sūtra states that all the nirgrantha Śramaras of the present time are descendants of Sudharman and rest of the Gaṇadharas left no descendants.3
Jain Samgha after Mahāvīra :
The sources which contain informations about the successors of Mahāvīra in the pontificate of the Samgha are Kalpa Sutra Theravali (Sthaviravali), Nandi Sūtra and Avasyaka Sutra. The list of the pontiffs given in the Nandi and Avasyaka Sūtras is quite in agreement with the list given in the Kalpa Sutra upto Mahagiri and Suhastin who belonged to the eighth generation after Mahāvīra. After it the succession list of the pontificates gets divided into two branches, one starting from Mahāgiri and the other starting from Suhastin. The list of patriarchs given in the Nandi and Avasyaka Sutras is quite distinct from the one given in the Kalpa Sutra. The list of the Kalpa Sutra begins from Suhastin and this was the most prominent line of succession as almost all the legends found in the Parisi sta parvan of Hema Chandra and other later Jain texts

Page #116

Schisms in the Jain Samgha
103
pertain to the lives of the patriarchs of this line. The names of first six successive leaders of the Jain samgha are: (i) Sudharman, (ii) Jambū, (iii) Prabhava, (iv) Svayambhava, (v) Yaśobhadra, (vi) Bhadrabahu and Sambhūtavijai. Then after the burden of the leadership of the samgha fell on the shoulders of Sthulabhadra. It was during this period that the Council of Pataliputra was held and the angas took a definite shape. Sthulabhadra had two disciples, Mahagiri and Suhastin. With Mahagiri and Suhastin started two lines of succession. It appears that at this stage the unity of the saṁgha was shattered and finally the saṁgha was split into Svetambara and Digambara sects.
Schisms in the Jain Samgha:
The evidence of the early Jain texts clearly indicate that the monastic life in Jain religion had started in quite early times. The samgha organised by twenty third tirthankara Parsva Natha was very effective and remained functioning centuries after his demise. The twenty third chapter of the Uttaradhyayana Sūtra entitled "Gautam-Kesi Samvada" clearly tells us that the monastic orders of Parsva Natha and Mahāvīra functioned simultaneously as separate organisations for sometime. The same text tells us that the unity between the two orders was forged as a compromise between Kesi Kumāra and Indrabhūti Gautama, the followers of Pārsva Natha and Mahāvīra respectively.
It appears that the Jain saṁgha was clearly split into two sects, Digambara and Svetaṁbara, after a few centuries of the demise of Mahāvīra. This division proved to be of lasting effect and even to day the Jain community is divided into these two major schools.
Even before the division of the Jain samgha into Digambara and Svetambara sects some minor schisms had already taken place in the Jain order. These splits have been chistened as Nihnavas in the Jain texts. These Nihnavas are said to be seven in number.

Page #117

104
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
First Nihnava :
This nihnava is known as bahurayavāda and was started by Jāmāli the son-in-law of Mahāvīra. Jāmāli has been referred to in a number of Jain texts such as Viseşāva syaka bhãśya, Āva syaka Haribhadriya Tīkā, Sthānānga commentary and Uttarādhayayana commentary by Nemichandra.
Jāmāli, a resident of Kshatriya Kunda, was initiated as a monk by Mahāvīra. However, he developed doctirnal difference with Mahấvīra and finally separated himself with his followers from the samgha and started the first nihnava fourteen years after Mahāvīra obtained omniscience. The sect started by him could not last long and finally most of his followers rejoined the original saṁgha.
Second Nihnava :
The second nihnava is known as jīvapaesiya nihnava and was started by Tişyagupta sixteen years after the attainment of kaivalya by Mahāvīra. He disagreed with the tenet that jiva is the composition of all the parts of an animate being into one whole and instead held that the last part of the soul which completes its composition is jīva. The sect started by Tişyagupta also could not last long. Finally, his followers realised the falsity of his views and came back to the original samgha.
Third Nihnava:
The third nihnava is known as avvattagavādin. This schism was started by Aşadhabhūti at Seyaviya two hundred fourteen years after the death of Mahavīra. The adherents of this sect believed that there is nothing vyakta in the world. Hence they disregarded all the external observances. This is precisely the reason that this nihnava has been named Avyakta nihnava.

Page #118

Schisms in the Jain Sangha
105
Fourth Nihnava:
This split was started by Aśvamitra two hundred twenty years after the death of Mahāvīra. The followers of Aśvamitra were known as samuccheiyavādin. They held that everything of the world is transient and is destroyed after its origination. So, the effects of good or bad deeds are immaterial.
Fifth Nihnava:
This nihnava came into existence two hundred twenty eight years after the death of Mahāvīra and was started by Ganga, a disciple of Dhana Gupta. The followers of Ganga were called 'dokriyāvādin' They did no agree with the original Jain tenet that the experience of different actions can not be had simultaneously. Instead, they held that opposite feelings, such as warmth and cold, can be experienced simultaneously.
Sixth Nihnava :
This schism was started by Roha Gupta at a place named Antaranjiã five hundred and forty four years after the death of Mahāvīra. The adherents of this school were called nojivavādin as well as Terăsiya (trairāśika). They held that there is a third category of dravya called Nojiva in addition to jīva and ajīva.
Seventh Nihnava :
The leader of this split was Goșthamāhila It was started by him at Daśapur five hundred and eighty four years after the death of Mahāvīra. The followers of Goșthanmãhila were called Abadhiyavādin. They believed that the soul is simply touched by the karma-paramaņus and not bound by them.
It is to be noted that the Nihnavas discussed above were minor schisms and could not adversely affect the Jain monastic order. They

Page #119

106 A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
could not last long and either became obsolete or got merged in the original samgha. The veracity of the accounts of these schisms as given in the Jain texts is very difficult to ascertain. Much of the details is fanciful. But the fact that there have been minor schisms in the Jain order can hardly be denied.
The split of Jain Samgha into Svetambara and Digambara Sects:
The organisation of the Jain samgha remained almost unaffected by the minor schisms mentioned above. Their impact was very short lived. But the split of Jain samgha into the Digambara and Svetambara sects is a major event in the history of Jain religion. The Jain community was divided into two separate groups who, in course of time, developed their distinct organisation, literature and tradition of art. Even to-day they have maintained their distinct identities.
It is to be noted that both the sects do not have serious doctrinal differences. Their religio-philosophical beliefs and mythologies are identical. The only point of difference in mythological beliefs is that Malli Natha, the nineteenth Tirthankara, was a woman according to the Śvetambaras where as, according to the Digambaras, he was a man. The ideological basis of this difference of centention lies in the fact that according to the Digambaras a woman is not entitled to the enlightenment where as the Svetambaras believe that a woman can obtain it. The main differences between them are related with ethical practices.
When and how the split of Jain saṁgha into SvetāmbaraDigambara sects took place is a problem which is still not convincingly solved and the historians are not unanimous on the point. Even the Svetambaras and Digambaras give different account of this rift.
The Digambara version of the rift is recorded in the Brihatkatha composed by Hariṣeṇa in 931 AD. It is stated here that Bhadrabahu had predicted a terrible famine in the country of Magadha for a period of

Page #120

Schisms in the Jain Sangha
107
twelve years during the reign of Chandra Gupta Maurya. In order to save their lives from the famine a section of monks under the leadership of Bhadrabāhu migrated to the south India and the rest remained in the north India.
After sometimes the leaders of the order in north India met in Ujjayini. Still the calamity of famine was persisting and the leaders allowed the monks to wear a piece of cloth (ardhapālka) in order to avoid obscenity while touring for begging alms. These monks got accustomed to wearing ardhapālaka and they refused to get rid of this practice even when the famine was over. The conservative elements in the order and particularly those who had returned from the south Indian migration highly resented to this development. It is further stated that these ardhapālaka monks were once invited by Chandralekhã queen of king Lokapāla of Valabhipur. Seeing them neither clothed nor naked the king got annoyed where upon the queen asked the monks to wear full clothes. Thenceforth, the monks began wearing white clothes and came to be called Svtapatas or Svetõmbaras.
Thus, according to the Digambaras the Jain monks did not wear any clothes in the beginning but later on a section of them started wearing white clothes and got split from the original saṁgha(mūla samgha) and the split of samgha in the forms of Digambara and Svetõmbara was effected.
However, the Svetămbaras give a different account of the split. According to them the saṁgha was divided six hundred nine years after Mahāvīra's death by Śivabhūti. It is stated in the Avaśyakabhāşya, a work of 5th century AD, that Śivabhūti, a resident of Rathavīrapur, was an employee of the local king. He had successfully fought many battles on behalf of the king and had won laurels. Consequently, he turned to be very proud and used to come home very late in the night. On the complaint of his wife, one night his mother did not open the door and asked him to

Page #121

108
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
go elsewhere. Śivabhūti left the home and entered in a dwelling which was incidentally a Jain monastry (upāsraya). He requested the achārya (priest) of the monastry to initiate him but his request was turned down. Śivabhūti, then, plucked out his hairs himself and started wandering as a monk with others. After some time, he came to his native place. When the king was informed of his arrival, he sent a precious shawl (ratna kambala) to him as a gift. Possession of such a precious article by a monk was protested by his senior but Śivabhūti did not pay any heed to his advice. His senior, then tore off the shawl and used it as mattress. At that time Śivabhūti did not say anything but out of reaction gave up all clothing which ultimately resulted in the schism of the order.
In an another version of Sivabhūti episode it is stated that Sivabhūti did not agree with his teacher Krişnarşi that the jinakalpikas (adherents of jinakalpa) are of two kinds. While some observe absolute nonpossession, others may have necessary requisites. Śivabhūti asserted that a follower of jinakalpa should strictly observe the principle of austerity including nudity. He gave up all clothing and created a schism. He was joined by Kaundinya and Kottavira as his disciples. His sister Uttarã is also said to have joined him, but was forbidden by him from observing nudity. The members of this group were initially called bodiyas but because of their practice of nudity they were later on known as Digambaras.
Thus, according to the “vetāmbara tradition the Digambara sect originated 609 years after Mahāvīra's death, that is, in the first century AD.
The accounts of the Svetāmbara and Digambara traditions are so discrepant that on the basis of them it is very difficult to reach a conclusion as to when and how the split occurred. Nontheless, they give us certain clues which may help us in settling this issue.
Hoernle in his article on the Ājivikas in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics expressed the opinion that the Digambaras were

Page #122

Schisms in the Jain Samgha
109
originally Ajivikas who, after their annoyance with Gośãla, joined the order of Mahāvīra as his disciple. Hoernle was led to derive this conclusion on the basis of the practice of achelakatva (nudity) of the Ājivikas and a statement of the commentator Śilāńka in his commentary on the Sutrakritanga that the revilers of the followers of Mahavira were the Ajivikas or Digambaras. Hoernie's contention is hardly convincing and A. K. Roy is quite correct when he states. "The bulk of the evidence however is against Hoernle's conjecture, and the theory that some Ājivikas formed the nucleus of the Digambara sect can not be built upon this one stray reference by Silanka".4
A. K. Roy thinks that the process of split was gradual but it was completed at the end of 5th century A. D. when the Valabhi Council was held. He has cited some epigraphic and iconographic evidence in support of his contention." But his conclusion is based more on assumption than on evidence. Moveover, the assignment of such a late date for the split is not in consonance with what the facts of the traditions have to tell us.
It is quite evident from the early Jain texts that Mahāvīra lived strict austere life and observed achelakatva (nudity) and preached the same to his disciples. His followers earnestly observed the ethical regulations for some time even after his death. Parallel to Mahāvīra's. order the samgha established by Parsva Nãtha was also functioning. The followers of Parsva Natha did not observe the practice of nudity and used to wear clothes. After the death of Mahāvīra, Indrabhūti Gautama was leading the samgha and Kesi Kumāra was the leader of the samgha of Parsva Nãtha. The twenty third chapter of the Uttaradhyayana Sūtra entitled 'Gautama-Kesi Sarvada' in forms us that the two leaders incidentally met in Śravasti with their followers. It was generally realised by the monks that both the laws are pursuing the same end but why does the order of Parsva Nãtha allow an under and upper garment and that of Mahavira enjoin five vows and forbid wearing

Page #123

110 A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
clothes? When this question was raised by Keśi, Gautama gave a convincing reply so far as the discrepancy in the number of vows is concerned and Keśi was fully satisfied. On the matter of nudity or wearing of clothes the reply of Gautama was: "Deciding the matter by their superior knowledge, the tirthankaras have fixed what is necessary for carrying out the law. The various outward marks (of religious men) have been introduced in order that people might recognise them as such; the reason for the characteristic marks is their usefulness for religious life and their distinguishing character. Now the opinion (of the tirthankaras) is that knowledge, faith and right conduct are the true causes of final liberation." After being fully satisfied Keśi with his followers accepted the law of the five vows and both the samghas got united. It appears that the question of wearing clothes or not was left to the desires of monks. But the existence of two fold kalpa, namely, jinakalpa and sthavira kalpa, in an organisation could not last long. As a result, in course of time, the samgha got split into two sects Digambara and Śvetämbara.
The lists of the names of the leaders of samgha after Mahāvīra found in the Kalpa Sūtra, Nandi Sūtra, Āvasyaka Sūtra and Parisistaparvan indicate that the unity of the samgha was maintained upto the time of Sthulabhadra as both the traditions generally agree with the succession of pontificates upto Sthūlabhadra. He had two disciples Mahagiri and Suhastin and the lists of the names of successors of these two are given in the Nandi Sūtra and Kalpa Sutra which are quite different. On the basis of it, it may be construed that the split in the samgha was effected soon after Sthūlabhadra. The major events of the Jain monastic order are reckoned with reference to Mahāvīra era which is supposed to have started from 527 B.C., the traditional date of the nirvāņa of Mahāvīra. According to it the accession of Chandra Gupta Maurya to the throne and the death of Bhadrabahu took place in 155 and 170 years respectively after the death of Mahāvīra. If these dates

Page #124

Schisms in the Jain Samgha
111
are converted into the Christian era they will be 357 B. C. and 372 B. C. respectively. It is a point of general agreement among historians that Chandra Gupta's accession took place in and around 321 B. C. This date does not tally with the traditional calculations of the Jains. The possibility of miscalculation on the part of the Jains can not be ruled out. Since the reign of Chandra Gupta ended in 297-298 B. C. and the contemporaniety of Chandra Gupta and Bhadrabahu is attested by the Jain sources, it may be safely assumed that in the beginning of the third century B. C., Sthūlabhadra took the charge of the leadership of the Jain samgha. Thus, there is a strong possibility that the schism occurred in the first half of the third century B. C.
This conjecture gets support from an account of the Jain texts. It is said that Sthulabhadra convened a council at Pataliputra during the period of famine when Bhadrabahu had gone to south India with a section of monks and he did not invite Bhadrabahu to attend this council. It is quite strange that Bhadrabahu who was the only person well-versed in all the angas and purvas was not invited and in his absence, the form of canonical literature was fixed in this council. Does this not bespeak of some sort of dissension in the Jain Order?
It appears that after the amalgamation of the orders of Pārsva and Mahāvīra the discipline of nudity got loosened. The Sthavirakalpa became more popular among monks. However, more orthodox among them continued adhering to the jina kalpa. So long as the number of monks was small, there was no difficulty in maintaining the jina kalpu. We know that the monks depend on society for their subsistence. With the increase of number of monks the magnitude of their dependence on society might have increased. As such, movement of monks in big number in nude form for begging purposes might have caused a sense of shyness and hesitation. They will have been prompted to put on clothes without incurring any sacrilege particularly when sthavira kalpa was there. After

Page #125

112
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
all, wearing clothes or nudity are simply outer marks of religion and they are insignificant so far as the realisation of moksh is concerned.
This, is not to say that Jina Kalpa was replaced by the sthavira kalpa. The monks with strong orthodoxical attitude continued the practice of nudity. In their eyes complete detachment from worldly possession was essential for the realisation of the highest goal and possession or putting on clothes constituted the transgression of the canon of aparigraha. The number of such monks was not very small and they formed a group in the general community of the monks. With the passage of time their attitude got more and more stiffened and they disagreed on more points with the rest others. They denied the womanhood of Malli Nãtha, the nineteenth Tirtharkara of the Jain tradition, only on the ground that Jinhood can't be obtained without practising nudity and a woman cannot do it. They also deny the efficacy of womenfolk in obtaining salvation. Their orthodoxical attitude is reflected in their denial of Mahāvīra's marriage. In this context we can understand as to why they do not accept the authenticity of canonical texts compiled in the councils of Patalipūtra and Valabhi.
It is to be noted here that the split of the order did not occur all of a sudden. The process of division was gradual. It seems to have started in the first half of third cent. B. C., as has been pointed earlier, and was completed in the first coming A.D. If some minor details of the Svetāmbars account are overlooked there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the account that the Samgha was split into the Digambara and Svetõmbars sects 609 years after the death of Mahāvīra, that is first cent A. D. The tradition can not be rejected lock, stock and barrel.
Main Points of difference between Svetāmbara and Digambara traditions: 1. While Śvetămbaras used to wear white garments, the Digambaras
practised nudity.

Page #126

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Schisms in the Jain Samgha
5.
6.
113
The Svetambaras believed that Mahavira was married with Yasoda and had a daughter from her, the Digamgaras altogether deny it.
According to the Svetämbaras 19th Tirthankara Malli Natha was a woman, but the Digambaras believe that Malli Natha was a man. The Svetambaras believe that a woman can obtain moksha but according to the Digambaras they are not entitled to it.
According to the Svetambaras the embryo of Mahāvīra was transferred from the womb of Kshatrāṇi Triśalã to that of Brāhmaṇi Devananda. The embryo transfer story is not accepted by the Digmbaras.
The Svetambaras believe in the anthencity of the existing twelve angas. The Digambaras believe that the original twelve angas are extinct..
The Svetambaras adorn the images of Tirthankaras with clothes and ornaments. The Digambaras are opposed to such clothing or ornamentation.
In addition to these major differences, they developed differences on some minor points as well. They are trivial and have little historical significance. Infact, there were no significant doctrinal differences. Almost all the cardinal principles of Jainism are accepted by both of them.
1.
Kalpa Sutra (S.B.E. Vol. XXII) p. 286-87.
2.
According to Digambara tradition Indrabhūti Gautam succeeded Mahavira. It is quite strange as to why the Svetambaras tradition has ignored him as immediate successor of Mahāvīra.
3.
4.
Kalpa Sutra (S.B.E. Vol. XXII) p. 287.
Roy, A. K. - '1 A History of the Jains' p. 90
Ibid. p. 93-95.
Uttaradhyayan Sutra (SBE. Vol. XLV) p. 123.

Page #127

6
The Doctrines of Jainism
As has already been pointed out, some basic concepts of Jain philosophy bear the stamp of primitive religious and metaphysical speculations. General agreement between Jainism, on the one hand, and Samkhya, Yoga and Buddhism, on the other, on some basic principles, such as negation of a spiritual entity as primordial cause, transmigration, pessimism and liberation (mokṣa or nirvāņa), presuppose the existence of a substratum of philosophical speculation from which these schools sprang. But they devised their systems on different lines. For instance, the Jain and Samkhya both acknowledge the duality of spirit and matter, the plurality of spirits or souls, the efficacy of matter in influencing deeply and shaping the spirit or soul and, finally, that soul may be salvaged from the havoc of matter only by resorting to ascetic practices, but both of them have built up their respective philosophical systems on different lines owing mainly to the age old dichotomy of Brāhmaṇism and Śramanism. Buddhism, though having allegiance with Śramanism developed a philosophy which radically differed from Jainism though some of its features are common with the latter. The Buddha appears to have constructed his philosophical system synthesising some Upanisadic and Śramanic ideas.

Page #128

The Doctrines of Jainism
115
But what about Jainism ? Is Mahāvīra the sole architect of the early Jain philosophical system? To this question the reply of H. Jacobi is most pertinent and we would like to quote him : "Mahāvīra, however, unlike Buddha, was most probably not the founder of the sect which reveres him as their prophet, not the author of their religion. According to the unanimous Buddhist tradition, Buddha had, under the Bodhi tree, discovered by intuition the fundamental truths of his religion as it appears through out his personal work; his first sermons are things ever to be remembered by his followers, as are the doctrines which he then preached. No such traditions are preserved in the canonical books of the Jains about Mahāvīra. His achievements of omniscience (Kevala) are of course celebrated events. But tradition is silent about his motives for renouncing the world and about the particular truths whose discovery led to his exalted position. At any rate, Mahāvīra is not described by tradition as having first become a disciple of teachers whose doctrines afterwards failed to satisfy him, as we are told of the Buddha, he seems to have had no misgivings, and to have where truth was to be had, and thus he became a Jain monk. And again when after many years of austerities such as are practised by other ascetics of the Jains, he reached omniscience, we are not given to understand that he found any new truth, or a new revelation as Buddha is said to have received; nor is any particular doctrine or philosophical principle mentioned the knowledge and insight of which then occurred to him for the first time. But he is represented as gaining, at his Kevala, perfect knowledge of what he knew before only in part and imperfectly. Thus, Mahāvīra appears in the tradition of his own sect as one who, from the beginning, had followed a religion established long
ago."
In fact, Mahāvīra should not be given the entire credit of constructing the Jain philosophical system. In all probability, he improved upon pre-existing Jain philosophical postulates. It is difficult to agree with B. M. Barua when he says that Pārsva was a man of practical

Page #129

116
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
nature and organising genius. His rules were rules of conduct devoid of philosophical justification. Misinterpreting Gautam-Kesi dialogue depicted in the Uttaradhyayana Sūtra he reaches the conclusion that "Pārsva's was a mere religious order, while Mahāvīra's was not only a religious order but also a distinct school of thought."3 He further states, "it is from Gośāla that Mahāvīra learnt to think philosophically as it was afterwards mainly in opposing this teacher's deterministic theory that he was led gradually to the discovery of nine categories (navatattva).*
The view that before Mahāvīra Jainism was merely and ascetic discipline comprising only ethical rules and had no philosophical foundation can hardly be upheld. The validity of ethical rules lies in the belief that by practising them ultimate reality or goal may be realised. But the determination of ultimate reality and goal requires serious contemplation and thinking about life and world. In other words, philosophical thinking precedes formulation of ethical rules. A religion without philosophy is unthinkable.
As has been discussed earlier, there are certain basic concepts of Jainism which are of great antiquarian significance. For instance, animistic belief cannot be said to have originated in sixth century B. C. Likewise, it is quite unimaginable that a philosopher of the stature of Mahāvīra will have used the terms dharma and adharma denoting substances while he knew well that these terms had, by then, acquired definite meanings. This simply means that the use of these words to denote distinct categories of substance was nothing but continuance of an old tradition. As has already been discussed, the doctrine of karma and Rebirth was not formulated by the philosophers of the sixth century B. C. and there is a strong possibility that it originated in the Śramana tradition, particularly, among Jains in earlier times. Hence, it is historically justified to hold that the Jains had a philosophical system, howsoever simple and unrefined it may be, in pre-Mahāvīra times.

Page #130

The Doctrines of Jainism
117
There is no doubt that Mahavīra added new tenets to the existing Jain doctrines and presented them in well organised and well knit form. Jacobi has convincingly shown that Mahavira formulated Syãdvāda, a very important theory of Jain philosophy owing Sanjaya Belatthiputta. He writes, "that in opposition to the Agnosticism Mahāvīra has established the Syadvāda." He might have been inspired by the contemporary philosophical discussions to form new philosophical ideas. But the contention of B. M. Barua that Gośãla was the philosophic predecessor of Mahāvīra and the latter owed a lot to the former is erroneous, Jacobi is also of the view that Mahavīra was highly influenced by Gośãla in the formulation of his doctrine. Disbelieving the Jain version of the relationship between Gośāla and Mahāvīra, he holds that Mahavīra adopted some religious ideas and practices of the Ajīvikas as concessions made to them in order to win over Gosala and his disciples. According to him he borrowed Gośāla's ideas of division of mankind into six classes and altered it in the doctrine of six lesyãs. In his opinion, Mahāvīra adopted more rigid rules from Gośāla. He writes, "With regard to the rule of conduct the collective evidence obtainable is such as to amount nearly to prove that Mahavīra borrowed the more rigid rules from Gośāla." He appears to point towards achelakatva (nudity) which formed a very important principle of ethics.
It is strange that too much importance has been attached to Gośãla's contributions to the development of Jain doctrines while there is no convincing evidence in support of it. But the truth appears to be otherwise. There is no reason to doubt the statement of the Jain texts that initiative was taken by Gosala to meet with Mahāvīra. In all probability, being a man of spiritual leaning and in quest of truth he joined Mahāvīra as a novice. He received training in ascetic practices and philosophical thinking in the company of Mahāvīra. He, as is quite possible, must have been in continuous dialogue with Mahāvīra regarding philosophical ideas which Mahavira had acquired from the Jain tradition and the new ones

Page #131

118
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
which he might be postulating. In this process, after attaining some maturity, he might have developed some doctorinal differences and formulated his doctrines adopting many philosophical ideas and ethical practices of Mahāvīra.
Philosophy
The Jain philosophy consists of ontology, metaphysics, doctrine of karma, epistemology and ethics.
The Jains have an ontological perspective which is different from the Upanisadic and Buddhistic. They radically differ from the Upanisadic doctrine that the ultimate reality is permanent and unchanging. The visible changes are mere illusions of senses. On the other hand, the Buddhists deny that there is any thing permanent. According to them, reality a mere flux. They treat the notion of the permanence of substance as mere fiction of ignorance. The Jains hold that permanence of substance and change both are real. According to them, substance is that which has its existence "saddravya lakṣaṇam". 'Sat' consists of origination, decay and permanence - utpãd-vyaya-dhrauvya yukta ṁ sat. In the process of change some qualities remain unchanged, some new qualities are generated and some old qualities are destroyed. It is to be noted that changes occur only in the accidental or acquired qualities. Substance consists of qualities and forms-guna paryāyavad dravyaṁ. Guņa is some thing which can not be separated from dravya. It is permanent feature but form or paryaya changes. It is in this process of change in the form that the changes in the substance occur. For instance, when a piece of gold is turned into a ring, the qualities of gold remain the same though its form is changed. Thus, inspite of diverse changes the substance remains as a permanent entity.
The doctrine of Anekāntavāda is a logical corollary of this specific Jain conception of reality. Anekantavāda is a doctrine which is based

Page #132

Philosophy
119
on the conception that a thing possesses infinite number of qualities and forms - ananta dharmātmakaṁ vastu ananta paryāyātmakam cha.
Based upon Anekāntavāda is the logical doctrine of Syādvāda of the Jains. The fundamental principle of Syādvāda is that both positive and negative predications may be done of the same thing. The affirmative predication about a thing is based upon four conditions - Svadravya, Svakshetra, Svakāla and Svabhāva. The assertion that 'this dish is made of silver" is affirmative predication from the point of view of svadrava and "not made of any other metal" is negative predication from the point of view paradravya. The Buddha died in Kushinagar is an affirmative predication from the point of view of svakshetra and "he did not die in Pătaliputra" is a negative predication from the point of view of parakshetra. Likewise, the predictions that "Mahatama Gandhi was killed in 1948" and "he was not killed in 1960" are positive and negative assertions from the points of view of svakāla and parakāla respectively. The same applies to svabhava and parabhava.
Thus, it is obvious that positive and negative predications are possible about the same thing from different points of views. The doctrine of Syādvāda is derived from this principle. According to this doctrine, there are seven forms of metaphysical propositions - asti, nâsti, astinăsti, avaktavyaṁ, asti-avakyavyaṁ, năsti-avaktavyaṁ and astinãsti avaktavyaṁ. Before every proposition the word syat is added which is explained as kathańchit i.e. 'some how'. Syat indicates indefiniteness of being and presupposes that propositions are based on the points of view of svadrabya, svakshetra, svakāla, svabhāva and paradravya, parakshetra, parakāla and parabhāva respectively. If both the aspects are to be expressed they should be placed one after the other - 'asti-năsti'. But if both affirmative and negative are to be expressed in the same predication it becomes inexpressible in language. Thus comes the fourth propositions avaktavyam. "By adding avaktaryaṁ to first

Page #133

120
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
three propositions the seven modes of expression- Saptabhanga of Syadvāda are made up. Thus, the Jains recognise only the relative proposition instead of absolute proposition which, in their view, is impossible because they hold that reality in itself is identity amidst diversity, unity amidst multiplicity and is permanent amidst change.
Complementary to Syadvāda, the Jains have formulated the doctrine of Nayas which is another approach to understanding the objects and events of the world. The nayas are seven in number. Naigama naya is co-ordinated view of an event or object. For instance, if a lady is mixing water with flour and is asked what she is doing and if her reply is that she is cooking food, her statement is correct from the point of view of Naigama naya. A generalised approach to objects and events is Samgraha naya. if some one is asked, 'who is he?' and if he replies that 'he is an Indian', his statement is true from the point of view of Samgraha naya. To this question if he replies that he is a 'Sikkha' this statement is also true from the point of view of Vyavahāra naya. Thus these two nayas - saṁgraha and vyavahāra are mutually relative and complementary to each other and not contradictory. Rijusūtra naya refers to specific form of an object in specific time-period. The rest three nayas - Śabda, Samabhiruḍha and Evambhūta - refer to linguistic usages. When things are approached and differentiated on linguistic and grammatical basis, it constitutes Sabdanaya. Acceptance of conventional meanings of words instead of etymological ones is Samabhirudha naya. When words are used in their original meanings to describe the existing form of a thing it is Evambhuta naya. Of these seven nayas the first three have been placed under the category of Dravya naya and rest four under the category of Paryaya naya.
Metaphysics
The visible world is constituted by two basic elements in their mutual relationship. These elements are - Jīva and Ajīva.

Page #134

Philosophy
121
Jīva
Jiva is a chetan entity. It is endowed with consciousness, the essential characteristics of which are perception and knowledge. It is imperceptible and its existence is realised through its characteristic qualities in a material body.Jivas are of two kinds : (i) mundane (saṁsāri or baddha) and. (ii) liberated (mukta). Mundane jīvas are always in association with bodies and are subjected to the cycle of death and birth. The liberated jīvas are free from embodiment. They live in the state of perfection in the highest quarter of the universe.
The jīvas are infinite in number and they retain their individual entity. The jīvas are active agents and cause their own actions and in turn enjoy their fruits. They are endowed with intelligence which may be obscured but never destroyed. Thus, a jīva is actor, enjoyer and knower.
The mundane jīvas are divided in several categories on the basis of their number of sense organs. They are : 1. Ekendriya Jivas : The ekendriya jīvas are endowed with only touch sense organ. They are of five kinds according as their bodies are made up of earth, water, fire, air and vegetable substance. The first four, Prithvikāya, Jalakāya, Agnikāya and Vãyukāya are subtle forms of life while the fifth i.e. Vanaspatikāya is gross in form. They are elementary life forms.
2. Dvindriya Jivas : They have only two sense organs of touch and taste such as worms etc.
3. Trindriya Jivas : They have three sense organs of touch, taste and smell such as ants etc. 4. Chaturendriya Jivas : They have four sense organs of touch, taste, smell and seeing such as bees etc.

Page #135

122
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
5.
Panchendriya Jīvas: They have five sense organs of touch, taste, smell, seeing and hearing. The category of the pańchendriya jīvas is the highest form from the point of view of the development. Among them, higher animals, men, denizens of hell and gods possess an internal organ or mind (manas) and are, therefore, called rational (sańgyin), while lower animals have no mind and hence are called asańgyin.
Among the ekendriya jīvas, the lowest class is called nigoda. The nigoda jīvas are of infinite number. They live in common body and have common respiration and nutrition. The entire lokākāśā is packed with innumerable clusters of such nigodas. Their life-span is very short. They are in a very slow proces of evolution and substitute those jīvas in the mundane world who have obtained liberation. Their number is so great that the world will never be empty of the jivas.
There are four walks (gati) of beings viz. men (manuṣva gati), animals (tinryach gati) denizen of hell (naraka gati) and gods (deva gati). Of these the first two i.e. men and animals are visible and the rest two live in hell and heaven according to their deeds. Those who observe restraint and rigorously maintain in difference to worldly objects reach the state of Kaivalya and transcending these four walks of life obtain liberation (moksa). There is difference in body-constructions of men and animals on the one hand and denizens of hell and gods on the other. While the body construction of the former is gross (audarika) and does not undergo change in one life span, those of the latter is subjected to change and hence is called 'vaikriyika'. In addition to these two bodies the mundane beings possess two more bodies- taijasa and kārmaṇa. The Taijasa body maintains contact between being and the atoms while the Karmana body is the lump of the karma-atoms which are attracted by the different acts of the being. These two are the permanent and subtle bodies of the mundane beings. Some spiritually advanced beings adopt a different kind of body according to their spiritual need, which is known as 'āhāraka' body.

Page #136

Philosophy
123
Ajīva
Ajiva dravya as the very term denotes, is lifeless substance. Its essential characteristic is that it is devoid of consciousness. Ajīva dravya has been divided into five categories - pudgala, dharma, adharma, ākāśa and kāla.
Pudgala
Pudgala is matter and hence its existence is realised by senses. It is called mūrta dravya. The smallest unit of pudgala is atom (paramās). By combination and dissolution of atoms different forms of objects are formed. It is because of this characteristics of combination and disintergration that it is called pudgala. The physical universe is constituted by these pudgalas. Sound, heat, light, shade, darkness, gross and subtle forms are the by products of matter.
· Dharma
Dharma dravya is the second category of ajīva. It pervades in the whole lokākāśa. It is because of this substance that the movement of objects from one place to the other is possible. As water provides the basis of the movement of fish so this dharma substance is the basis of mobility of the objects of the world.
Adharma
As the dharma dravya is the basis of mobility so the adharma dravya is the basis of immobility. The objects of the world are seen both in the states of mobility and rest. The Jains have tried to explain this condition by postulating the dharma and adharma substances. The ajña dravya also pervades the whole Lokākāśa.
Both dharma and adharma drvyas are non-physical, still, they have been conceived as real substances.

Page #137

124
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Akasa
The fourth non-living substance is ākāśa. This too is non-material. It provides space for the existence of all others. It is infinite and is divided into alokākāsa and lokākāśa. The existence of other substances is possible in lokākāśa. Alokakāsa is total void. It is an abyss of nothing.
Kāla
The fifth non-living substance is Kāla (time). This also pervades the whole lokākāśa. Time is beginningless and endless. It is because of it that modifications in other substances become possible. For practical purposes the time is divided into limited periods such as minutes, hours, days, months, years and ages. Āsrava and Karma-Bandha
The defilement of jiva in he mundane state is directly connected with its association with matter. It is usual that the jiva acts and these acts are performed at mental, verbal and physical levels. As soon as the activity begins a stirring is caused in the inner regions of the soul and the atoms surrounding the jiva are attracted. The atoms start pouring in the soul. The pouring or influx of the atoms is called asrava. With it begins the bondage because these atoms cling with the soul, force the Jiva to act according to their strength. Every action causes further inflow and bondage and this process continues. All the experiences of mundane jiva are conditioned by this influx and bondage, the experiences of pleasure and pain, incarnation in different walks (gatis) physical condition, social status, age and all other conditions of jīva are results of its deeds. Though many other schools of thought in ancient India believe in the retribution of karma but the doctrine of karma in Jainism is peculiar in the sense that it is material in its nature and negates the existence of any arbiter of the fate of the jiva. In fact, the doctrine of karma is the keystone of Jainism.

Page #138

Philosophy
125
Asrava is of two kinds : (i) Tryāpathika, (ii) Sãmparāyika, Fryãpathika ásrava is of little effect because it is caused by simple and ordinary acts and does not create any lasting bondage. It ordinarily takes place every moment in every mundane jīva and is easily washed away. But the Sãmparāyika asrava is of lasting effect because it is caused by the acts done under the impulse of passion. It does not leave the soul unaffected and it requires rigorous efforts to get rid of it.
When the subtle matter (karma-paramāņu) is amalgamated by the soul, karma-bandha comes into existence. The Jains have rigorously worked out a detailed doctrine of Karma. A study of the early Jain canonical texts indicates that its form was simple in the beginning but it was highly elaborated by later Jain thinkers. We shall keep ourselves confined only to its early form.
The kārmana body created by ăsrava binds the soul in eight ways according to the potency of the karma-paramāņus. They are of eight kinds which create differenct types fo bondage. Gyānāvaraniya Karma : It obstructs the faculty of knowledge of jiva. It is because of this bondage that the difference in the degree of knowledge and ignorance is seen in mundane jīvas. Darśanavaranīya Karma : This type of karma obscures right intuition or insight.
Mohanīya: This karma causes dilution with regard to faith, conduct, passion and other emotions.
Vedaniya: This karma is responsible for producing the experiences of pleasure and pain and obscures the bliss nature of the soul.
Antarāya Karma: This karma creates obstruction in the application of virtues and powers of soul in good actions.

Page #139

126
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Āyu Karma : This karma determines the length of life of jiva in god, denizen, man and animal gatis (states)
Gotra Karma: This determines the social status of jīva at the time of birth.
Nāma Karma : The personality of jiva i.e. body, health, complexion and other attributes is determined by this karma.
Each kind of karma-paramāņus get bound with the soul in fixed number. Even the time-limit of each kind of karma-paramānu is fixed during which it exercises effects on soul and then is purged off.
Thus, according to the Jain doctrine of karma, the driving force of life of a mundane being is karma. In its mundane state it is always under the shackles of karma. But being (jiva) is endowed with the capacity of minimising and even annihilating the effects of karma.
The Jiva can free itself from the bondage of karma by resorting to two steps. The first is stopping the influx of karma, that is, blocking the channels of the inflow of karma into the soul. It is technically called Samvara. The second is destroying or burning off the already accumulated karmas and hence, is called nirjarā. The complete annihilation of karma leads the jīva to the state of kaivalya or liberation (moksha). In the state of liberation, the soul is restored to its pristine purity freed forever, from the cycle of death and birth. It attains all perfections - infinite knowledge, infinite bliss and infinite power.
The essential condition for reaching the state of liberation (moksha), the summun bonum of life, is the possession of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct which have metaphorically been described as triratna (three jewels). The first step on the path of moksha is that one who is desirous of obtaining it, should have full faith in the teachings of preceptors which are enshrined in the canons. He should have firm faith that only by

Page #140

Philosophy
127
abiding by the canonical prescriptions and proscriptions, the supreme goal of life can be achieved. Once right faith (samyak darśana) is generated, his attitude towards other co-existents becomes righteous. His right kind of inclination enables him to comprehend the nature of reality as enunciated in the canons.
The second necessary condition for reaching the state of consummation is that the jiva should be equipped with right kind of knowledge (gyāna).
Gyāna is conceived as self-luminous as it shows to the soul not only object but also itself. Knowledge is not an external possession of the soul but is only a mode of the soul or self. It is an intrinsic property of the soul. It reveals self as a knower or subject as well as the objects of the world. As such knowledge is indispensable means to serve the ultimate purpose of jīva. It enables the jīva to choose the good and avoid the evil. Hence possession of right knowledge is essential for the progress on the path of the realisation of the ultimate goal.
In the Jain epistemology, knowledge is divided into mediate (parokşa) and immediate (pratyakşa). Mediate knowledge is derived through an intervening medium where as immediate knowledge is derived through direct perception without any intervening medium. Knowledge is of five different kinds viz. mati, śruta, awadhi, manah-paryaya and kewala. Mati gyāna arises out of the contact between the object and the senses. Śruta gyāna is the knowledge revealed by the scriptures. It involves inference as well as verbal testimony. Awadhi gyāna is a kind of extra-sensory perception. It is latent in every soul though not available to all. It has space-time limitation. Manaḥ Paryaya gyāna refers to the thoughts in the minds of others. Those who are endowed with this knowledge can know the mental activities of others. It is higher kind of knowldge and can be had only by those who are spiritually advanced. Kewal gyāna is infinite knowledge. It is omniscience. It is conjoined with the attainment of liberation.

Page #141

128
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Jain Ethics
Right conduct is essential for the attainment of moksha. For the right conduct of the adherents of Jainism a specific code of conduct has been laid down. In this ethical code separate provisions have been made for householders and monks.
Ethical code for the Householders or Laity
1.
Five anuvratas
The householder has to observe five vows viz. ahimsã, satya, astey, brahmacharya and aparigraha. It has been enjoined on lay people that they will observe these vows as for as is possible. Since, living a worldly life it is not possible for a householder to strictly observe these vows so some concessions have been granted to him. This is why they are called aņuvratas. Ahiṁsā: Any act at physical, verbal or mental levels intended to inflict injury, pain or harm is violence. Killing and beating any being or inflicting physical pain in any mode to it is physical violence. The very thought of doing any harm amounts mental violence. Uttering harsh words to offend the feelings of any being is verbal violence. Total abstinence of these types of violence can not be expected from a householder. But he will have to take care of the fact the minimum injury is committed while discharging his duties.
Satya : A householder should observe truth fullness in his day-to-day life. He should not only abstain from speaking false, but also abstain from inducing others to do so. He is ordained to guard himself from approving other's falsehood, spreading false ideas, revealing other's secret, forgery of documents and breach of trust. Though sometimes the householder is emotionally forced to resort to falsehood he has to be cautious that such incidents are minimised.

Page #142

Jain Ethics
129
Asteya: Taking away any thing secretly or by application of force over which one does not have proprietary right is theft. Making theft committed by others for himself, possessing things of stealth, export-import beyond the limits fixed by the state, use of false measures and weights and adulteration are other forms of theft and householder is instructed to abstain himself from these acts. However, he is permitted to take away things like clay, water etc. which are under no body's possession though the monks are restrained to take anything not given to them (adattādāna se viramaņa).
Brahmacharya: Abstinence from sex and infatuation with opposite sex is brahmacharya. The householder should keep himself or herself satisfied with his or her wife or husband and treat all others as mothers, sisters, daughters or fathers, brothers or sons. Making others marry, intercourse with prostitute, unnatural sex, intensity of sexual passion, and talking of obscenity amount to violation of the vow of celibacy.
Aparigraha: The householder is permitted to have things essential for his livelihood, and he should fix the limit of his possessions. However, if his resources exceed his requirement he should spend them up in the works of public welfare.
The practice of these anuvratas is intended to cultivate a spiritual culture of self control, self denial and detachment. In order to keep the householder steadfast on the path of spiritual progress provision of gunavratas has been made. They are three in number, namely dig-vrata, desa-vrata and anartha-danda-vrata. In pursuance of dig-vrata the householder should fix the limit of distance upto which he will move in this or that direction. Fixingan ocean, river, mountain cr village as the limit of the area in which he has to move for a certain period of time is desa-vrata. Through the anarthadanadavrata the householder is abstained from contemplating and possessing things which are not of his
concern.

Page #143

130
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
In order to further his spiritual advancement provision of four sikşāvratas is made. They are - 1. Sāmāyika : This vow is observed by the householder to create in himself an attitude of equanimity and to get rid of sinful acts. In it he is required to retire to a peaceful place for sometime inorder to contemplate and meditate on holy things. 2. Posadhopavāsa: In the observance of this vow the householder is required to keep fast on the 8th and 14th day of every fortnight and pass these days studying scriptures and keeping himself busy with religious activities.
3. Bhogopabhogaparimāņa: In this vow the lay man is required to set a measure of food, drink and other comforts both in quantity and quality. 4. Atithi-Sambibhāga : In it he is required to serve monks and holymen who turn up at his residence with food, medicines and other things according to their wants.
In all, these are the twelve vows which a householder is required to observe. The whole course of right conduct is arranged in eleven stages which are called eleven pratimas. In this arrangement limitations of individuals and successive development have been kept in mind. In the last stage of this course, the layman is fully prepared to take up the career of a monk.
Discipline of Monk
Amonk at time of initiation takes the five vows as stated above. He has to observe those vows in right earnest with all strictness. Since no concessions are granted in their observance they are called mahāvratas. Moksha is not possible without sumura and nirjarā. For it, not only the process of karma-bondage is to be stopped but the

Page #144

Jain Ethics
131
annihilation of accumulated karmas is also essential. In order to enable the monk to emancipate himself from the bondage of karma and obtain liberation some specific ethical regulations have been made in addition to the great vows
After initiation a monk is required to completely abandon all worldly possessions. At most, he can keep with him a jug, peacock feather and some religious books. He may wear clothes or remain naked. The salient features of monastic discipline are brought forth in the following lines.
Samitis :
While observing the great vows a monk is required to be very careful lest sinful acts would be committed. In order to avoid such sins he must observe five samitis.
1. Tryāsamiti : He has to be cautious in walking. He has to walk in day and to take care that no being is killed out of carelessness.
2. Bhãşā samiti : He should observe restraint in his speech. He should abstain from flattery, condemnation, use of bitter words etc. 3. Aişaņā samiti : He should take pure food offered to him greedlessly. 4. Adānanikshepa samiti : While placing or taking up his articles he should be careful that no being is injured. 5. Pratisthāpanā samiti : While attending to the calls of nature and disposing of the refuse he should be careful that no being is injured or killed.
Pari saha :
In order to keep himself steadfast on the path to perfection a monk is required to bear the troubles without being disturbed. These troubles

Page #145

132
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
are twenty two in number which a monk has to endure such as hunger, thirst, cold, heat, mosquito-bite, disgust, sexfeeling, illness and ill-treatment
etc.
Ten Dharmas: A monk is required to conquer vices, namely, anger, pride, illusion and greed, and inculcate following ten virtues: forbearance (kṣamā), indulgence (mãrdava), straightforwardness (ārjava), purity (sauch), truthfulness (satya), restraint (samyama), austerity (tapa), sacrifice (tyaga), detachment (akińchan) and celebacy (brahmacharya).
In addition to these dharmas or laws a monk is required to create certain feelings by reflecting upon some fundamental truths such as transitoriness of worldly objects, helplessness of man, worldly experiences are miserable etc. They have been called anuprekshã or bhāvanā and are enumerated to be twelve. Through their regular exercise monk's steadfastness on the path of salvation is strengthened.
Since bondage begins with the activities of body, mind and speech, and liberation is not possible without getting rid of this bondage, a mork is required to keep his body, mind and speech in strict control so that further asrava and karma-bandha would not take place.
A monk is required to practise austerities (tapas) for the stoppage of the inflow of new karmas and purgation of accumulated karmas. Austerity (tapa) has been assigned great significance in Jain ethics. Austerity is of two types-external and internal. External tapa comprises fasting, reduction in intake of food, selection of pure food from the beggings, abstinence from delicious food, residing in secluded places and exercise mortificatory postures under adverse conditions. The internal austerity (tapa) consists of spiritual exercises such as meditation, confessions and repentance, respectfulness and servitude to teachers and other learnedmen, study of scriptures and contemplation on their

Page #146

teachings and control over vices like greed, anger etc. But contemplation is most important of all these internal austerities. Contemplation is concentration of mind on a certain object. The object of contemplation should be religious (dharma) and pure (sukla). Through religious contemplation which consists of concentration of mind to the truths revealed in the scriptures, perception is purified and steadfastness in the observance of the rules of conduct is strengthened. The pure meditation leads to final emancipation through different stages of spiritual advancement.
All these ethical regulations lead the monk to final liberation through different stages of advancement. This has been enunciated in the doctrine of Guna-sthana. There are fourteen guṇasthānas i.e. fourteen stages of advancement which begin from the stage of mithyatva and ends with stage of ayogakevalin. Through these stages the seeker advances by degrees in true knowledge, in firmness of belief, in control of passion and in sarvara and nirjară and becomes pure and purer in successive stages. Finally, he obtains liberation after reaching the fourteenth stage i.e. ayogakevalin when he is liberated from the bondage of karma. Liberation is a stage of perfection-perfect knowledge, perfect bliss, perfect power and disincarnate.
3.
4.
-
2.
1. Jacobi, H. Lord Mahavira in the Eyes of Foreigners, p. 16. Barua, B. M. - A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy 1981, p. 380-381.
Ibid p. 381.
Ibid - p. 383.
Jacobi, H. S.B.E. XLV p. 27
Ibid - p. 32
Ibid - p. 30
567
Jain Ethics
5.
133
6.
7.

Page #147

The Āstika-Năstika Dichotomy-A Review
The ăstika-năstika dichotomy of ancient Indian religiophilosophical tradition deserves serious consideration. It seems to have epitomised the earliest ontological dissension. With the development of philosophical speculations in course of time, the connotations of the terms ăstika and năstika also grew. It is imperative to study the semantic changes through the ages for understanding the history of philosophy. To ingnore it is to invite confusion.
Pāṇini refers to asti, năsti and dista as three distinct philosophical traditions existing prior to his times'. It is highly rewarding to study the original meaning of these terms. Patanjali commenting on Pāṇini, states - 'asti iti asyamatlḥ ăstikaḥ, năsti iti asyamatlḥ năstikah. Kāśikā? explains these terms by saying that the ăstikas are those who believed in paraloka (otherworld). Those opposed to it are năstikas. The term năstika is mentioned in at least two places in the Manusmriti, At one place năstika has been said to be a denouncer of the Vedas (Vedanindakan)'. But at another place the 'nāstikya', 'Veda-nindā' and 'devatānāmkutsanaṁ terms have been placed side by side and one has been instructed not to get indulged in such activities, indicating thereby that năstikya is some thing more than mere denouncement of the Vedas and the gods. In the dialogues of the Buddha and some later Buddhist works the năstiksa are said to be persons not believeing in the doctrine of Karma and transmigration”. The lokāyatikas have been condemned by the Buddha for not believing in the retribution of karma and consequent

Page #148

The Astika-Năstika Dichotomy-A Review
135
furture birth. Significantly, the word paraloka has been used in this context denoting abode of life after death.
Kumãrila Bhatta has used the terms ātmastitã and năstikya as denoting two opposite views meaning thereby that the năstika did not believe in the existence of soul where as the ăstika believed in it. In an another verse he has placed năstika in the category of those who perish owing to their non-belief in the fruithfulness of the rites prescribed by the śrutis and the smritis?. According to Śankarãchārya ăstika is one who believes that the meanings enshrined in the āgamas are the ultimate truths. In a number of contexts the ăstika is said to be believer in the existence of God and paraloka and also a staunch adherent of his religious faith'. On the contrary, năstika does not believe in God and paraloka. In this context, it is interesting to note that the traditional classification of Indian philosophical schools place the six systems of philosophy, namely, Sãmkhya, Yoga, Nyāya, Mimāńsã, Vaišesika and Vedānta in the category of the ăstika philosophies whereas the Buddhist, Jain and Lokāyata schools in the năstika category. These so called năstika schools have been condemned for defiling the Vedas and their non-belief in the existence of God.
The references mentioned above present a very confusing picture of the ăstika and năstika traditions. In order to conceptualise the contradictions in meanings of these terms in proper historical perspective, it is necessary to analyse the development and interaction of the philosophical ideas in ancient India.
The oft-quoted references of the Buddhist and Jain literature about the thinkers of sixth century B.C. clearly show that a number of schools of thought were current which opposed the Vedic Weltanschauung and presented their alternative systems. The leaders of these schools have been called gañchāryas and tirthařkars. As they were dissenters and non-believers who rejected the Vedic view of life, it may be surmised

Page #149

136
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
that they were the first to be dubbed as nāstikas. Pāṇini's two categories of astika and nastika may, thus, be interpreted as the formerbeing the category of those people who believed in and endorsed the Vedic view of life while the latter as the category of those who dissented and rejected it. The adherents of the Vedic tradition believed in the authority of the Vedas, the existence of God and the efficacy of rituals. Since the nastikas did not endorse the Vedic view of life and the world and opposed it they were so branded and declared the denouncers of the Vedas and the Vedic gods, a refrain to be found right from the Manusmriti to the works mediaeval period.
The point of the ãstika-nästika dichotomy is rendered complicated by the evidence furnished by the commentaries of Patanjali and Kāśikā, the dialogues of the Buddha (Majjhima Nikaya) and some later works where that astika is connected with the belief in the paraloka and the nastika with the non-belief in it. As such, the Jain, Buddhist and Ajīvikas, then, can not be called as nãstikas because they believed in paraloka. This runs counter to the established tradition. But this contradiction is resolved once we go into the changes and development of the meaning of the term paraloka. There are two stages of the development of the connotation of the term paraloka. Originally, it connoted heaven and hell as is evident from its references in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda10. The concept of hell is absent in the Rigveda but it is found in the Atharvaveda". The references in these early texts indicate that the terms heaven and hell denoted the abodes of life after death where one had to experience pleasure and pain according to his deeds. The end of these experiences and return from these abodes is no where mentioned in early texts since the idea of rebirth was then non-existent. The meaning of the term paraloka, however, acquired a different shade in the laterVedic period when the idea of samsara and the doctrine of karma and rebirth had received wide acceptance. It, now, came to denote the life after death, the form of which was determined by the deeds done in

Page #150

The Astika-Nastika Dichotomy-A Review
137
previous life, though its association with heaven and hell still remained in vogue. It is to be noted here that the heretical schools took quite a good number of words having cultural connotations from the existing tradition and used them in specific sense suited to their ontological perspectives. The terms paraloka, swarga and naraka have been used by the Buddhists and Jains, but their connotations in the Buddhist and Jain contexts are a little different from what we see in the Vedic tradition. While during the early Vedic period the stay in paraloka i.e. heaven or hell is interminable, the stay in heaven or hell is terminable according to the Buddhists and Jains and the doer is said to enter into new life after meting out the fruits of his deeds. Infact, in the Buddhist and Jain terminology, the term paraloka denoted life after death in general and not necessarily heaven or hell. Even the terms swarga and naraka acquired different meanings.
The Jain tradition recognises the four states of living beings viz. the devagati, narakagati, tiryanchagati and manuṣyagati. These are the four categories in which the beings in the cycle of death and birth are placed according to their deeds. The devagati and narakagati beings are those who live in swarga and naraka respectively according to their deeds. The being of any category may pass into any other category according to his deeds after the expiry of his residue Karmic effects. This obviates the idea of swarga and naraka in the Jain tradition which is quite different from the Vedic concept. Likewise, the Buddha also believed in the idea of samsara and transmigration, hence outlook about swarga and naraka differed from the Vedic one. It is pertinent to mention here that though the Buddha was brought up in the Śramanic hot-house his temporal location made him prone to accommodating some ideas which were non-Śramanic in origin and were prevalent in his time. So, when the Buddha called someone as nāstika if he did not believe in paraloka, he, infact, unconsciously stepped into the shoes of the Vedic theologician who calls the dissenter as nastika who did not believe in

Page #151

138
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
the existence of paraloka. The point to be noted here is that the dissenter, who did not endorse the pivotal tenet of the tradition of a particular school, is called a nãstika. Contrary to it, one who had steadfast belief in the tradition is astika.
Following this line of argument, we can convincingly explain as to why the designation nãstika has been used to those who did not believe in the existence of soul. In the beginning centuries after the Charistian era, the theory of soul had received wide acceptance in India. The believers in this theory, as such, were called ãstikas and the non-believers as nãstikas. In this light, the use of the terms atmastitã and nãstikya by Kumarila Bhatta is rendered comprehensible. In the same strain we can understand as to why the God-believers were called ãstikas and the non-believers as nãstikas.
Thus, we can infer from the facts discussed above that the terms ästika and nãstika primarily meant believer and non-believer or dissenter respectively. With the change in the articles of belief and non-belief in course of religio-philosophic development, the connotatios of the terms astika and nästika also changed.
^
1. Aştãdhyāyi - Panini - 4.460.
2.
Paraloka astiti yasyamatiḥ saḥ ãstikaḥ tadvipari to nãstikaḥ-Kãsikā Manusmriti - 2.11.
3.
4.
Manusmriti - 4.163.
5.
Majjhima - nikaya 2.2.10 - Majjhim - nikaya Trans. Rahul Sãńkṛityāyan 2nd edition p. 142
Ślokavārtika - Atmavada - 148; See Dharmasastra Ka Itihasa Vol. V. P. 120 fn.
6.
7.
Ślokavārtika 3.65.
8. Astikyam śraddhanata paramarthesvagamarthesu- Śamkara Astikaḥ śraddhāsch - Yagyavalkya Smriti 1.268.
9.
10.
Atharva-veda II 14.3; V.30.11
11. Atharvaveda XII 4.36.

Page #152

Aitareya Brahmana
Atharvaveda
Kathaka Samhita
Kausītaki Brāhmaṇa
General Bibliography
Panchavimsa Brāhmaṇa Rigveda
Satapatha Brāhmaṇa
Texts and Translations
: Ed. K. S. Agashe, Poona, 1896.
Trans. by A. B. Keith,
Brihadaraṇayaka Upanisad: Ed. with trans. by O. Bohtlingk, Leipzig, 1889.
: Ed. with trans. by O. Bohtlingk, Leipzig, 1889.
Chhandogya Upanisad Gopatha Brāhmaṇa
: Ed. by Rajendra Mitra and H. Vidyabhushan, Calcutta, 1892.
Hos, Vol. XXV, Cambridge, Mass., 1920
: Ed. with Sayana's Comm. by S. P. Pandit, Bombay, 1895-8.
Trans. in part, M. Bloomfield, SBE, Vol. XLII, Oxford, 1897.
: Ed. by Von Schroeder, Leipzig, 1900-11.
: Ed. by E. B. Cowell, Calcutta, 1891. Trans. by A. B. Keith, HOS, XXV, Cambridge, Mass, 1920.
: Ed. by A. VEDANTAVAGISA, Calcutta, 1869-74.
: Samhita and Pāda text with Sayana's Comm. Ed. by F. Max Muller (Second Edn.) 1890-2. Samhita and Pada text with Sayana's Comm. Critically edited by Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, Poona, Four Vols. 1933, etc.
: Ed. by A. Weber, London, 1885. Trans. by J. Eggeling, SBE, XII, XXVI, XLI, XLIII, XLIV,

Page #153

140
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Taittiriya Samhita
Oxford, 1882-2000. : Ed. by A. Weber, Berlin, 1871-72; with the comm. of Madhava, Calcutta, 1854-99.
Astādhyāyi of Panini
Bhāgavata Purana
Mahābhārata
: Tr. by S.C. Vasu, Varanasi, 1891-1898. : Ed. by V.L. Pansikar, Bombay, 1920, Eng. trans. by
J. M. Sanyal, Calcutta, 1930-34. : Eng. trans. by M. N. Dutt. Calcutta, 1985-1905. : Trans. into English prose by M. N. Dutt, Calcutta,
1892-94. : Trans. by Cowell and Gough.
Rāmāyaṇa
Sarvadarśana Samgraha
JAIN (a) Canonical
Āchārānga
Antagaddasão
Anuttarovavaiyadasão
: Niryukti, Bhadrabāhu. : Chūrņi, Jinadāsagani, Ratlam, 1941. : Com. Śilãńka, Surat, 1935. : Trans. H. Jacobi, SE, XXII. : Com. Abhayadeva, Ed. by M. C. Modi, Ahmedabad, ed. P. L. Vaidya, Poona, 1932. Trans.
L. D. Barnett, London, 1907 : Com, Abhayadeva, Ed. by M. C. Modi,
Ahmedabad, 1932. : Ed. P. L. Vaidya, Poona, 1932. : Chūrņi, Jinadãsagani, Ratlam, 1928,. : Com. Haribhadra, Ratlam, 1928. : Com. Maladhāri Hemchandra, Bhavanagar, 1939. : Ed. by N. G. Suru, Poona, 1936. : Niryukti, Bhadrabahu : Bhãsya : Chūrņi, Jinadasagaņi, Ratlam, 1928.
Anuyogadvāra
Aupapātika Āvaśyaka

Page #154

General Bibliography
141
Bhagavati
Dasaveyāliya
Kalpasūtra
: Com. Haribhadra, Āgamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1916. : Com. Malayagiri, Āgamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1928. : Niryukti Dipika, Mãạikyasekhara, Surat, 1939. : Com. Abhayadeva, Āgamodaya Samiti, Bombay,
1921, Ratlam, 1937. : Ed. by Jozef Deleu with introduction, critical analy
sis, commentary and indexes 'De Tempel'Tempelhof 37, Brugge (Belgie). : Niryukti, Bhadrabahu. : Chūrņi, Jinadāsagani, Ratlam, 1933. : Com. Haribhadra, Bombay, 1918. : Introduction and notes W. Schubring,
Ahmedabad, 1932. : Trans. H. jacobi, SBE, XXII, 2nd Reprint, Delhi,
1968. : Ed. N. V. Vaidya, Poona, 1940. : Com. Abhayadeva, Āgamodaya, Bombay 1919. : Com Chandrasūri, Ahmedabad, 1938. Ed. Gopani
and Chokshi, Ahmedabad, 1934, Ed. P. L. Vaidya,
Poona 1932. : Bhãşya
Chūrņi Jinadāsagani, Ed. Vijaya Prema Surisvara, V. S. 1995.. Eka Adhyayana by D. S. Malavania. : Com. Abhayadeva, Ahmedabad, 1938. : Niryukti, Bhadrabāhu. : Chūrņi, Jinadásagani, Ratlam, 1941. : Bom. Śilānka Āgamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1917. : Eng. Trans. by H. Jacobi, SBE, XLV, Delhi, Reprint
1964.
Nāyādhammakahã
Niryavāliyão
Nisitha
Samavāyānga Sūtrakritānga

Page #155

142
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Thanặnga
Uttarādhyayana
: Com. Abhayadeva, Ahmedabad, 1937. : Niryukti Bhadrabāhu. : Chūrņi, Jinadāsagani, Ratlam, 1933. : Eng. Trans. by H. Jacobi, SBE, XLV, Delhi, Reprint
1964. : Ed. J. Charpentier, Upsala, 1922. : Eng. Trans. by A. F. R. Hoernle, Calcutta, 1888, Ed.
P; L; Vaidya, Poona, 1930.
Uvãsagadasão
JAIN (b) Noncanonical
Darśanasãra of Devasena, Ed. by N. R. Premi, Bombay, V. S. 1974. Daśabhaktyádi-samgraha of Pūjyapãda, MS Harivamśapurāņa of Jinasena Sūri, Bombay, 1930, with Hindi Trans. Bhāratiya
Gyānapitha, Kashi, 1962. Mahấpurāņa (Adipurāņa and Uttarapurãņa) of Jinasena and Guņabhadra, Indore,
V. E. 1973-75, with Hindi Trans. Bharatiya
Gyānapitha, Kashi, 1951-54. Mahāvīrachariya of Gunachandra, Bombay, 1929, with Gujarāti Trans. Bhāvanagar,
V.S. 1994. Mahāviracharita of Nemichandra Devendragani, Jaina Atmānanda Sabhã,
| Bhāvanagar, 1933. Pariśişta-Parvan of Hemachandra, Ed. by H. Jacobi, Calcutta, 2nd edition, 1932. Paum-chariu (Rāmāyaṇa) of Vimalaşūri, Ed. H. Jacobi, Bhavanagar, 1914. Tiloyapannati of Yativrisabha Ed. A. N. Upadhye & H. L. Jain, Solapur, 1951. Trilokasăra of Nemichandra, Bombay. Trišaştisalākāpuruşacharita, trans. by H. M., Johnson, Baroda, 1930. Vardhamāna-charita of Asaga, Solapur, 1931. Vividha-tīrtha-kalpa of Jinaprabha, Ed. by Jinavijaya, Bombay.

Page #156

General Bibliography
143
BUDDHIST
Anguttara-Nikaya
Buddhacharya
Dhammapada
| Digha Nikaya
: Ed. R. Morris and E. Hardy, PTS. London, 18851900. Tr. F. L. Woodward and E. M. Hare. The Book of the Gradual Sayings, 5 Vols. P.T.S. London, 1932
36;I & II Vols. 1951. : (Being a Hindi translation of selected portions from
the Tripitaka and Atthakahā Tr. by Rahula Sankrityayana, 2nd Ed. Sarnath, 1952.
Text. Ed. by Rahula Sankrityayana, Rangoon, 1937. : Eng. Trans. by F. Max Muller, SBE, oxford, 1898.
Ed. and trans. by Mrs. Rhys Davids, SBE, London, 1931. : Ed. T. W. Rhys Davids and J. E. Carpenter, 3 Vols. PTS, London, 1890, 1903, 1911. Eng. trans. (Dialogues of the Buddha) by T. W. Rhys Davids. 3 Vols. SBB. London, 1899-1910, 1921. Tr. Rahula Sankrityayana in Hindi Dighanikaya, Mahabodhi
Sabha, Sarnath, 1936. : Ed. V. Fausboll. 7 Vols. London, 1877-97. Eng. trans.
under the Editorship of E. B. Cowell, 7 Vols.
Cambridge, 1895-1913, : Ed. by N. K. Bhagat, 2 Vols, Bombay 1944-1952. : Ed. by V. Trenckner and R. Chalmers, PTS, London, 1888-1902. Eng. Trans. (Further Dialogues of the Buddha by Ford Chalmers, 2 Vols. SBE, London, 1926-27. Tr. Rahula Sankrityayana in Hindi, Mahabodhi Sabha, Sarnath, 1933. : Ed. by J. Minayeff, PTS, London, 1888. : Ed. by Leon Freer, PTS, London, 1884-98. Indexes by Mrs. Rhys Davids, London, 1904. Eng. trans. (Book of the kindred saying or Grouped Suttas)
Játaka
Mahāvagga Majjhima Nikaya
Petavatthu
Samyutta Nikaya

Page #157

144
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Sutta Nipāta
Theri-găthà
Thera-gāthã
by Mrs. Rhys Davids and F. L. Woodward, PTS,
London, 1917-30. : Ed. by D. Andersen and H. Smith, PTS, London,
1913. Eng. trans, by V. Fausboll, SBE, Oxford, 1898. Ed. by Rahula Sankrityayana, Rangoon, 1937. : Ed. by H. Oldenberg, PTS, London, 1883. Eng. trans
(Psalms of the Brethren) by Mr. Rhys Davids, PTS,
London, 1913. : Ed. by R. Pischel, PTS, London, 1883. Eng. trans.
(Psalms of the Sisters) by Mrs. Rhys Davids, PTS. London, 1885. Eng. Trans. by D. M. Strong, London, 1902. : Ed. by P. Steithal, PTS, London, 1885. Eng. Trnas.
by D. M. Strong, London, 1902. : Eng. trans. (Vinaya Texts) by T. W. Rhys Davids
and H. Oldenderg. SBE, Oxford, 1881-85. Tr. by Rahula Sankrityayana in Hindi, mahabodhi Sabha, Sarnath, 1935.
Udăna
Vinaya Pitaka
MODERN WORKS
Agrawala, V.S.
Bandopadhyaya, N.C.
Banerjee S.C.
: India as known to Pāṇini, Lucknow, 1953. Indian
Art, Varanasi, 1965. : Economic Life and Progress in Ancient India,
Calcutta, 1956. : Dharma Sūtras, A Study in their Origin and
Development, Calcutta, 1962. : Studies in the Brāhmanas. : A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy, Reprint 1970, Delhi. Gaya and Bodha-Gaya,
Calcutta, 1934 : History & Doctrine of the Ājivikas, London, 1951. : Lectures on the Ancient History of India
Banerjee A. C. Barua, B. M.
Basham, A. L. Bhandarkar, D. R.

Page #158

General Bibliography
145
(Carmichael Lectures, 1918), Calcutta, 1919. Chatterjee, A. K.
: A comprehensive History of Jainism, calcutta, 1978. Deo, S. B.
: History of Jaina Monachism, Poona, 1956. Deva Krishana and Mishra, Vijayakanta
: Vaisãli Excavations, Vaiśāli, 1961. Diwakar, R.R.
: (General Editor): Bihar through the Ages, Calcutta,
1959. Dutta, S. K.
: Early Buddhist Monachism, London, 1924. Fick, R.
: Social Organisation in North-East India in Buddha's
Time, Tr. S. K. Maitra, Calcutta, 1920. Glassenapp. H.
: Doctrine of Karma in Jain Philosophy Bombay, 1942. Jain, B.C.
: Lord Mahavira (A study in Historical Perspective),
Benares, 1948. Jain, C.L.
: Jaina Bibliography, Calcutta, 1945. Jaini, J. L.
: Outlines of Jainism (cambrige, 1916) Jain, Mnui Uttam Kamal : Jain Seets and Schools Delhi, 1975. Jain, A. K. (Ed.)
: Lord Mahāvìra in the Eyes of Foreigners. Jacobi, Herman-"Jainism" : Encyclo paedia of Religion and Philosophy Vol.
VII p.464-475. Jain, J.C.
: Life in Ancient India as depicted in the Jain Canons,
Bombay, 1947. Jain, J. P.
: The Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India,
Delhi, 1964, Jain, K. C.
: Jainism in Rajasthan, Sholapur, 1963. Malwa
Through the Ages, Delhi, 1972. Jha, D.N.
: Ancient India - An Introductory Outline. Kane, P. V.
: History of Dharmasastra, 3 Vols., Poona, 1941. Law, B.C.
: India as described in Early Texts of Buddhism and
Jainism, London, 1941. History of Pāli Literature, 2 Vols, London, 1933.

Page #159

146
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
: Mahăvira, His Life and Teachings, London, 1937. : Some Jaina Canonical Sūtras, Bombay, 1949.
: Indological Studies, I & II, Calcutta, 1962. Majumdar, R. C. and Pusalker, A. D.
: Ed. The Vedic Age, 2nd Impression, London,
1962. Malālsekhar, G.D. : Dictonary of Pāli Proper Names, London Macdonell, A. A. & Keith A. B.: Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, Oxford. Mishra, Yogendra
: Ed. Homage to Vaiśāli, Vaiśāli, 1948. Mishra S. N.
: Prachin Bhārata mein Grāma evam Grāmya
Sańskritiyan Mehta, Ratilal N. : Pre-Buddhist India, Bombay, 1939. Mishra, Yogendra : An Early History of Vaiśāli, Delhi, 1962. Pandey, G.C.
: Studies in the Origins of Buddhism, Allahabad,
1957. Śramana Tradition-Its History and contribution to
Indian culture. Pargiter, F. E.
: Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, London, 1922. Rapson, E. J. Ed. : Cambridge History of India, Vol. 1: Ancient India,
Cambridge, 1922, Reprint 1935. Rhys Davids, T. W. : Buddhist India, ninth edition, Delhi, 1970. Schubring, W.
: The Doctrine of the Jains, Delhi 1962.
: The religion of the Jains, Calcutta, 1966. Sen Amulyachandra · Schools and Sects in Jaina Literature, Calcutta
1931. Shah, C.J.L.
: Jainism in North India, London, 1932. Sharma, R.S.
: Material Culture and Social Formation. Singh, J.P.
: Aspects of Early Jainism, Varanasi, 1972. Sirear, D.C.
: A, Grammar of Prakrit Language, Calcutta, 1942. Stevenson, Mrs. Sinclair : The Heart of Jainism, first Indian Edition 1970.

Page #160

General Bibliography
147
Tatia, N.
: Studies in Jain Philosophy, Varanasi. Thaper, Romila
· Ancient Indian Social History. Tulsi
: Pre-Vedic Existence of Śramaņa Tradition. Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty : Karma and Rebirth in classical Indian Traditions
1983. Winternitz, M.
: A History of Indian Literature, Calcutta, 1933. H. Zimmer
: Philosophies of India. Hastimal
: Jaina Dharma Kã Maulika Itihāsa, I, Jaipur, 1971. Jain, H.L.
: Bhāratiya Sanskrit me Jaina Dharma Ka Yogadīna,
Jabalpur, 1962.
: Jaina Tirtha Sarvasamgraha, Ahmedabad, 1953. Kalyān Vijaya
: Sramana Bhagavān Mahavira, Jalor, V.S. 1998. : Vira Nirvāna Samvata aura Jaina Kāla Gananā, Jalor,
1930. Mukhtar, Jugal Kishore : Jaina Sãhitya aura Itihãsa para Visada
: Prakāśa, Delhi, 1956. Premi, NR.
: Jaina Sahitya aura Itihāsa, Bombay, 1956. Shastri, K.C.
: Jaina Sahitya kā Itihasa, Varanasi, V.N.S. 2489. Vijayendra
: Tirthankara Mahāvīra, Bombay, V.S. 2017
JOURNALS
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona Annual Reports of
the Archaeological Survey of India. Epigraphia Carnatica. Epigraphia Indica, Otacamund. Indian Antiquary, Bombay. Indian Archaeology- A Review, Delhi. Indian Culture. Indian Historical Quarterly, Calcutta. Jaina Siddhanta Bhăşkara (Hindi-English)

Page #161

148
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta.
Journal of the Department of Letters, Calcutta University, Calcutta.
Journal of Indian History, Tirvandrum.
Journal of the Numismatic Society of India, banaras.
Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda.
Nagari Prachariņi Patrika, Banaras.
Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference.

Page #162
_