Jains Through Time

SR No.: 006591
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Shilapi Sadhvi
Publisher: Veerayatan
Total Pages: 282
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 16 MB

Page 37

inspired him. The Acharya was a pillar of shrutkevali of the present age.
strength to Samprati, who, working under his guidance, made his name in the annals of history. Suhasti was a great seer who recognised the needs of the age and brought about changes in the code of conduct regulating the manner in which sadhus and sadhvis seek alms. This became necessary when a great famine occurred and the sadhus were not able to gather food in the prescribed manner. He was the first person to take up the matter and find an appropriate method of making changes. He had a difference of opinion on this highly inflammatory matter when he discussed it with his senior monastic brother Acharya Mahagiri, but Suhasti never wavered from his customary courtesy, affection and understanding. Suhasti was a visionary acharya, who helped propel forward the chariot of revolution in the Jain religion.
Maurya Emperor Chandragupta became so immersed in the precepts of Jainism that he ultimately gave up the throne to become a Jain sadhu. The person who inspired him to do so was Acharya Bhadrabahu, the last
The Jains through Time
According to the Digambar tradition, the person who spread the word of Jainism in South India was Acharya Bhadrabahu. In 3rd century BC there was a twelve year long famine in the north. The Digambars believe that at this juncture, Acharya Bhadrabahu travelled to South India with 12,000 munis (ascetics), which resulted in the establishment of the Jain religion there. The Shvetambars, on the other hand, say that he was in the mountains of Nepal performing Mahapran dhyan sadhna. The Shvetambars believe that the increase of Jainism in the south was inspired by Bhadrabahu II, who lived three centuries after Tirthankar Mahavir's nirvana. The last shrutkevali, Acharya Bhadrabahu, achieved nirvana 170 years after Tirthankar Mahavir, hence he could not be the Bhadrabahu mentioned by the Digambars.
Why this Illiberality?
I do not want to get bogged down in the minutiae of scholarly controversy. I have the greatest respect for the individual and his
38