________________
Institution of Class and Order
209
term Brahmana from Brahma and interprets the Vamas so styled as the offspring of Brahma,37 whose functions and names and cpithets have already been arrogated to Rşabhadeva All these statements may be taken as indicative of the Brahmanical influence on Jinasena These statements, however, contradict his another version with regard to the origin of the Brahmana Varna. That version, apparently bringing together the Brāhmanical and the Jaina ideas of the Varna in question, ascribes its origin to Bharata who is anticipated to create the Dojas from his mouth while teaching the vedas 28
Puşpadanta, on the other hand, tells a different tale. According to his version, Bharata did not create the Brahmanavarna, but one of its sub-sections called Sottiya (Srotrıya) The Brāhmanas, mentioned in the Mahapurānu as Vippas (Vzpras) are stated to have been invited and invested with Srotriya-hood". Thus, the version represents the Brahmanas as pre-existing Bharata. Besides, the account as given by Puşpadanta creates also an impression that institutions of four Parnas and Asramas in their degenerate forms were already in existence during the reign of Lord Rşabha who simply reformed them by defining and demarcating the modes of life of the different Varnas. In this context Rşabhadeda is represented as having criticized the prevalent institution of class and order together with the three vedas and the Srolnyas 31 Thus, according to the work, what lord Rşabha did was not the creation of the institution of Varna
27 TETUTIS eficia argul Ancreat. I ब्रह्मा स्वयम्भूर्भगवान् परमेष्ठी जिनोत्तम ॥
MP 39 127 28 मुखतोऽध्यापयन् शास्त्र भरत स्रक्ष्यति द्विजान् ।
-Ibid, 10 246a As is evident from the context the term Doya
in the extract has bcen used 10 tbc sense of the Brāhmanas 20 HTÈU fa fo3 f3
-PMP XIX 5 10b 30 Ibid XIX 5-7 31 चढवण्णासमु धम्मु तइत्तिय, अज्ज वि सूदर होतिण सोत्तिय
-Ibid V. 9.6,
