Food And Freedom

Author(s): Paul Dundas
Publisher: Paul Dundas

Page 25

Food and Freedom
185
reference of this old debate, my concluding remarks will be general and tentative. If we can assume, as I have already suggested, that the sectarian polemicists, in discussing the kevalin, are effectively referring to the tirthankara, then it must necessarily be asked whether the differing judgements about his need to eat have any implictions for the attitudes of contemporary Jaina devotees (for it is the tirthankaras who are the objects of worship and not the siddhas, the liberated souls who are the members of a much larger category). The most tangible manifestation of these differing conceptions is the offerings placed in front of images of the tirthankaras: edible things such as fruit and nuts by the Svetambaras and inedible things such as flowers by the Digambaras, although they do not seem totally consistent in this.168 Svetämbara ritual thus confirms Abhayadeva, Šīlānka and the rest. But how 'human' does this make the Svetämbara tirthankara, for if he eats, which is a basic human function, he does not sleep, another equally basic human function, as the Bhagavaïsutta makes clear. 169
In fact, it is not only the Digambaras who describe the tirthankara as a god. but also the Svetämbaras. The description 'god' (deva) is analysed in the Bhagavaïsulta 12.9170 where it is stated that it can be used not only of those beings who live in heaven while still being subject to the process of rebirth but also of kevalins and even ordinary monks; divinity in these terms signifies. status alone and does not entail any ability or desire to influence human events and destinies. The distinguished Digambara layman and scholar, A.N.. Upadhye, used the expression 'divinity' in the title of a short essay about the tirthankara which could scarcely be bettered as a general statement about Jaina worship and belief. Upadhye asserts confidently that no Jaina believes that one worships a tirthankara in order to ensure some reward or blessing; participation in ritual serves merely to concentrate the mind, the objects of devotion being examples to be emulated by the worshipper.
Upadhye gives the standard intellectual account of the religion: as such it is worthy of respect and would no doubt be echoed by many members of the community, irrespective of sect. Yet it has not passed unnoticed that many Jainas do in fact act towards the tirthankara in a manner which suggests that they expect some form of reward for their worship, if only in the form of grace, and the non-Jaina is entitled to wonder whether Upadhye's allencompassing statement about the nature of Jaina belief is valid for all members of all sects on every occasion. Unfortunately, it is here that the lack of competent field-studies is most to be regretted and we must be highly cautious about any judgements we make. It is, however, tempting to seek a possible analogy with Sinhalese Buddhism, an area in which field-studies abound and which, from the point of view of the situation just described, has many similarities with Jainism. Like Mahāvīra and the other tirthankaras, the Buddha is essentially a dead renouncer who has achieved nirvāņa and is