Historical Development Of Jaina Philosophy And Religion

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Z_Jaina_Literature_and_Philosophy_a_Critical_Approach_001936_HR.pdf

Page 32

Historical Development of Jaina Philosophy and Religion
around which the whole Jaina religion revolves. In Jainism, Tirthankara is regarded as the founder of religion as well as the object of worship. Generally, the Jaina concept of Tirthankara resembles that of incarnation (avatāravāda ) of Hinduism. Both carry the same object as they are propounders of religion but there is a fundamental difference in both of the concepts. According to Gita, the purpose behind the incarnation of God is to propound religion and to destroy the wicked while in Jainism Tirthankara is only regarded as propounder of religion, not the destroyer of wickeds. Not only this, the second fundamental difference between avatara and Tirthankara is that, in former the supreme power or God descends on earth to reincarnate himself in different forms in different ages and in this way, He is the one and only person who reincarnates himself from time to time, on the contrary, in Jainism every Tirthankara is a differ-ent person (Soul) and on account of his special personal efforts (sādhană) made in previous births, attains the supreme position. Though, it is very difficult to say that in this entire hypothesis of twenty-four Tirthankaras and twenty-four Avataras, who has taken to what extent from whom but it is fact that in the
Chronologically, the concept of Tirthankara came into existence betweenc. 3rd-1st B. C. So far as the fully developed concept of Tirthankara is concerned, the first complete list of Tirthankaras is found in the appendix of the Samavayanga which was incorporated at the time of Valabhi council, i.e., c. 5th A.D. Among Jaina agamas the first part of Acaranga, considered as the oldest extant Jaina text (c. 5th B. C.), mentions the ascetic life of Mahavira only. Sutrakṛtänga which describes some special features of Mahavira's life only hints about Parsva's
tradition. Rṣibhāsita mentions Pārsva and Vardhamāna (Mahavira) as Arhat Rși. The second part of Acaranga, for the first time describes Mahavira as Tirthankara alongwith some details of his parents, mentioning them as Pārsvapatya. Uttaradhyayana
process of development of their concepts both have clearly mentions some of the life-incidents of
influenced each other.
The word Tirthankara is being used from time immemorial. It mainly connotes the meaning as one who eastablishes four-fold order (caturvidha sangha). According to the old Buddhist literature, such as, Dighanikaya and Suttanipata (at the time of Buddha and Mahavira) there were flourished several persons who declared themselves as Tirthankaras. Dighanikaya mentions the Jñataputra Mahavira as one of the six Buddha's contemporaneous Tirthankaras. Though, it seems quite amazing because the first Śrutaskandha of Acaranga and Sutrakṛtänga, elaborately describing the life of Mahavira, do not call him as Tirthankara. It shows that these agamic texts are
53
more older than that of Dighanikāya. In the whole Jainaagamic literature, the word 'Tirthankara' is used for the first time in Uttaradhyayana and in second part of Acaranga. Words like Arhat, Jina, Buddha are frequently used in excessive form in the old Āgamas, the synonyms of Tirthankara. Presently, the word Tirthankara has become a specific term of Jaina tradition.
Tirthankara's like Ariṣṭanemi, Pārśva and Mahavira, whereas it indicates only the name of Ṛṣabha, Śānti, Kunthu and Ara. Similarly, the Namipavajja, the 9th chapter of Uttaradhyayana, elaborately describes the facts about Nami but it does not mention Nami as Tirthankara. Even in Kalpasūtra, there are some details about the life of Mahavira, Parsva, Arişțanemi and Rṣabha out of twenty-four Tirthankaras. Remaining names of second to twenty first Tirthankaras, seem to be incorporated in the list of Tirthankaras, later on in c. 4th-5th A. D. In Digambara tradition earliest description about 24 Tirthankaras is found for the first time in Tiloyapannatti, which is supposed to be composed after c. 5th A. D. So far as iconographical