Jain Spirit 2005 09 No23

Author(s): Jain Spirit UK
Publisher: UK Young Jains

Page 38

WWW.JAINSPIRIT.COM
FEATURES
based on biological condition nor external possessions but on spiritual development alone.
In response to the Digambara position one may argue that if clothes are a possession and therefore an obstacle to moksha, the same view could perhaps also be applied to a mendicant's other 'possessions'. For example, the same argument could be used against the kamandalu (water pot), seats, whisk brooms and so on, which are considered necessary implements for Digambara monks on to path of liberation.
The Tattvartha defines aparigraha (non-possession) as murccha parigrahah, "possession is attachment" (Tattvarthasutra, 7.12). Therefore if one can have attachment to clothes then one could also presumably develop an attachment to these other implements. Furthermore, possession is seen to be a state of mind. Hence one who has a residual sense of possession can even have attachment for one's body. In that case, even if one is naked, one cannot attain moksha.
This point is highlighted by Sakatayana (814-867 AD), the first effective defender of this debate from the Yapaniya sangha. In Strinirvanaprakarana, verses 27 -35, he states: "clothes are just implements for nuns just as the kamandalu is for Digambara monks, and it is permitted by the lord." Assuming for the sake of argument that nudity is a prerequisite for attaining moksha, Sakatayana goes on to wonder who (once they have reached samyag-darsana or right faith) would be foolish enough not to give up their clothes for attaining the ultimate truth (Strinirvanaprakarana, verse 28).
We must at this point consider whether, if gender was a prerequisite for salvation, the 'wrong' gender was due to papa (negative) karma. In order to understand Jain karmic theory we must examine in detail the type of karma that gives rise to gender. In analysing this theory, we find that emancipation is only possible with complete disassociation of karmic particles from the soul. Jain doctrine propounds that it is karma which obscures the innate characteristics of a jiva, and decides the length, type and attributes of one's life. The Tattvartha-sutra, the Jain text claimed by both sects, refers to three biological genders: male, female and an indeterminate (neuter). Both sects believe that gender is the result of nama karma, the karma which projects the
26
properties of a body (Tattvartha-sutra, 8.12). Of the eight karma, four are considered ghati: they delude the innate properties of the soul and are therefore a hindrance to liberation. The remaining four are aghati, that is, they are related to the material body.
Since nama karma is aghati, one's body, and therefore one's sex, is not an obstruction to liberation. Remarkably though, sexual inclination is not associated with nama karma but is a property of mohaniya karma (ghati karma) called vedas. A man's desire for a woman is known as pumveda, male libido, and a woman's desire for a man is striveda (Tattvartha-sutra, 8.10). Therefore, it is sexual desire, and not sexual gender, that is the hindrance to liberation.
Sakatayana maintains that sexual desire is the same in both man and woman, similar to passions, anger, pride and other weaknesses. The famous Digambara Acharya Sivakoti goes further in his Bhagavati Aradhna (987-996) by saying that "the faults that are indicated in women are also noted in men, perhaps in greater quantity as they are more powerful." Since sexual desire is equal in both genders, there is little point in concluding that striveda exclusively is a hindrance to liberation. Umasvati also notes that "One can get salvation from any of the gender (linga)." (Tattvartha-sutra, 10.7).
Digambaras argue that by linga here, Umasvati does not refer to gender but to veda in determining salvation (Sarvarthasiddhi, commentary; sutra 10.7). In any case, both they and the Shvetambaras agree that in the eighth gunasthana one loses all sexual inclination, therefore presumably it is arguable that in the end veda makes no difference to the process of final liberation (Tattavartha-sutra, p. 289).
In the end, it should not be forgotten that for Jains the question of salvation in this era is purely academic. Perhaps for this reason, and this reason alone, there has been so much debate on the subject.
In the quest for doctrinal superiority within the Jain church, the question of nudity has been given prominence by the Digambaras. They claimed supremacy by preaching that only nude mendicants had access to liberation. One can therefore possibly understand discrimination within the Digambara church where male superiority is explicitly preached as doctrine.
Yet strangely, one finds that even within the Shvetambara sect, which gives women equality on ecclesiastical grounds and preaches that a woman was the founder of the Church, there is much discrimination within the monastic tradition. Nuns are seen as inferior to their male counterparts - never allowed to sit, preach or discuss doctrine in front of a monk. In the history of the Jain church, they have never been given the higher position of Acharya and Suri and are even forbidden to read certain scriptures. (An exception here is Acharya Shri Chandanaji, who was given this title in 1987). Therefore, we can conclude that over the course of time the order founded by Mahavir has embraced the social weaknesses of its environment and that perhaps even the Shvetambara promotion of women's liberation has become mere rhetoric.
In the end, there is little doubt that the legend of Malli/Mallinath embodies the issues surrounding the debate of the liberation of women in the Jain tradition. The Shvetambaras, as supporters of this issue, could not manifest her uniqueness within their church, and we find Malli drowned in the huge volumes of stories within Jain literature. For the Digambaras, since Mallinath is simply one of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, with little to differentiate him from the remainder, the question of exclusive promotion does not arise. Hence although the legend of Malli/Mallinath doctrinally epitomises a major issue, that of gender and salvation - it does little to add to, or detract from, the debate. Ultimately, each version of the legend is simply a reflection of faith..
A disciple of Acharya Shri Chandanaji, Sadhvi Shilapiji works for the charitable causes of Veerayatan. The above excerpt was adapted from her Master's Dissertation, written for King's College, London. She currently lives in Jakhania, Kutch, in the state of Gujarat, India.
SOURCES CITED: Tattvartha-Sutra of Umasvati, Ed, Hindi trans. Sanghvi, 1951. English trans. Nathamal Tatia, 1994.
Jaini, Padmanabh. S. Gender & Salvation. New Delhi, University of California Press. 1991.