________________
Vardhamana and the Foundations of Jainism
251
50.
51.
52.
54.
55.
Ghatge, quoted by Deo (1956: 75): "... some significance must be attached to the coincidence of Mahâvîra giving up his garment in the year of his meeting with Gosala." sâdiyao ya pâdiyao ya kundiyao ya pahanao ya cittaphalagam ya mahane ayametta . . . BhS: xv, $540. See Basham 1951: 40. The Digambaras recognize these two categories of monks but maintain that both must adhere to the vow of nudity: “jina iva viharantiti jinakalpika eka evety atisayo jinakalpikanam, itaro lingadir acarah prayena vyavarnitarupa eva." Quoted in JSK: II, 329. For the Suetâmbara view, see Caillat 1968: 9495, n. 22-23. tena kho pana samavena Nigantho Nâtaputto Nalandayam pativasati mahatiya Niganthaparisaya saddhim. atha kho Dighatapassi Nigantho ... yena bhagava ten' upasankami ... Majjhimanikaya: I, 371 (Upali-sutta). BhS: xv. For a complete account, see Basham 1951: 39-79. tumam nam auso Kasava, mamam tavenam teenam annaitthe samane anto chanham masanam pittajjaraparigayasarire dahavakkamtie chaumatthe ceva kalam karessasi. BhS: xv, $552.
Even Svetâmbaras have difficulty in dealing with this particular episode. They have traditionally shared with Digambaras a belief that the area surrounding a Tirthankara is pervaded by peace and good feeling; to accommodate this belief with an acceptance of the kind of malice and death manifested in the story is no easy task. Hence they classify the whole occurrence as an extraordinary thing (ascarya), an unheard of calamity (upasarga), an event so astonishing that it could happen only once in billions of years. In fact the Svetâmbaras have noted altogether ten such events discribed in their scriptures. Of the remaining nine, two are points of great controversy with the Digambaras, who of course reject them completely: the transfer of embryo episode (see above, n. 8) and the attainment of Tirthankara status by a woman (see below, n. 93). A list of all ten ascaryas is given in the SthS: $777. It should be noted here that the Digambaras have a similar belief, subsumed under the doctrine of hundavasarpini. This designates a period during which there may occur certain extraordinary events, for example, a calamity befalling aTirthankara. The Tiloyopannatti (k 1615-1623), in which this topic is discussed, informs us that the current avasarpini falls into the hunda category, but the text remains silent on whether or not any untoward events actually affected Mahâvîra himself. See JSK: II. 91-92. The circumstances surrounding this cure are controversial. First of all, even Svetâmbaras would never suggest that the Jina was so attached to life as to personally desire such a cure." The text relates, however, that one mendicant disciple, called Siha, was distraught over the possibility that his master's illness would prove fatal. To assuage Siha's anguish, Mahâvîra sent him to procure a particular medicinal substance which would undo the harmful effects of Gosala's attack. The substance in question is called kukkuta-mamsa, which ordinarily refers to the flesh of a chicken. But no Jaina can accept the idea of even an ordinary mendicant consuming meat, regardless of circumstances; to suggest that a Jina might have done so is nothing less than blasphemous. The Svetambara commentators have therefore gone to great pains to show
56.
