Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism

Author(s): S N Shrivastava
Publisher: Rekha Publication Gorakhpur

Page 23

10
A Study in the Origins and Development of Jainism
these facts it can be safely asserted, agreeing with V. S. Pathak, that the word arhata or its cognates had acquired a religious connotation at a very early stage, probably in the Indo-Iranian period. 40
The word tirthařkara is derived from the root'tri' in the sense of 'tarare'. The word 'tirtha', derived from this root, means bridge. Thus, tirthankara is bridge-maker. It is to be noted here that bridge had become a spiritual symbol in many Indo-European traditions. In the Avestã one chinavata is mentioned which separates the world of men from the world of Ahurmazdã. Zoroaster is said to escort the worshippers of Āhurmazdã across the bridge. According to the Iranian belief the myth of Chinavata bridge is pre-Zoroastrian. If so, bridge had acquired spiritual significance at a very early stage. It is interesting to note that the term pontiff which denotes priest originally meant bridge-maker (pons=bridge, ficare=maker). Incidentally, the concept of such a separating bridge is not found in the Rigveda. But this idea occurs in the Upanisads. Thus, it is clear that the concept of Tīrthankara or the bridge maker having spiritual connotation is Aryan at the same time non-Vedic. As the concept of 'arhata tīrthankar' is typically Śramana concept it might have been a part of the primitive Śramaņa ideology. His status in the Śramana tradition may be equalled to the status enjoyed by the priest and the god in the Vedic charaņas.41 Tīrthankara, by virtue of his spiritual achievements, is at par with god and by way of his teachings leads his followers from this miserable world to his position. It is to be pointed out here that, inspite of this striking parallel between primitive Śramaņa and charaṇa traditions there is difference in their ontological perspective and world-view.
As is clear from the above discussion that the śramaņa tradition is non-Vedic Aryan tradition and its antiquity goes back to the preRigvedic times, but before we conclude our investigation of its genesis, it is incumbent on us to examine the validity and relevance of the views and arguments referred to earlier. So far as the proto-austoloid origin of the Śramaņa tradition is concerned, there is no positive evidence and it is