Harbhadra On Giving - Paul Dundas

PAUL DUNDAS
HARIBHADRA ON GIVING
The role of giving as a basic level category of action which, like language, is learned early in human cognitive development and subsequently comes to occupy a fundamental role in experience and civilisation is indisputable.1 Yet, as with language, such a basic behavioural trait can hardly be anticipated to be free from complexities. It is likely that most individuals would acknowledge that there is more to giving than mere transaction and perhaps concur with some variation of the observation provided by that supreme recorder of bourgeois platitudes, Flaubert, according to whose Dictionnaire des Idees Recues 2 Scholarship in the social Le cadeau nest rien, cest lintention. sciences, it is gratifying to record, also accepts that there is more to a gift than meets the eye and, since the rst publication seventy ve years ago of Marcell Mausss Essai sur le Don,3 it has been repeatedly conrmed that what is truly signicant about giving and receiving is not the gift itself but the social relation which exchange engenders. Most recently, gift giving has come to be discussed in the light of Derridas claim that an understanding of the nature of the gift can only be gained if it is somehow removed from the circle of exchange. For there to occur a true gift, Derrida suggests, the specic terms under which giving occurs have to be cancelled so that the gift is not in any way recognised as being given.4 Such a gift is not motivated by thoughts of return or reciprocity and is completely without self-interest. The donation of such a gift might also be held either to be extremely difcult to effect in the light of the social role which giving occupies or to partake of a context far beyond that of mere absence of reciprocity.5 Thus, while the gift might ostensibly maintain a residual phenomenal appearance, when conceived in the most stringent terms its mechanism can been theorised into virtually irresoluble contradiction, if not actual oblivion.6 Mark C. Taylor, one of the most prominent commentators on religion in the post-modern environment, sums up everything that is problematic about giving in its Derridean context:
From an economic point of view, the disinterested giving of the gift is madness. The incalculable folly of the gift harbors a paradox that borders on the absurd. The Journal of Indian Philosophy 30: 144, 2002. c 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
PAUL DUNDAS
gift can only be a gift only if it is not accepted as such. But is it possible not to accept a gift-especially if it is the gift of the sacred? Non-acceptance seems to be as impossible as acceptance. While the acceptance of the gift is its non-acceptance, the non-acceptance of the gift is its acceptance. . . . There is no gift without bond, bind, ligature; yet there is no gift with bond, bind, ligature. By annulling the very relation it is supposed to secure, the tie that binds is its own undoing. . . .7
SOME ASPECTS OF GIVING IN CLASSICAL INDIA
This paradoxical gloss on giving, in which the very possibility of the gift is called into question, may appear to epitomise a postmodern intellectual world far from the preoccupations of classical South Asia. Yet just such a position appears to have been anticipated in the Sutra on the Instruction of Vimalakrti, a text which dates from the rst or second century of the common era and became renowned throughout the Mahyna Buddhist world. The Sutra on the Instruction of Vimalakrti a a describes how the lay bodhisattva Vimalakrti assumes an illness in order to manifest his compassion for suffering humankind. In response to a request by the Buddha that he be visited and cheered up, a succession of the Buddhist establishments great and good describes how, in the course of previous encounters with Vimalakrti, the bodhisattva had discomted them in almost burlesque fashion by demonstrating the ontologically treacherous ground upon which the basic institutions and attitudes of Buddhism were based. Thus, on meeting the arhat Mahkyapa who a as had embarked on the apparently innocuous enterprise of searching for alms, Vimalakrti had demonstrated to that great ascetic disciple of the Buddha that for the one who understands the true nature of reality, the only way in which to accept food from a layperson is by not taking anything at all.8 Although this radical reconguring of the implications of a fundamental practice has to be read against the background of the Madhyamaka teaching that the conditioned nature of reality of necessity entails the universal emptiness, and thus equality, of all entities and activities, it provides a pointed introduction to classical Indian discourse about the problematic nature of giving. The specic perspective of the foregoing example is, of course, Buddhist. What is to my mind an even more striking example revelatory of an awareness of the difculties entailed . in giving occurs in the narrative collection entitled Kathakosaprakarana . a by the eleventh century Svetmbara Jain, Jinevara Suri, whose role as s a commentator on Haribhadra Ykinputras As.takaprakarana will be a . . 9 adduced later in this paper.
The basic codication of the procedure for giving (dana) in Jainism was provided in the early common era, probably before the main a sectarian groupings of Svetmbara and Digambara had appeared, by svti in his Tattvartha Sutra 7.34: The worth of a charitable act is Uma a determined by the manner of giving, the nature of the alms offered, the disposition of the giver and the qualication of the recipient.10 The act of giving itself is described at Tattvartha Sutra 7.33: Giving is disbursement of ones own (possessions) for the sake of helping.11 Jinevara s . Suris story, the sixteenth in the Kathakosaprakarana, remarkable for . the mundane and almost timeless nature of its narrative backdrop, describes a group of Jain laymen debating among themselves about the possibility of maintaining complete purity (suddh when alms are ) being given to an ascetic, providing in effect a critique of the Tattvartha Sutras prescriptions. Early in this ctional discussion, one of the laymen, Jalla, utters the proposition, almost Derridean in tone were it not for its injunctive force, that no one must give anything to anybody (na kassai kena vi kimci . . dayavvam) on the grounds that there can be no real purity of giver, gift . or recipient.12 In particular, Jalla claims, something which has not been reected upon in advance is impossible, and so everybody is obliged to think about alms to ascetics before the actual act of giving them. Even if there is purity of the object to be given, the pure giver must be the one who gives without expectation of recompense. This cannot be, since everybody gives with expectation, even when giving piously. Jalla clinches this position, at least to his own satisfaction, with the assertion that he himself listens to the religious discourse of his teacher simply in order that he may gain happiness in the next world. So there cannot be purity of giver. Furthermore, there cannot be purity of receiver, since when just one element of morality is missing (and can there really exist an ascetic whose moral control is truly complete?), the whole edice of morality destroyed.13 For Jalla, an act of giving is doomed to being compromised and rendered impure by both the prior anticipation of the donor and the inevitably awed nature of the recipient. Although, as far as Jinevara Suris story is concerned, this view s did not have any practical impact (the other debaters denounce Jalla as promoting false doctrine), it may be regarded as reecting the sort of questions which were asked in medieval India about intentionality and reciprocity in gift-giving centuries before Mauss and Derrida unmasked the hidden tensions involved. No doubt a gift-giving culture had to have been in place and assumed the status of an institution for some time before it became an object of
PAUL DUNDAS
reection. It need hardly be reiterated that Indian thinkers and holy men of various sorts were from the Vedic period onwards keenly aware of the centrality of gift-giving and exchange, with the reinterpretation by the emerging renouncer traditions of the ancient ideology of sacrice as the giving of alms to ascetics marking an important stage in cultural practice.14 At the very outset, the relationship between householder donor and ascetic recipient more often than not must have involved virtual anonymity on both sides. However, as local communities gradually emerged and became enmeshed in patterns of sectarian afliation and allegiance to a large extent under the impetus of the giving relationship, potential contradictions must have became starkly actualised to those of a critical turn of mind. In particular, the innate propensity of a religious gift to be premeditated with regard to possible meritorious reward, as highlighted by the layman Jalla, could readily be seen to be at variance with the necessity for a donation to an ascetic to be totally disinterested and free from any expectation of return.15 Such a pure gift, completely divorced from obligation and sense of exchange, was, as far as the ideology of giving was concerned, the only appropriate donation to a holy man and the sole source of merit.16 In actuality, historical evidence of various sorts bears witness to the inexorable emergence of a relationship of exchange between lay donor and ascetic recipient and the attendant embedding of the ascetic community in the midst of its lay supporters, a process which can either be regarded as a natural development or the corruption of a pure ideal.17 All South Asian religious communities seem to have been aware of the ambivalent nature of giving by laypeople to ascetics or to brahman priests and the dangers ensuing if the activity is taken to excess. In Buddhism, for example, the famous story of the Buddhas earlier birth as King Vessantara, who gave away his kingdoms wealth and prosperity and eventually his entire family, might be regarded as to some extent providing both an encomium and a critique of values embodied in the institution. In Hinduism one signicant strand of interpretation of the dynamics of giving would see the process as involving the transmission of moral sin.18 In what follows, I will concentrate upon showing how a early Svetmbara Jainism confronted the difculty of matching up to the idealised requirements for both donor and recipient in the dana context.
EARLY MEDIEVAL JAIN NARRATIVE ON THE DIFFICULTY OF THE FREE GIFT
As Laidlaw has pointed out, the classical idealised enactment of giving in Jainism in which a layperson gives to an ascetic without any expectation of return is a genuine example of that rare phenomenon, the unreciprocated free gift.19 This expression has a rather contemporary ring to it, but early medieval Jainism was aware of the phenomenon, understanding the free nature of a gift not to be a quality of what is given, but rather as being determined solely by the attitudes, established in advance, of donor and recipient. The difculty of effecting the free gift in this respect can be seen from two stories found in the commentarial tradition on the fth chapter of the Dasavaikalika Sutra, the early locus classicus for alms seeking in Jainism and still, as far as general practice is concerned, the foremost authoritative point of a reference for Svetmbara ascetics of all sects. The specic verses involved are 5.1.99100:
uppannam naihlijja appam va bahu phasuyam / muhaladdham muhajv bhumjejja .. . . . . . dosavajjiam. . dullaha u muhada muhajv vi dullaha / muhada muhajv do vi gacchanti soggaim. .
Schubrings translation is as follows: Be it obtained in small or big quantities, he should not nd fault with, [provided that it is] pure. That which was given to him without regard [to his person], he should eat, if it is free from faults, as a [monk] who practices indifference. People who give (in this way) and [monks] who accept (in this way) are rarely to be found, [but] (both of them) [will] enjoy a happy life [in the future existence].20 While there is no doubt that these verses are about disinterested giving and receiving,21 the signicance of the form muha in muhaladdham, . muhajv and muhada is at rst glance not totally clear. Schubring renders it by without regard and indifference in 5.99100, but for 5.1.100 gives as an equivalent the mysteriously bracketed (in this way). He also refers cursorily to Haribhadra Ykinputras commentary a (see below) in a footnote. It seems that muha in these two verses is the equivalent of Sanskrit mudha, normally in vain and must have a sense corresponding to indifferently,22 a meaning which apparently can be conrmed in later Prkrit.23 In fact, the real force of the term here was seen by Ernst a Leumann in his pioneering study of the niryukti commentary on the Dasavaikalika Sutra, published in 1892, where he translated muhada by gratis-gebend and muhajv by gratis-lebend, giving and living without any return being made.24
PAUL DUNDAS
The earliest prose commentary on the Dasavaikalika Sutra, hardly . referred to by Leumann, is Agastyasimhas Prkrit curni which can a . realistically be dated to around the fth century CE.25 This provides a the basis for Haribhadra Ykinputras Sanskrit commentary which was written in the eighth century.26 On 5.1.99 (Punyavijaya 5.1.115), . Agastyasimha explains muhaladdham (Punyavijaya: mudhaladdham) . . . . as signifying food got without the aid of practices such as omen prognostication, a activity forbidden to Jain ascetics,27 while muhajv is explained by avoiding the faults involved in producing alms . (uppadanadosaparihar).28 On 5.1.100 (Punyavijaya: 5.1.116), . Agastyasimha explains muhada (Punyavijaya: muhadat) as involving . . the removal of any assistance in worldly affairs (upakaraharane loe).29 . The expression those who live gratis are difcult to nd (muhajv vi dullaha) is justied by Agastyasimha by reference to the normal social . fact that people who receive are generally intent on gratifying givers . in return (dayagacittarahanaparesu genhamtaesu). . . To illustrate the point that those who give and live gratis are extremely rare, Agastyasimha adduces two illustrative stories. In the rst, . which has no specic Jain connection, a Bhgavata layman undertakes a to support a mendicant on condition that he does nothing by way of reciprocity. One morning, thieves steal the laymans horse and, because it is early, tether it to a thicket by a pool. The mendicant, who has gone to perform his ablutions, sees the horse and on returning gets a household servant to go to the pool under the pretext of retrieving his loin-cloth supposedly left on its bank; whereupon the horse is seen and recovered. The layman, realising that the mendicant has used a trick to communicate the location of the stolen horse and so, even though in a good cause, broken his promise about non-reciprocity, turns him out.30 No doubt in this story there is some sort of satire on early Vaisnavism, .. perhaps with reference to the Bhagavad Gtas (3.19ff) teaching of action without attachment to the result.31 It is certainly intended to convey the difculty, indeed almost the folly, of totally disinterested action and thus the rareness and oddness of a pure act of giving. The second story does have a specically Jain point of reference. A king of an enquiring nature who wished to investigate the purest way of life summoned various people, including a junior Jain monk (khuddao), to a feast in order to nd out how they ate. One said, By .. the mouth, another By the hands and yet another, By the feet. But the Jain monk said, By nothing. On being questioned further by the king, he claried his response as follows: An individual eats through that by which he is recompensed. Warriors eat through their
hands, while messengers and the like eat through their feet. Ministers, bards and royal panegyrists do so through the mouth, since each one of these eats by means of the organ which praises a particular patron. But I am indifferent to the help of this world and (subsist upon) alms which come without obligation. The king then renounced his kingdom to become a Jain monk on the grounds that this was the correct way of life.32 . These two stories, found in Agastyasimhas curni and amplied by . Haribhadra Ykinputra, on the rarety of the pure giver who expects a nothing in return for his gift and the upright recipient who is beyond any obligation to reciprocate a gift may appear to have a slightly contrived air. Nonetheless, unlike the perspective of the ctional layman Jalla in . the Kathakosaprakarana who saw the requirements of ideal giving as . impossible to fulll, they reect in narrative form a view of correct conduct in dana as achievable, even if it is difcult to conform to the necessary standards required.
HARIBHADRA AND THE PANCASAKAPRAKARANA .
Most scholars who have written on giving in early Jainism ignore the possibility of any controversy concerning the potential dangers involved in that act and instead tend to collect and uncritically juxtapose isolated of disparate origin statements relating to the ideal qualities of giver, recipient and gift.33 It is my view that a rather more precise perspective on this important topic might be gained by a narrowing of the focus to concentrate upon the treatment of religious giving adumbrated by a the leading Svetmbara Jain intellectual of the rst millennium of the common era, Haribhadra. It is no exaggeration to say that the writings of the Haribhadra corpus, with their authorship traditionally dened as emanating from a single individual, lie at the very basis of medieval Jainism until as far as the a seventeenth century, when the last great Svetmbara Jain intellectual Yaovijaya saw himself as a kind of Haribhadra redivivus.34 In what s follows I will attempt to show how the issue of giving and the pure gift were dealt with by Haribhadra, concentrating on a small nexus of material, specically Pancasakaprakarana 13.3046 and other linked . sources. The advantage of analysing this material is that insight can be gained into an early medieval Jain attempt to assess in relatively extended terms the nature of giving within the context of debate, for Haribhadras discussion is couched in the form of a response to a
PAUL DUNDAS
purvapaksa which sets forth certain objections to the possibility of . maintaining the integrity of this central institution. Haribhadras Pancasakaprakarana (henceforth Pancasaka), Treatise . of the Fifties consists of nineteen chapters dealing with monastic and a lay behaviour, most of which contain fty Prkrit verses composed in the arya metre.35 The date of the work is tied to the issue of the date of its author. Conventionally, Haribhadra is dated to the eighth century. However, Williams, drawing on the insights of Muni Jinavijaya, argued that on the basis of discrepancies between the Pancasaka and the Sanskrit As.takaprakarana (henceforth As.taka) and Sodasakaprakarana . . . . . . a and the manner in which the author identied in the description of puj himself in colopha, along with other factors, it is possible to identify the signicant component works of the Haribhadra corpus as in actuality having been written by two Haribhadras, who can be designated Virahnka and Ykinputra (or Ykinsunu) respectively.36 a a a Specically, on the grounds of their similarity in never going a outside the narrow limits of early Svetmbara Jainism indicated by a common archaism of form and subject-matter, Williams ascribes a the Pancasaka and another Prkrit verse work, the Pancavastuka, to Haribhadra Virahnka who is traditionally regarded as having died a in 529 CE.37 Although there are problems with the language of the text which Williams characterises as representing a rather archaic Mhrstr Prakrit,38 I will for the purposes of this paper guardedly a a a.. accept his view of the Pancasaka as being early and refer to its author in what follows as Haribhadra. However, I will also amplify its account of dana by reference to the sixth chapter of the As.taka and the .tka . on the Dasavaikalika Sutra (already encountered above), two Sanskrit works which, again following Williams, I will take as having been written in the eighth century by a writer who can be referred to as Haribhadra Ykinputra. a The earliest edition of the Pancasaka available to me is that published in Bhvnagar by the Jainadharmaprasrakasabh in 1912. This gives a a a the Prkrit mula along with Abhayadeva Suris .tka entitled Sisyahita a . 39 Dnanth Sarms edition of which was written in 1067 at Dholk. a a a a 1997 gives the Prkrit mula with Sanskrit chaya.40 His Hindi translation is not a simple rendering of the mula but also at times incorporates portions of Abhayadevas commentary to give an expanded version. I a follow Sarms text, omitting his punctuation. Padmavijayas edition of 1999 gives an expanded Hindi rendering of the mula (sometimes entitled mularth, sometimes bhavarth) and a Hindi explanation (vyakhya).41
My treatment of Pancasaka 13.3046 takes the form of a translation of and commentary upon each verse. It would be brave, not to say foolhardy to attempt to pronounce authoritatively on the meaning of the Prkrit used by Haribhadra in the Pancasaka without reference a to traditional exegetical opinion. As Williams points out, the verses seem specically intended to be studied with the aid of a commentary, without which they are often unintelligible.42 Certainly, while much that Haribhadra says appears clear, by no means all is free from opacity. Familiarity with any available medieval exegesis, even if it occasionally leads to dissent, is highly desirable when dealing with Jain Prkrit a texts of the early rst millennium CE and thus I refer repeatedly to the eleventh century commentator Abhayadeva Suri.43 Pancasaka 13 follows on from the previous chapters discussion of the correct behaviour of monks (sadhusamacar) and details the proper procedure to be undertaken to ensure purity of alms (pindavisuddhividhi). .. The bulk of this chapter deals with the difculties which arise from the manifold possible differing origins and modes of production of food and the means of seeking it and can be regarded as an expansion of the canonical treatment found in Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.4657. As . Pancasaka 13 only once uses the term (pa)dana, giving, it might be appropriate here to give by way of brief introduction Haribhadras understanding of its signicance and location in the conguration of merit-making activity, in this case based on the Dharmasamgrahan, a . . work written in the same style of Prkrit as the Pancasaka and, although a not referred to by Williams, apparently contemporary with it.44
PREAMBLE: HARIBHADRAS DHARMASAMGRAHAN ON THE EFFICACY . .I OF GIVING
In the Dharmasamgrahan Haribhadra describes how the efcacy of . . dana, denoting both giving and liberality, is linked to the existence of the soul (jva). If the soul does not exist and there is instead merely a material body distinguished by consciousness, then there can be no result of practices like dana.45 However, since it can be established that there is a soul which moves on to further existences, practices like dana can actually be said to have results. For if there can be, as obviously, pleasant psychological feelings generated through the practice of giving in this existence, why can there not be such feelings in the next? Because actions bear fruit, so does dana. Agriculture serves as an analogy for this.
10
PAUL DUNDAS
It might be argued that the results of liberality, such as the gaining of fame and renown, can be seen directly, whereas merit is unseen. However, unseen results can come from agriculture also, for the cultivator may experience inner mental transformations such as pleasure and unhappiness in respect to the state of his crops. If there are no unseen results from action, and thus no differentiation, then all creatures would achieve deliverance and the ocean of existences, although experienced directly, would make no sense. Since equal efforts bring about equal results, how can there be a particular result if the unseen does not exist?46 This conrmation that giving operates in a context outwith the mere feeding of ascetics and does actually generate results in the future provides the necessary background to Haribhadras description in the Pancasaka of how that particular action functions in practical terms.
PANCASAKA 13.3033 ON THE PURITY OF ALMS: INTRODUCTORY
After stating that he will give a concise account appropriate for ascetics (samana) in accordance with the instruction of his teachers, Haribhadra . afrms that because pure alms are a means for the monk both to gain restraint and to maintain the self, the pure must be understood in the following discussion as being that which lacks faults in respect to origin, production and seeking.47 With regard to alms, there are sixteen faults of origin, sixteen faults of production and ten of seeking, all of which render the food given to a monk inappropriate and unt to eat.48 These Haribhadra enumerates in twenty ve verses which, as already mentioned, are closely connected to the classical enumeration found at Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49 Haribhadra then proceeds to discuss the nature of pure alms.
Pancasaka 13.30:
eyaddosavisuddho jatna pimdo jinehi nunnao . .. . . .. . . . sesakiriyathiyanam eso puna tattao neo . . ALMS PURIFIED FROM THESE FAULTS HAVE BEEN PERMITTED BY THE JINAS FOR ASCETICS. BUT THIS IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD (AS APPLYING) IN REALITY TO THOSE ENGAGED IN THE REMAINING ACTIVITIES. Purity of alms relates to a broader pattern of sincere and committed monastic activities. There has to be more than simple avoidance of faults.
11
Eyaddosavisuddho. The form eya (Sanskrit etat) is characteristic of both Jaina Mhrstr and Ardhamgadh. Cf. eyam in 13.31.50 The a a a.. a . form eyad occurs elsewhere in a compound relation before dosa.51 . . . Sesakiriyathiyanam. Abhayadeva denes remaining activities as the basic ascetic duties such as inspection of robes and utensils to avoid injury to life-forms (pratyupeksana) and study (svadhyaya). These . . components of monastic discipline, which will generally precede almsseeking, must be linked to the practice on the principle that when there is no basis, then nothing which ensues can effect anything (mulabhave . uttarasyakimcitkaratvat). Tattao. Abhayadeva: tattvatah paramarthavrttya. Cf. Pancasaka 6.27 . . for nicchayato, 12.45 for nicchayena and 18.28 for nicchayanaena. . . . . . .
Pancasaka 13.31 establishes the foregoing by scriptural reference: sampatte iccaisu suttesu nidamsiyam imam payam . . . . . jatino ya esa pimdo na ya annaha hamdi eyam tu . .. . .. . .
THIS (GENUINE PURITY OF ALMS) HAS GENERALLY BEEN DESCRIBED IN SCRIPTURAL STATEMENTS SUCH AS THAT BEGINNING WHEN (THE TIME FOR SEEKING FOR ALMS) HAS COME. AND THIS IS THE ALMS FOR A MONK. THIS (STATE OF BEING A MONK) INDEED DOES NOT COME ABOUT OTHERWISE.
Sampatte iccaisu suttesu. Abhayadeva quotes Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.1, . the beginning of the alms-seeking (pindaisana) section: When .. . . the time for begging has come, a monk should look for food and drink in the following manner, free from troubles and delusions (sampatte bhikkhakalammi asambhamto amucchio / imena kamajogena . . . . . . bhattapanam gavesae) and alludes to 5.1.3: He should walk looking front with his eyes on the ground as far as one yuga, in order to avoid . seeds, spouts, animals, water and wet clay (purao jugamayae pehamano 52 . . mahim care / vajjanto byahariyaim pane ya dagamat.tiyam). . . . Hamdi. Abhayadeva: handty upadarsane.53 The particle hamdi . . occurs so frequently in the Pancasaka that it is worth acknowledging (see 3.32, 43, 5.24, 8.42, 10.41, 46, 11.20, 33, 13.40, 14.30, 18.27, 18.34 and 18.42). Cf. Dharmasamgrahan vv. 44, 64, 168, 183, 198, . . 354, 373, 377 etc. and Pancavastuka sporadically. Eyam. Abhayadeva: etat tu yatitvam. . Abhayadeva quotes a Prkrit verse signifying the worthlessness of a ascetic initiation (dksa) if there is no purity of alms54 He goes on to .
12
PAUL DUNDAS
adduce as an alternative explanation pure alms as being the cause of bhavapinda (that is, alms conceived from the purely spiritual point of .. view) which consists of a collection of qualities such as knowledge.55 This is in actuality the sort of alms which must be taken by a monk. . . . Cf. Pancavastuka v. 308: suttabhaniena vihina uvautta himdiuna te . . . . bhikkham / paccha uvimti vasahim samayarim abhimdamta. . . . . . The next verse describes how purity of alms can be ascertained, since many of the faults in proffered food cannot obviously be seen.
Pancasaka 13.32: . dosaparinnanam pi hu ettham uvaogasuddhimahim . . . . . .. jayati tivihanimittam tattha tiha vanniyam jena . . . .
KNOWLEDGE OF FAULTS IN RESPECT TO THIS (THAT IS, ALMS) WHICH HAS A THREEFOLD CAUSE CERTAINLY COMES ABOUT THROUGH PURITY OF MENTAL APPLICATION ETC., SINCE IT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN SCRIPTURE IN THREE WAYS.
. Abhayedeva, having quoted Oghaniryukti-bhasya v. 54a,56 then refers to Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.56: He should ask about the origin of it (i.e. alms), for whom it was made or by whom. Having heard that it is pure beyond doubt, the man of restraint should receive it (uggamam . . . se pucchejja kassat.tha kena va kadam / socca nissamkiyam suddham . . . . . . padigahejja samjae). . The threefold cause is physical, verbal and mental, the modalities which enable purity to be ascertained. The three ways relate to past, present and future. Mental application is an innate function of the soul. Cf. Dharmasamgrahan v. 131: uvaogadilakkhano jvo. . . . The next verse demonstrates, according to Abhayadeva, that the word bhiksa (begged food) is as appropriate as the word pinda (solid food . .. in the sense alms) for an ascetic; they both effectively mean the same. Compare the nal statement of his commentary on 13.31, namely that the bhiksa of the ascetic is conventionally understood as pinda (ata eva .. . . ca yatibhiksaya eva pindatvena ca rudhatvat). .. . Pancasaka 13.33: bhikkhasaddo vevam aniyatalabhavisau tti evamad . . . . savvam ciya uvavannam kiriyavamtammi u jatimmi . .. . SINCE THE WORD BHIKSA FOR ITS PART THUS INVOLVES . TAKING WHAT IS NOT RESTRICTED, EVERY (STATEMENT
13
SUCH AS DASAVAIKALIKA SUTRA 5.1.1) WHICH EMPLOYS IT IS APPROPRIATE TO A DUTIFUL ASCETIC. Up to this juncture Pancasaka 13 has referred to pinda and not bhiksa, .. . avaikalika Sutra, whereas the latter term, as well as occurring in the Das will be used in verses 34 and 36. The standard designation for both alms-seeking and the food gained a thereby in Svetmbara Jainism has come to be gocar, grazing, indicative of the view that the Jain ascetic does not actually beg for food, his seeking for it being random.57 It is not easy to locate an early example of this term, which appears to be semantically connected with gavesana, literally in its earliest manifestation in Sanskrit searching . . for cows and subsequently simply searching. The form found at Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.2 and and 82 and 5.2.8 is goyara which, although having the literal sense of movement of a cow, in actual usage means little more than the area or range of a particular mental or . physical activity. Agastyasimha, curni ad Dasavaikalika 5.1.2, p. 99, . stresses the similarity of the ascetics alms-seeking to the movement of the cow as deriving from their mutual imperturbabality in the face of things like noise (gor iva goyaro, taha saddadisu amucchito jaha 58 That is to say, the comparison is not taken as deriving so vacchago). from randomness of movement. Vevam. The Jainadharmaprasrakasabh edition and Padmavijaya a a . read cevam. . Ti. Abhayadeva: ity upapradarsane. Savvam. See Pancasaka 13.31. .
PANCASAKA 13.3436: REJECTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE PURE GIFT
Pancasaka 13.3436 claim as a purvapaksa that there cannot be an . act of giving to an ascetic which does not have implicit within it the intention to engage in such an act and thus the desire to gain religious merit; in other words, there is rejection of the idea that pure alms, as described earlier in Pancasaka 13, are possible. The reference to donors relates to those who are appropriately qualied to give. Here there is no obvious sense of these individuals being exclusively Jain. Rather they . are described as being sis.ta, a designation which can be traced back . to Patanjalis Mahabhasya and is common in dharmasastra literature, where it has the sense both of distinguished and learned, verging on being a synonym for high born and brahman.59 In practical terms, wandering Jain ascetics would not always have been able to gain alms
14
PAUL DUNDAS
from Jain lay households. Vegetarian brahman families, which placed a premium on the purity of their cooked food and their behaviour in general, would have provided a legitimate alternative source of sustenance by default.
Pancasaka 13.34: anne bhanamti samanadattham uddesiyadi samcae .. . . . . . . . . bhikkhae anadanam ciya visesao sit.thagehesu .
OTHERS SAY THAT WHEN THERE IS ABANDONMENT OF THE TYPES OF FOOD WHICH HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR ASCETICS OF VARIOUS KINDS, (IT FOLLOWS THAT) NOT WANDERING FOR ALMS, PARTICULARLY AMONG THE HOUSES OF THE DISTINGUISHED (IS APPROPRIATE).
Anne bhanamti. Abhayadevas gloss anye pare surayah signies that .. . . . the objection derives from the Jain ascetic community. Cf. Pancasaka 60 18.43. Samanadattham. Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.534, 60 and 61 stipulate . . that an ascetic should avoid anything which he knows has been specic ally prepared for sramanas (samanat.tha). Haribhadra ykinputra ad a . . . loc., p. 173a, glosses samanat.tha by evam sramanartham, sramana . . . . . . . .. . nirgranthah sakyadayah. Cf. Pancavastuka v. 716: pasamdakarana . . khalu arambho ahinavo mahavajja / samanat.tha savajja mahasavajja . . . . . ya sahunam. Abhayadeva glosses sramanadyartham sramanasadhupakhamdi. . . .. yavadarthikanimittam (That is, (food) for the sake of sramanas, sadhus, . heretics and general mendicants).61 This seems a highly generalised list of potential recipients of all sorts redolent of the neutral attitude which ought to inform the idealised act of giving. For a more specic list of ve types of sramana, viz. nirgrantha, Buddhist, gairika, tapasa . and Ajvika, see Abhayadevas commentary on Sthananga Sutra, 5.3. . . su 454.62 The seventh century Jinadsas Curni on Nisthabhasya v. 323 a expresses scepticism about the results of giving by Buddhist laymen to their monks.63 Uddesiyadi. For auddesika, designated (food), as the rst of a category of food made specically for ascetics and not delimited to the requirements of a family, see Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.55 (uddesiyam . . . kyagadam pukammam ca ahadam / ajjhoyara pamiccam msajayam ca . . . . . vajjae) and Pancasaka 13.56. Cf. Pancasaka 17.6 and 17.8. Pancasaka 17.14 explains the term uddesiya by uddesiyam tu kammam ettham . . .
15
uddissa krate tam ti.64 Abhayadeva ad Pancasaka 13.8 species . auddesika food as being intended for Jain and Buddhist monks. . Agastyasimhas curni ad Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.55, p. 113, refers . to the Pindaniryukti for the various types of impure food.65 .. Samcae. If this form is not treated as a locative in a tatpurusa . . compound relationship with uddesiyadi, then it must be an absolutive a of an archaising, Ardhamgadh type.66 Cf. 13.37b: uddesigadicao. . Sit.thagehesu. Abhayadeva ad Pancasaka 13.35 glosses sis.ta as . smrtyanusarin.67 See Haribhadra Ykinputra, As.taka 6.3 for the a . . necessity of food being taken in the houses of good householders (na . caivam sadgrhasthanam bhiksa grahya grhesu yat). Jinevara glosses s . . . . . . . sadgrhasthanam by brahmanadisobhanagarikanam. Cf. Haribhadra . . . a Ykinputra ad Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49, p. 173a, for sis.takula. Abhayadeva ad Pancasaka 13.13 refers to bhiksakula. For the various . families from which Jain ascetics can get alms, see Acaranga Sutra . 2.1.2.2. Agastyasimha, curni ad Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.1 states that . the ascetic should seek for alms in the same way with regard to high, low and middle families (ucca-nya-majjhimesu kulesu). . The point of this verse, extreme in implication, may be considered in the light of an episode in the well-known biography of Mahgiri, a one of the last senior monks who attempted to practice the fully ascetic style of life of the Jinas. Having refused the remains of food which had been left specically for him, (apparently not long after?) he abandoned food completely in the religious death of sallekhana.68 Pancasaka 13.356 expand on the foregoing and sum up the purvapaksa: . . dhammat.tha arambho sit.thagihatthana jam iha savvo vi . . . siddho tti sesabhoyanavayanao tamtante . . . .
SINCE EVERY UNDERTAKING OF DISTINGUISHED HOUSEHOLDERS IN THIS WORLD IS ESTABLISHED THUS THROUGH TEXTUAL PRINCIPLE (WHICH DERIVES) FROM STATEMENTS ABOUT EATING LEFTOVER FOOD (AS BEING) FOR THE SAKE OF DHARMA,
Abhayadeva regards the specic context of action (arambha) here as being cooking food for the sake of merit (dharmartham punyartham . . 69 Cf. Haribhadra Ykinputra, . . arambha aharapakavisayo vyaparah). a . As.taka 6.3b: svaparartham tu te yatnam kurvate nanyatha kva cit. . . . vara interprets yatnam here as pakapravartanaprayasam, the Jines effort of engaging in cooking.
16
PAUL DUNDAS
Dhammat.tha. The Jainadharmaprasrakasabh edition reads a a . dhammat.tho. . Iha. Abhayadeva: iharyadese. te. Abhayadeva: tamtran a sastranyayena. For tamtante Tamtan ty . . . . . elsewhere in the Pancasaka, see 2.44, 3.33, 34 and 49, 6.28 and 36 and cf. 1.1, 4.4, 9.1 and 12.18 (suttane), 2.25 (eyane), 6.40 (tamtathite) . . . . 11.32 (tamtajutte), 11.42 (samayante) and 18.42 (tamtajutti). Cf. . . . Pancavastuka v. 1210 for tamtajutte. For the Sanskrit expression . tattantrantya, see Haribhadra Ykinputra, As.taka 13.3. a . Abhayadeva identies the statements referred to by Haribhadra in the mula with the injunction found in the brahmanical smrti texts, . . . One should eat the left-overs given by ones teacher (gurudattasesam bhunjta). This would appear to reect Manusmrti 3.1167 which . describe how a married couple or a householder should eat left-over food after priests, dependents and gods have been fed and worshipped.70
Pancasaka 13.36: tamha visesao ciya akayatiguna jana bhikkha tti . . . . eyam iha juttijuttam sambhavabhavena na tu annam . . .. .
THEREFORE, SINCE (PURE) ALMS FOR ASCETICS SHOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY THE QUALITIES OF NOT MADE (BY ONESELF, NOT CAUSED TO BE MADE, AND NOT APPROVED OF AS BEING MADE), THIS (STANDPOINT) IS LOGICAL IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT BECAUSE THERE DOES EXIST THE POSSIBILITY (OF FOOD WHICH HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR ASCETICS AND IS THEREFORE FAULTY), BUT NOT THE ALTERNATIVE (NAMELY UNINTENDED ALMS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF THIS). Tamha. Abhayadeva: Because the undertaking of cooking in the houses . of the distinguished is for the sake of (giving alms to) brahmans etc., . therefore . . . (yasmad brahmanadyarthah sis.tagehesu pakarambhah, . . . . . . tasmat karanat . . .). Visesao. This echoes the forms ocurrence in Pancasaka 13.34b. Abhayadeva presents the purvapaksin as arguing that in general . (samanyatah) unintended alms are impossible. . Akayatiguna. Abhayadeva: akrtadiguna svayam akrtakaritasamkal. . . . . pitatvaguna. Cf. Haribhadra Ykinputra, As.taka 6.1a: akrto karitas a . . . canyair asamkalpita eva ca. These principles are common to the idealised . mendicant behaviour of all sects in classical India.
17
Eyam. Abhayadeva: etad idam vastu. Cf. Haribhadra Ykinputra, a . As.taka 6.6a, quoted in my remarks on Pancasaka 13.37. . Iha. Abhayadeva: pindavicare. .. kinputra, As. aka 6.8 who responds to a purvapaksa Cf. Haribhadra Ya .t . similar to Pancasaka 13.36: dr. .to samkalpitasyapi labha evam .s . asambhavah / nokta(h) . . . The obtaining of even unintended food is . . (actually) seen, so it has not been said to be an impossibility. Sarms Hindi version makes sense of this slightly elliptical verse: a Faulty food which has been made specically (that is, with the intention of giving to a monk) is logical, but unintended excellent food is not logical, because there is no food of that sort.71 Padmavijaya, whose rendering (bhavarth) is almost identical to Sarms, refers to excessive (adhik) food being made with the intention a of giving it to ascetics.72
PANCASAKA 13.3746: PURE GIVING IS POSSIBLE
Pancasaka 13.37 begins the response to the purvapaksa: .
bhannati vibhinnavisayam deyam ahigicca ettha vinneo .. .. . . .. . uddesigadicao na so vi arambhavisao u

(THE PURVAPAKSA) IS STATED WITH REFERENCE TO ALMS . WHICH INVOLVE WHAT IS DIFFERENT (FROM ONES OWN FOOD). THE ABANDONMENT OF THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF FOOD INTENDED FOR MONKS IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN RESPECT TO THIS (DISCUSSION), NOT (THE ABANDONMENT OF) THAT WHICH INVOLVES AN UNDERTAKING (APPROPRIATE TO ONESELF).
The cooking of food specically to give to an ascetic is wrong, whereas there is no harm in cooking food for oneself or ones family with the attendant aspiration of possibly giving some of it to an ascetic. This second type of food does not fall into the category of auddesika etc. Vibhinnavisayam. Abhayadeva: That is, which is prepared with .. . the intention of the sort Just so much out of this is for the family, just so much for ascetics (ihaitavat kutumbadyartham etavac ca . sramanadyartham ityevam kalpanaya yat samskrtam ity arthah). . . . . . . Arambhavisao. Abhayadeva gives svocitarambhavisayah as the . . . equivalent of the compound in the mula and explains it by of the abandonment of that whose sphere, i.e. range of reference, is
18
PAUL DUNDAS
. an undertaking, i.e. the activity of cooking (pakavyaparah) appropriate to oneself, i.e. suitable to oneself in respect to householders . (grhasthapeksayatmayogya). He continues: The implication is that . when one is cooking for oneself, there is no abandonment of the idea, Food will be given out of this to ascetics also. (svartham pake . . kriyamane itah sramanadibhyo pi dasyat[a] ityevam vikalpitasya . . . . na tyaga iti bhavah). Cf. Pancasaka 4.10: jayanae arambhavao and . 4.12: arambhavato dhamme narambho. As seen hitherto, the meaning of much of Pancasaka 13.3046 can be claried by reading the section in conjunction with the eight verses of As.taka 6, allowing for the fact that the former deal with pure alms . and the latter more specically with giving. Abhayadevas interpretation of Pancasaka 13.37 is explicitly inuenced by As.taka 6.6 (the rst line . of which has a structure partly similar to Pancasaka 13.37a) and 7, which he quotes with virtually no explanation. As.taka 6.6 specically . deals with the intention underlying the preparation of food: In respect to whatever substance an intention (arises) with reference to alms which are different from ones own food, at the time of action (i.e. cooking) that (intention) is at fault (and) involves both (types of alms i.e. that which has been prepared as yavadarthika and for the sake of merit).73 As.taka 6.7, employing the expression svocita which Jinevara takes s . as meaning suitable to oneself, that is to body and family (svasya sarrakutumbakader ucito yogyah), states that an intention appropriate . . to oneself is not faulty: Intention which operates thus with regard to an action such as cooking, which is appropriate to oneself (and does not involve making food which ascetics should not eat), is not faulty (i.e. does not cause alms to be faulty) because it involves morally positive disposition (that is to say, it does not involve violence to living creatures), like a pure mental or physical activity other than intention (such as paying homage to an ascetic).74 At the back of this Jain discussion, particularly in the light of Pancasaka 13.35, may be Manusmrti 3.118a: He who cooks for himself . . eats only evil (agham sa kevalam bhunkte yah pacati atmakaranat). . . . Pancasaka 13.38 conrms that an undertaking, such as cooking, appropriate to oneself alone is not impossible: sambhavai ya eso vi hu kesamc suyagadibhave vi . . avisesuvalambhao tattha vi taha labhasiddh o .
AND THIS IS POSSIBLE INDEED FOR SOME EVEN WHEN THERE OCCURS IMPURITY ARISING FROM BIRTH OR DEATH (WHEN
19
DANA SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE). FOR ONE CAN PERCEIVE NO DIFFERENCE EVEN THERE BECAUSE THE GETTING (OF ALMS) IS ESTABLISHED THUS.
Sambhavai. This is mirrored by asambhavah noktah in As.taka 6.8 . . . . . (quoted above in the remarks on 13.36) which conrms that unintended alms can be obtained. For sambhavai, cf. Pancavastuka vv. 1022, 1077, . 1108, 1578 and 1619. Eso. Abhayadeva: An undertaking appropriate to onseself , not an . undertaking merely for the sake of dharma (eso pi svocitarambho pi, . . na kevalam dharmartham evarambhah). . . . Kesamc. Abhayadeva: In the houses of some sis.tas. The point . seems to be that some highborn households are more relaxed than others about precise conformity to ritual stipulations. Suyagadibhave. Abhayadeva: Even when impurity takes place i.e. even when there exists a cause of the prohibition of dana, such as a birth or death ceremony, let alone when impurity does not occur (sutakadibhave pi jatamrtakaprabhrtikadananisedhahetusadbhave pi, . . . . astam sutakadyabhave). The term sutaka is of Vedic origin and came to denote the period of impurity experienced after the birth or death of relative. This involves, according to Manusmrti 5.83 (which refers only to death), ten days . for a brahman, twelve for a ksatriya, fteen for a vaiya and a month s . for a udra. During this period dana to an ascetic should not take s place.75 The linkage in the brahman case seems to be the ten lunar months of liminality experienced by the unborn embryo and the dead relative.76 It would appear that sutaka is a state informed by brahmanical ideology which the Jains, despite their differing doctrinal views on the rebirth process and ritual pollution, have subscribed to for cultural reasons.77 It was, however, from early in the medieval period, treated . as purely worldly, as Sanghadsa Ganins Vyavaharabhasya (c. 5th/6th a . 78 The Jain sources which deal with this issue cen. CE) makes clear. seem to be largely post-Pancasaka.79 Relevant to this discussion is Haribhadra Ykinputras commentary on Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.17a a padikut.thakulam na pavise (one should not enter the house of a . . . wretched, i.e. indigent, family), with the wretchedness explained as deriving from either temporary involvement in the sutaka period or permanent lack of food.80 Avisesuvalambhao. Abhayadeva: The ordinary sort of cooking which . is carried out when there is no sutaka period of impurity involved is . also perceived when the period of impurity is involved (avisesasya
20
PAUL DUNDAS
. . nirvisesasya pakarambhasya yavatah sutakadyabhave sutakadav api . tavata eva upalambho darsanam . . .). . Abhayadeva conveys the intention of the verse: If the action of . all sis.tas were to be for the sake of dharma, then when there is no occasion for dana there would be no action or very insignicant action. . But it is not found so in the houses of some sis.tas. Therefore an action appropriate to oneself is possible. The opponent might claim in response that there might possibly be an action appropriate to oneself, but there is no obtaining of food (labha) in respect to it. However, this is not the case, for (there is obtaining of food) with reference to an action appropriate to oneself, let alone an action for the sake of dharma. Thus (in the mula) signies by that means (prakara) characterised by appropriate behaviour (aucitya). For the achievement of the getting of food i.e. the obtaining of a given share (samvibhaga) can actually . be seen. People are certainly seen giving to an ascetic food out of what has been prepared for their own use.81 Jinevara quotes Pancasaka 13.42 in his commentary on As.taka 6.8. s . He comments on the reason why the obtaining of alms prepared without intention is not an impossibility: It is seen that householders, although not wishing to give in difcult situations such as the period of birth or death impurity when there are no mendicants present, (nevertheless) cook at night which is not an occasion for begging and so manage to . (contrive to?) give (. . . yato grhastha aditsavo pi sutakakantaradisu . . . tatha bhiksunam abhave pi tatha ratryadau bhiksanavasare pi pakam . . katham cid dadaty ap drsyate). kurvanti tatha ti . . Pancasaka 13.39 is taken by Abhayadeva as the rst of a two verse response to 13.36: . . evamvihesu payam dhammat.tha neva hoi arambho . . . gihisu parinamamettam samtam pi ya neva dut.tham ti . . . . . . .
AMONG HOUSEHOLDERS OF THIS SORT, AN UNDERTAKING (SUCH AS COOKING) IS GENERALLY NOT FOR THE SAKE OF DHARMA, AND A MERE MENTAL MODIFICATION (I.E. A RESOLVE), EVEN WHEN EXISTENT, IS NOT FAULTY. Evamvihesu. Abhayadeva: Amongst people of this sort whose under. taking of cooking is perceived as being without difference when the period of birth or death impurity is and is not involved because they lack great familiarity with ritual prescription (evamvidhesu . . . uktaprakaresu atinaipunyabhavena sutakadibhave tadabhave ca . . . nirvisesatayopalabhyamanapakarambhesv ity arthah). . .
21
Dhammat.tha. Abhayadeva: For the sake of merit which arises from . giving to ascetics (sramanadidanaprabhavapunyanimittam). . . Parinamamettam. The classic denition of parinama is Tattvartha . . . . parinamah) where it is taken as change to . Sutra 5.41 (tadbhavah . something which remains intrinsically the same. It can thus correspond to mental modication (cf. Dharmasamgrahan v. 140 at note 46 . . above). Haribhadra here takes the term as signifying something close to resolve, a feeling less intense than a fully willed intention (samkalpa). . Cf. Haribhadra Ykinputras commentary on Sravakaprajnapti v. 54: a ittham ya parinamo khalu jvassa suho hoi vinneo (when there is right . . belief, then the parinama of the soul should certainly be regarded as . good), where parinama is glossed by adhyavasaya.82 See Pancasaka . 8.11 for suddhaparinamo and cf. Pancavastuka vv. 347, 601 and 688 . for purity of parinama being necessary for nirjara, the elimination of . karma. Samtam pi. Abhayadeva: sad api vidyamanam api, astam . . avidyamanam. Ti. Abhayadeva: itisabdah samaptau. . Abhayadeva explains 13.39b thus: The opponent might say that surely that means that there is absence of the resolve (parinama) to . . give in those who are sis.ta. In reply it can be said that the resolve at the time of cooking of the sort May our food be the same that is divided among monks is a resolution (adhyavasaya) which does not involve the act of cooking excessive food with the (premeditated) aim of giving to holy men. That is what a mere mental modication means. Even being so (i.e. a resolve), let alone not being so, it is not faulty and does not vitiate the alms which are to be taken by monks. For that (i.e. a resolve) is not authorised as being a fault of alms (that is, amongst those enumerated earlier).83
Pancasaka 13.40 amplies the previous verse in substantiating that alms are not vitiated by mere resolve or disposition to give: tahakiriya bhavao saddhamettau kusalajogao asuhakiriyadirahiyam tam hamducitam tadannam va . . . . .. .
THAT (RESOLVE) WHICH IS FREE FROM BAD ACTIONS ETC. IS INDEED APPROPRIATE THROUGH ABSENCE OF ACTION OF SUCH A KIND, THROUGH SIMPLE ESTEEM AND THROUGH MORALLY POSITIVE (MENTAL, PHYSICAL AND VOCAL) ACTIVITY, OR (WHAT IS) OTHER THAN THAT(?).
22
PAUL DUNDAS
Abhayadeva takes the subject of the verse as being pakakale grhinam . . . danaparinamamatram. . Tahakiriyabhavao. Abhayadeva: Through absence of bad activity consisting of acting (specically) for the sake of sramanas etc. . Saddhamettau. Sraddha, normally translated faith or condence, was from the beginning of the medieval period a necessary conditioning factor of dana in Jainism.84 Faith in this respect would presumably relate to basic trust in the efcacy of the institution of giving. Hibbets, however, convincingly argues that sraddha in this context rather suggests a kind of unquestioning, non-judging esteem on the part of the giver towards the recipient of the gift.85 Kusalajogao. Abhayadeva glosses kusala (Sanskrit kusala) as prasasta; the kusalayoga is based on an internal disposition (antarbhutabhavapratyayam eva). At Pancasaka 13.42, Haribhadra uses kusala in the simple sense of skilled in. Here, however, and elsewhere, he appears to employ the term in the Buddhist sense of morally positive, the use of this idiom presumably being indicative of the interest in Buddhism which many of Haribhadras (and Haribhadra Ykinputras) works evince.86 a Asuhakiriyadirahiyam. Abhayadeva: aprasastakayaces.taprabhrtivi. . . . ao, see Pancasaka 16.28 and kalam. For the expression asuhajjhavasan 30. Tadannam va. Abhayadeva: Other than that mere resolve to give .. . at the time of cooking, such as the pious desire (pranidhana) to pay . homage to a monk; like that is the example. For just as an act such as paying homage to a monk at the time of giving does not vitiate the alms, so similar to that is this resolution (adhyavasana) to give.87 A possible alternative translation, without reference to Abhayadevas explanation, might be, The alternative is other than that. Pancasaka 13.41 conrms the preceding: . na khalu parinamamettam padanakale asakkiyarahiyam . . . . gihino tanayam tu jaim dusai anae padibaddham . . . . . .
THE MERE RESOLVE ON THE PART OF THE HOUSEHOLDER WHICH IS DEVOID OF BAD ACTION AT THE TIME OF GIVING CERTAINLY DOES NOT RENDER FAULTY THE ASCETIC WHO IS FIXED IN THE COMMAND (OF SCRIPTURE). Parinamamettam. See 13.39. . . Asakkiyarahiyam. Abhayadeva claries the bad action as involving . the destruction of life-forms by the householder.
23
Tanayam. Abhayadeva: satkam. It is difcult to dissociate tanayam . . . . in this verse from the postpositional adjective tanaenam added to a . . . word in the genitive case to give the sense because of. The rst occurrences of this would appear to occur in Jinadsas Avasyaka a . a Curni (seventh century) and Haribhadra Ykinputrass commentary on the Avasyaka Niryukti.88 The construction is more common in late Prkrit and Apabhrama89 , eventually developing into an Old Gujarati a .s postposition.90 If the Pancasaka is indeed (approximately) an early sixth century text, as Williams claims (see above), then tanayam here . . is perhaps the earliest attestable example of this form used in a protopostposition function. Alternatively, it may be indicative of the somewhat later provenance of this verse. As some sort of postposition, tanayam . . would here agree with parinamamettam and signify belonging to. . . Anae padibaddham. The monk established in the command of . . . scripture cannot experience any fault, because, in Abhayadevas words, the command of scripture dispels faults (ajnaya eva 91 Cf. Pancasaka 7.2: anae padibaddho and also . dosavyapohakatvat). . . . . 2.36: anai payat.tamanassa. .
Pancasaka 13.42 rejects the view expressed in 13.345, namely that one should not wander for alms among the houses of the distinguished, because for them any undertaking is always performed for the sake of merit:
sit.tha vi ya kei iham visesao dhammasatthakusalamat . . iya na kunamti vi anadanam evam bhikkhae vatimettam . . . . . . AND EVEN SOME DISTINGUISHED PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHOSE INTELLECTS ARE PARTICULARLY VERSED IN RELIGIOUS TEXTS DO NOT ACT THUS. (TO CLAIM THAT THERE SHOULD BE) NO WANDERING FOR ALMS (AMONG THEIR HOUSES) IS THUS MERE WORDS (BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN PURE ALMS AMONG THESE PEOPLE). Sit.tha. Abhayadeva: Distinguished people, let alone the undistin. guished. Ke. Cf. kesimci in 13.38. Abhayadeva: Some, but not all. . The implication is those who do not excessively desire dharma (anatyarthadharmarthinah) or who have not considered the expense of . . money (on food for ascetics) (aparikalitavittavyayah). As indicative of the sort of statement found Dhammasatthakusalamat. in dharmasastra, Abhayadeva quotes the following verse, identied
24
PAUL DUNDAS
by Padmavijaya op. cit., p. 450 as Jinavallabhas Pindavisuddhi v. .. 21 and as also occurring in the Dinacarya: samtharanammi asuddham . . . . . donha vi genhamtademtayanahiyam / auradit.thamtenam tam ceva hiyam . . . . . . . . . . . asamtharane.92 (The bad which affects the one who takes and the . . one who gives what is impure in respect to subsistence bestowed on ascetics becomes, on the analogy of the sick person, good when there is no subsistence bestowed on ascetics). The rst half of this verse refers to a general principle, but continues by suggesting that there can be exceptions when there is no formally correct bestowal of alms, i.e. when there is some unusual occasion such as famine or sickness which might require the giving and consumption of what would normally be impure food. The medical analogy seems to suggest that what is bad for one patient and his physician is good for another, depending on the disease being treated. Vaimettam. Cf. Pancasaka 12.20 and also Dharmasamgrahan vv. . . . 284, 285, 301 and 317. Abhayadeva asserts that the logic which would establish the opponents position is inconclusive (anekantika). Jinevara quotes this verse in his comm. on As.taka 6.8. s . Pancasaka 13.43 gives a preliminary summing up of the response:
dukkarayam aha eyam jaidhammo dukkaro ciya pasiddham . . . kim puna esa payatto mokkhaphalattena eyassa . . . IF (YOU THINK THAT) THIS IS DIFFICULT, THEN IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE DHARMA OF THE MONK IS (ALSO) DIFFICULT. SO WHY (FOLLOW IT)? THIS EFFORT (IS DECLARED) TO HAVE LIBERATION AS ITS RESULT. Eyam. Abhayadeva: This means the obtaining of alms which are . unintended (asamkalpita).93 . Jaidhammo dukkaro. For a similar sentiment, see As.taka 6.8b: . . . . yatidharmo tiduskarah. In his commentary Jinevara quotes Pancasaka s . . 13.43 and contrasts the alms begging of sectarians with the strict stipulations imposed upon Jains. Payatto. Abhayadeva: The exertion in getting pure alms. Mokkhaphalattena. For the connection of correct alms-seeking and . moksa, cf. Pancavastuka v. 297: himdamti tao paccha amucchiya esanae .. . . . . uvautta / davvadabhiggahajua mokkhat.tha savvabhavena. .
Pancasaka 13.44 according to Abhayadeva anticipates the view of a karmavdin, that is to say an advocate of the centrality of action a
25
alone in dening human destiny, who argues that the effort involved in avoiding what is impure is not sensible; for there can be no fault in a monk consuming such a substance on the grounds that he is under the inuence of karma which is to be held responsible:
bhogammi kammavavaradarato vittha dosapadiseho . . . . neo anajoena kammuno cittayae ya . .
WITH REGARD TO THE (POSSIBLE CLAIM ABOUT) CONSUMPTION (OF IMPURE FOOD TAKING PLACE) BECAUSE OF THE OPERATION OF KARMA, PROHIBITION OF FAULT IN THIS RESPECT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD (AS COMING) THROUGH CONNECTION WITH THE COMMAND OF SCRIPTURE AND BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS NATURE OF KARMA (WHICH ACTIVATES EATING).
Kammavavaradarato. Abhayadeva: Through the power of the karma dened as knowledge concealing (jnanavarana) etc. which generates . ignorance etc. Ittha. Abhayadeva: In respect to the eating monk. Anajoena. Abhayadeva: Through connection with the command . . of scripture means through relation with the words of the omniscient (apta), not through having been brought about by karma (alone). That is to say, contact with scripture is the necessary factor. Abhayadeva quotes Pindaniryukti v. 524 as an example of the principle ajnayoge .. dosanisedhah (there is no possibility of fault in conjunction with . . . . scriptural knowledge): oho suovautto suyanan jai vi genhai asuddham . . . / tam keval vi bhumjai apamana suyam bhave ihara (if, generally . . . speaking, a master of scriptural knowledge who is concentrated upon scripture eats what is impure (for some reason such as ignorance), then even an omniscient kevalin can eat (the same thing); otherwise scripture would be without authority.)94 Kammuno cittayae. Abhayadeva: . . . of the karma which effects . eating (karmano bhogapravartakasya). He continues: That karma is . assuredly of morally positive attendant circumstances (kusalanubandhi) and the opposite. With regard to that monk (eating impure food) through the inuence of that former positive type of karma, there is prohibition of (the possibility of there being) a fault through the development of a particular resolve, even when eating is being carried out.95 Pancasaka 13.45 demonstrates, according to Abhayadeva, that there would be a ridiculous consequence (atiprasanga) if one accepts absence
26
PAUL DUNDAS
of responsibility when there is an activity which takes place through the inuence of karma:
. ihara na himsagassa vi doso pisiyadibhottu kammao . jam tassiddhipasamgo eyam logagamaviruddham . . . .
OTHERWISE EVEN THE MAN OF VIOLENCE WHO EATS FLESH THROUGH KARMA WOULD HAVE NO FAULT, SINCE THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED (IF KARMA ALONE IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR). (HOWEVER) THIS IS CONTRARY TO (THE BEHAVIOUR OF) THE WORLD AND TO SCRIPTURAL TRADITION.
Ihara. Cf. Pancasaka 6.39, 12.35, 14.11, 15.5, 16.31, 17.40 and 49; for iharaha, see 14.11 and 18.28. Pisiyadibhottu. Abhayadeva interprets this as either genitive itadibhoktuh) or innitive (pisitadi bhoktum). If the former is the (pis . case, then it would be a highly unusual Prkrit example of a case ending a found normally only in Pli.96 Eating of esh and the justication of a this action are from the time of the early Ardhamgadh agama strongly a 97 associated by Jainism with the Buddhists. Kammao. Abhayadeva conrms that there is lack of fault only for the one fully conjoined with scripture by reference to Oghaniryukti v. 760: . . ja jayamanassa bhave virahana suttavihimaggassa / sa hoi nijjaraphala ajjhatthavisohijuttassa (Whatever injury might be be brought about for the man who strives, who has mastered all the injunctions of the scriptures and who has internal purity, that has as its result removal of negative karma.). Logagamaviruddham. Abhayadeva quotes an adage to the effect . that the orthodox (astika) generally do approve of violence: na . . namastika himsadikam prayah samanumanyamte. For the expression . . . logaviruddhani, see Pancasaka 2.10. Pancasaka 13.46 sums up, making the point that ascetics should take pains to avoid food which lay people have deliberately made for them: ta tahasamkappo cciya ettham dut.tho tti icchiyavvam inam . . . . . . tadabhavaparinnanam uvaogadhim u jatna . . . . .
SO IT MUST BE HELD THAT SPECIFIC INTENTION OF SUCH A SORT WITH REGARD TO THIS (THAT IS, ALMS) IS AT FAULT.
27
ASCETICS UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS ABSENT BY THE EXERCISE OF THE FACULTIES AND SO ON.
Ta. Abhayadeva: Since an undertaking for the sake of oneself is possible, therefore . . . Tahasamkappo. Abhayadeva: (That is) the intent (abhipraya) at the . time of cooking of the sort, Just so much of this food is for ascetics and so much for our family. The term samkappa in the sense of . (strongly premeditated, deliberate) intention is used for the rst time in this discussion, although Abhayadeva somewhat unhelpfully glossed parinamamettam in 13.41 as samkalparupam. Sanskrit sankalpa is found . . . . as early as e.g. Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 1.5.3 and Chandogya Upanisad . . . 3.14.2 and 8.1.5. Samkappa is also frequent in the Ardhamgadh agama a . a and in the Pli Canon.98 Forms deriving from sam-klp occur at As.taka . . . 6.12, 4 and 68. . Uvaogadhim. Cf. 13.32. Abhayadeva: And so on includes questioning etc. The monks in question are of ordinary, limited faculties (chadmastha), not fully enlightened and omniscient kevalins.
RESUME OF PANCASAKA 13.3046
The main points and implications of Haribhadras argument in Pancasaka 13.3046 can be presented thus:
(a) Pure alms are an integral and dening part of Jain ascetic life; their nature has been described in the scriptures. (b) Knowledge of any impurity concerning alms comes about through proper investigation by a recipient whose faculties are pure. (c) Objection: getting pure alms is impossible. Members of high born families, who might be expected to be appropriate donors, are compromised on the grounds that by their nature they never engage in any activity which is not oriented towards dharma. Any act of cooking they perform will therefore have implicit within it the calculated intention to give food to visiting ascetics in order to gain religious merit. (d) Reply: this is not so. What is involved is not food made separately from ones own, or that of ones family, which through being specically intended for monks is inevitably impure. (e) Furthermore, members of high born households do not always act solely for reasons of dharma. Example: some of them can be seen engaging in cooking even during the period of death or birth impurity, which normally precludes giving alms to ascetics, in the
28
PAUL DUNDAS
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
same way as they do when there is no period of impurity. They will give food to ascetics out of what they have prepared for themselves without any specic premeditated intention to do so. Preparing food with the morally pure thought at the back of ones mind that some of it might be given to a visiting mendicant is not wrong. Therefore an ascetic can condently seek for alms among upright households. It is admittedly difcult to conform to the correct requirements in alms seeking, but the path of the ascetic is itself difcult and has liberation as its result. There can be rejection of the view that eating impure food is brought about by karma and is therefore blameless through being free from responsibility. Reason: an otherwise faulty action is blameless only if the agent is rmly grounded in scriptural precept. Conclusion: a fully articulated intention to give alms to an ascetic in order to gain merit is wrong. Ascetics must carefully determine that it is absent.
A SUPPLEMENT TO PANCASAKA 13.3046: HARIBHADRA YAKIN IPUTRA ON DASAVAIKALIKA SUTRA 5.1.49
The aforegoing treatment of the alms giving and seeking situation provided by the Pancasaka can be amplied by reference to Haribhadra Ykiniputras Sanskrit commentary on Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49,99 a a verse which specically raises the context of the ascetic realising that food etc. has been prepared to gain merit and as a consequence rejecting it.100 Although the linguistic structure of this commentarial argument is stereotyped, evincing the repeated use of ablative-introduced clauses to signify cause which is characteristic of early Jain stric sa Sanskrit, the treatment of the issue is broadly the same as that of the Pancasaka, particularly with reference to the birth or death pollution period. However, the points raised are much more explicit, especially with regard to merit, almost as if in attempt to unpack and clarify the Pancasaka, which the As.taka also appears to do at times. Furthermore, an . additional perspective on the possibility of gaining pure alms, involving the role of spontaneous giving(?) (yadrcchadana), is deployed which . is found in neither the Pancasaka nor the As.taka. . The purvapaksa, broadly the same as Pancasaka 13.346, is expressed . thus: If one abandons food prepared for the sake of merit, then in actuality (the consequence is that) one cannot get alms among distinguished families, because the distinguished engage in cooking (only)
29
for the sake of merit. For, with the exception of (rites) such as funerary commemoration, the distinguished do not act for themselves alone, as low beings do.101 This argument is countered as follows: This is not so, because one does not know the intent involved (abhipraya). For alms different from ones own food which has been (specically) prepared for the sake of merit are prohibited, while ones own food and that of ones dependents (bhrtya), of the normal quantity, which are to be given spontaneously . (yadrcchadeya)102 to a wandering mendicant (itvara), even though made . with the morally positive desire (kusalapranidhana) (possibly to give), . are not prohibited. So the (possibility of the) occurrence of taking what should not be given is responded to, because it is not appropriate for alms to be taken spontaneously (by a Jain ascetic).103 The Jain alms-giving scenario from the ideal perspective involves two components, namely that the ascetic has to arrive unexpectedly, while at the same time the food has to be purposefully given.104 Haribhadra Ykinputra would here appear to be casting an element of doubt upon the a possibility of chance or spontaneous (yadrccha) receiving (adana) . of alms which can characterise the idealised brahmanical reception of food.105 He continues: Alternatively, sometimes when giving takes place (dane), spontaneous giving (yadrcchadana) is appropriate, for it . can be seen in actual practice (?vyavahara), since what is not of such a kind (i.e. involving spontaneity) is (there) prohibited, on the grounds that (non-spontaneity) involves the fault of (specically) acting for it (i.e. cooking the alms food to gain merit). However, when there is spontaneous giving, if that (i.e. acting with a specic aim) is absent from the undertaking of the action (arambhapravrtteh), it (therefore) . . does not have that (i.e. merit?) for its aim and so no fault in the action is involved.106 This section concludes in terms reminiscent of Pancasaka 13.38: And sometimes, as in the sutaka period, it is seen that even the . distinguished and respected (sis.tabhimata; alternatively those regarded as distinguished) engage in cooking which does not involve giving to all (?but only to some?) through involving giving to all. But there is no fault in that, since it (i.e. dana?) is a prescribed mode of procedure and because one does (i.e. can) take alms from such people (who are basically morally pure).107
30
PAUL DUNDAS
CONCLUDING REMARKS
My main purpose in this paper has been to draw attention to an early medieval Jain discourse on giving which may lead to rather more precise contextualisation of the subject in relation to the manner in which it is represented at a later period. Unfortunately, it is likely that this will not have greatly advanced the task of dating precisely the works of the a Haribhadra corpus. A late Prkrit form such as that apparently found in Paneasaka 13.41 is not sufcient in itself to alter Williams view that the text as a whole is written by Haribhadra (Virahnka) and therefore to be a ascribed to the sixth century CE. What does emerge clearly, however, is that the two Sanskrit works of Haribhadra Ykinputra adduced above, a namely As.taka ch. 6 and the .tka on Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49, both . seem to have been composed in the light of Pancasaka 13.3046 and that there can be identied clear interrelationships between these works. As can be seen in my commentary above, the wording and sense of the As.taka often overlap with the Pancasaka, while it also seems that . in the area of intention, so important in a defence of the purity of alms seeking, the Sanskrit text is making explicit what is not fully dealt with in the earlier text. As for the commentary on the Dasavaikalika, the context and examples are extremely close to those of the Pancasaka. However, the introduction in the commentary on the Dasavaikalika Sutra of the references to spontaneous taking of alms (allowing for my highly tentative interpretation), not raised in the Pancasaka, suggests an author who is not simply sanskritising in mechanical fashion an authoritative Prkrit text, but one who is also attempting to ll in gaps a in a preexisting Jain argument by reference to the broader South Asian culture of alms seeking. While it might seem reasonable to attribute, as does traditional Jain scholarship, the authorship of this whole nexus of material to a single personality designated as Haribhadra, in actuality the balance of probability must be that we are dealing with two writers of that name. With regard to the institution of dana itself in early medieval Jainism, it should be noted that the focus of the Pancasakas discussion is very much upon the donor as the potentially errant participant. The possibility of intentionality is associated with him alone and there is no hint that the dana process might be vitiated by an ascetic recipient feeling obliged to reciprocate the gift. The main requirement of the ascetic is to be watchful concerning the origins of alms and the unreasonable objection that he should not seek for food amongst those most qualied to give it is rejected. However, the perspective on the dilemmas of lay almsgiving taken by Haribhadra might also be described as realistic and pragmatic,
31
in that while the active anticipation of gaining merit when preparing food is unacceptable, an element of pious aspiration that ones family food might be shared by an ascetic is natural and not reprehensible. Correct giving, the pure gift, at least from the perspective of the donor, may thus be difcult to effect, but not impossible, as Jalla, the proto-Derridean of Jinevara Suris story, claimed. To refashion s Flauberts ide recue mentioned at the beginning of this paper, for e Haribhadra it is the intensity of the intention behind a gift which counts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My thanks to Jim Benson and John Cort for comments on portions of this paper. I am also grateful to Dr. Olle Qvarnstrom for allowing me to consult his and Dr. Christian Lindtners unpublished translation of the As.takaprakarana. I have, however, in what follows provided my . . own interpretations of this text.
NOTES
1 See John Newman: Give. A Cognitive Linguistic Study, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter 1996, pp. 24, and cf. Bernard Sergent, Les Indo-Europeens: Histoire, langues, mythes, Paris: Payot and Rivages, 1995, p. 307. For a recent ne-grained study of gift giving in one particular historical context which leads to pertinent conclusions about modern approaches to charity and aid, see Natalie Zemon Davis, The Gift in Sixteenth Century France, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 2 Gustave Flaubert, Bouvard et Pecuchet, Gallimard 1979, p. 494, s.v. cadeau: Ce nest pas la valeur qui en fait le prix, ou bien: ce nest pas le prix qui en fait la valeur. Le cadeau nest rien, cest lintention. The Dictionnaire was intended to follow the novel Bouvard et Pecuchet, published posthumously in 1881, as part of a second volume. 3 Presses Universitaires de France 1950. Cf. James Laidlaw, A Free Gift Makes No Friends, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6, 2000, pp. 617 and 626627. 4 Jacques Derrida, Given Time: 1. Counterfeit Money, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992, p. 13: For there to be a gift, it is necessary . . . that the donee not give back, not amortize, reimburse, acquit himself, enter into a contract, and that he never have contracted a debt. Cf. Laidlaw, op. cit., pp. 621622. 5 Cf. Bruce Kapferer, The Feast of the Sorceror: Practices of Consciousness and Power, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997, p. 205: The most powerful gift is that which projects toward the horizon of existence and beyond, and which transcends an orientation to interest and return. Within the orbit or span of such a gift, all time and space is included, as well as cosmic and social relations of varying temporality and spaciality. 6 Derrida, op. cit, p. 14 and cf. John D. Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997, p. 163: The impossible gift then is one in which no one acquires credit and no one contracts a debt. That in turn requires that neither the donor nor the
32
PAUL DUNDAS
donee would be able to perceive or recognize the gift as a gift, that the gift not appear as a gift. The gift must happen below the plane of phenomenality; too low for the radar of conscious intentionality. Derrida has recently stressed that he is not afrming the absolute impossibility of the gift, in that while it cannot actually be known, it can be thought of. See On the Gift: A Discussion between Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion, Moderated by Richard Kearney, in John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon (eds.), God, The Gift and Post-Modernism, Bloomington and Indianapolis: University of Indiana Press, 1999, pp. 5960. 7 Mark C. Taylor, About Religion: Economies of Faith in Virtual Culture, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1999, pp. 4344 and 4546. 8 See Etienne Lamotte, The Teaching of Vimalakrti (Vimalakrtinirdesa), London: The Pali Text Society, 1976, pp. 5052. 9 . The Kathakosaprakarana was edited by Muni Jinavijaya, Bambai: Bhrat Vidy a ya a . . Bhavan 1949. I have already referred to this particular episode in my paper Jainism without Monks? The Case of Kadu Sh, in N. Wagle and O. Qvarnstrom (eds.), . a a Approaches to Jaina Studies: Philosophy, Ritual, Logic and Symbols, University of Toronto: Centre for South Asian Studies, 1999, pp. 2627 (text at footnote 62). The ostensible subject of the story in question is a merchant who giving without . . donation (danam vinavi demto) went to heaven because he had correct mental . . attitude. I intend at a later date to produce a study of this narrative collection as a polemical text promoting a sectarian stance. 10 . . . vidhidravyadatrpatravisesat tadvisesah. The translation is by Nathmal Tatia, That . . Which Is. Tattvartha Sutra, San Francisco/London/Pymble: Harper Collins, 1994, p. 183. 11 anugrahartham svasyatisargo danam. The translation is mine. The possible tension . at the root of interpreting the nature of the act of giving in Jainism is, perhaps unwittingly, revealed by the rendering of this sutra by the authoritative lay scholar Nathmal Tatia, ibid., who seems to take svasya as dependent on anugrahartham, translating Charity consists in offering alms to the qualied person for ones own benet. By this interpretation, charitable giving is conjoined with that expectation of meritorious return uncharacteristic of the truly pure gift (see below). Compare the rendering of the sutra in Pt. Sukhlaljis Commentary on Tattvartha Sutra of Vacaka Umasvati, Ahmedabad: L. Institute of Indology, 1974, p. 296: For the sake of rendering benet to renounce a thing belonging to oneself that is called donation. See Maria Ruth Hibbets, The Ethics of the Gift: A Study of Medieval South Asian Discourses on Dna (Harvard Ph. D. dissertation, 1999), UMI Dissertation Services, a Ann Arbor, p. 79, for the commentator Siddhasenas suggestion that the benet accruing is both for onseself and others. 12 . Kathakosaprakarana, p. 80, line 6. The wording of Jallas radical denial of the . viability of dana would also seem to be a riposte to Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.49a: . . uggamam se a pucchijja kassat.tha kena va kadam (And the ascetic should enquire . . . about the origin of alms, for the sake of whom or by whom it was made). Jallas pronouncement is similar to that of the tenth century Digambara Amitagati: Except for karma earned for oneself by oneself, no one gives anything to anyone (nijarjitam karma vihaya dehino na ko pi kasyapi dadati kincana). See P.S. Jaini, . Collected Papers on Jaina Studies, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000, pp. 136 and 143. This observation, however, relates to karmic merit and the possible exchange thereof, rather than to dana. In parenthesis, it might be noted that the supposed Jain denial of transfer of merit, recently vigorously reasserted by Tommi Lehtonen, The Notion of Merit in Indian Religions, Asian Philosophy 10 (2000), pp. 193, appears to be correct only in the narrowly delimited terms of learned stric accounts of sa karmic mechanism. See the McMaster University Ph. D. thesis of 1999 by Jack C. Laughlin, Aradhakamurti / Adhis.thayakamurti: Popular Piety, Politics and the .
33
Medieval Jain Temple Portrait and John E. Cort, Doing for Others: Merit Transfer and Karma Mobility in Jainism, in O. Qvarnstrom (ed.), Buddhist and Jain Studies in Honour of P. S. Jaini (forthcoming). 13 na hi acimtiyam kassa vi sambhavai, jao savvena vi cimtiyavvam sahunam . . . . . . . . . dayavvam ti. jai puna tam davvasuddhe evam gayam, taha vi nirasamso jo dei tam . . . . . dayagasuddham bhannai. evam puna natthi, jamha savvo vi dakkhinenam asamsae . .. . . . . . . . dei. parisamajjhe aham guruhim samlavio tti, paraloge ya me suham bhavissai. ta . . . kaham dayagasuddh? na ya gahagasuddh, jamha ekkena vi slamgena vinasiena . . . . . . savve vinassamti. . . 14 For the early Vedic danastuti and the symbiotic connection between words and wealth expressed therein, see Laurie L. Patton, Myth and Money: The Exchange of Words and Wealth in Vedic Commentary, in Laurie L. Patton and Wendy Doniger (eds.), Myth and Method, Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1996, p. 213. The reconguration of Vedic sacricial ideology is discussed by Oliver Freiberger, The Ideal Sacrice. Patterns of reinterpreting brahmin sacrice in early Buddhism, Bulletin dEtudes Indiennes 16 (1998), pp. 3949; footnote 17 to this article refers to much relevant earlier secondary literature. Cf. also Ellison Banks Findly, Women and the Arahant Issue in Early Pali Literature, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 15 (1999), pp. 7073, for the continuity of Vedic gift-giving patterns into early Buddhism. Torkel Brekke, Contradiction and the Merit of Giving in Indian Religions, Numen 45 (1998), pp. 287320, draws on Brahmanical, Buddhist and Jain sources ahistorically to highlight the commonality of South Asian gift-giving culture and certain difculties connected with it. 15 See Axel Michaels, Gift and Return Gift: Greeting and Return Greeting in India. On a Consequential Footnote by Marcel Mauss, Numen 44 (1997), p. 251. 16 Cf. Laidlaw, op. cit., pp. 621624. Hibbets op. cit., pp. 8491, offers valuable and theoretically-informed insights into the pure gift, as she does throughout her dissertation into all aspects of dana in post-eleventh century medieval India. Purity in the traditional Indian context implies accord with ideological order. For helpful observations on this in relation to food, see Renate Syed, Das heilige Essen-Das Heilige essen: Religiose Aspekte des Speiseverhaltens im Hinduismus, in Perry Schmidt-Leukel (ed.), Die Religionen und das Essen, Kreuzlingen: Hugendubel, 2000, pp. 111118. 17 While Hibbets, op. cit., pp. 8789, stresses that reciprocity is not entailed in the ideal Indian giving context, she also notes that this may be subject to historical variability. For a view of reciprocity as built into Indian Buddhism, see Richard S. Cohen, Nga, Yaksin Buddha: Local Deities and Local Buddhism at Ajanta, a . . , History of Religions 37 (1998), pp. 365 and 378 and for dana in the Indian Buddhist context as involving exchange, a contractual relationship, see Jamie Hubbard, Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood: The Rise and Fall of a Chinese Heresy, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001, p. 159. 18 For a subtle reading of the Vessantara Jataka which views the main protagonists . ultimate attainment of nirvana as the organising principle of the events of the narrative, see Steven Collins, Nirvana and other Buddhist Felicities: Utopias of the Pali Imaginaire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, ch. 7. John E. Cort, Jains in the World: Religious Values and Ideology in India, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 108111, provides a succinct assessment of how a contemporary Svetmbara Jain attitudes to giving differ from the Hindu view of dan as involving pap. 19 Laidlaw, op. cit., pp. 617618. 20 Ernst Leumanns text (compound punctuation here omitted) with Schubrings translation (the brackets are the translators) are found in Walther Schubring, Kleine Schriften, ed. Klaus Bruhn, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1977, pp. 146 and 211.
34
PAUL DUNDAS
21 Cf. W.J. Johnson, Harmless Souls: Karmic Bondage and Religious Change in Early Jainism with Special Reference to Umasvati and Kundakunda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995, pp. 2829, on Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.100: This seems to mean that householders will only benet from giving alms if they have no intention of beneting from them: only alms given understanding that the gift is not merit-making are merit-making. 22 Cf. Lalwanis translation of Dasavaikalika Sutra 5.1.100: A donor with nonattachment is rare / So is one living on non-attachment / A non-attached donor and a non-attached being / Both attain a high level. On this he has the following note: Most noteworthy in the three sutras is the word muha which is used in three contexts, viz. muhajv, muhaladdha and muhada. This is an expression of non-attachment. With non-attachment a donor as well as a receiver attains higher spiritual status. See K.C. Lalwani, Arya Sayyambhavas Dasavaikalika Sutra, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973, p. 96. Canonical sources other than the Dasavaikalika employing muha would appear to be rare, with muhajvi found only at Uttaradhyayana Sutra 25.28 (translated by Hermann Jacobi, Jain Sutras, part 2, reprinted New York: Dover Publications, 1968, p. 139 as who lives unknown). See also Ratnachandraji, An Illustrated Ardha-Magadhi Dictionary, Vol. 4, Bombay, 1923, p. 193, for muhajvi, who lives upon faultless begging and muhadai, who gives faultless alms or food. 23 See R. Pischel, The Desnamamala of Hemachandra, Second edition with Introduction, Critical Notes and Glossary by P.V. Ramanujaswami, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1938, p. 266, where the gloss for the forms muhiam / . muhia in 6.134 is evam evakaranam, acting just so. Cf. H.D.T. Sheth, Paia-Sadda. Mahannavo, Varanasi: Prakrit Text Society, 1963, p. 695, s.v. muhia / muhia: mupht, .. vina mulya; mupht mem karna. . 24 Daavaiklika-Sutra und -niryukti nach dem Erzhlungsgehalt untersucht und s a a herausgegeben, reprinted in Ernst Leumann, Kleine Schriften, ed. Nalini Balbir, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998, p. 220. Cf. Johnson, op. cit., p. 28 for the renderings he who gives for nothing and he who lives for nothing. 25 See Muni Punyavijaya (ed.), Sayyambhavas Dasakaliyasuttam with Bhadrabahus . . . . Niryukti and Agastyasimhas Curni, Varanasi/Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society, 1973. . 26 a Mumba Sr Jinasana Ardhan Trast, v. s. 2046. For the dating of Haribhadra sa a . . . : Ykin a putra (recognised by Leumann simply as Haribhadra), see below. 27 mudhaladdham vem. aladiuvagaravajjitena muhaladdham. For vem. ala, see Willem . .t . . .t B. Bolle, Materials for an Edition and Study of the Pinda- and Oha-Nijjuttis of the e .. Svetambara Jain Tradition. Volume II: Text and Glossary, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1994, p. 353, s.v. ven. ala. Haribhadra Yakin putra explains similarly: kon.taladivyatirekena .t . . praptam, obtained with the exclusion of (activities) such as astrology. The expres. sion kon. ala is not found in the main Sanskrit dictionaries. However, see Bolle, e .t ibid., p. 183, s.v. kon.talaya, and cf. H.C. Bhayani, Notes on a Few Words from . Bolles Glossary to Pimdanijjutti and Ohanijjutti, Anusamdhan 10 (1997), p. 97. e .. . Haribhadra Ykin a putra glosses dosavajjitam in the mula by samyojanadirahitam, . . free from any connection. 28 Haribhadra Ykin a putra explains by sarvatha anidanajv, jatyadyanajvaka ity anye (according to others, living completely without connection, or alternatively, not gaining a livelihood through (high) birth etc.). 29 . . Cf. Haribhadra Ykin a putra: api tv evam bhavayet-yad eveha loka mamanupakarinah . prayacchanti tad eva sobhanam iti. 30 . Agastyasimhas curni, pp. 124125: koti parivvayagabhatto parivvayaena mama . . jogam vahahi tti atthito bhanati-vahami, jadi puna mama jogam na vahasi. . . . . . parivvayaena taha tti abbhuvagate suvi(?va)hite ya se kate annaya bhagavayassa . .. . asso corehim atippabhate avahamtehim jale baddho. parivvayato paniyam gato assam . . . . .
35
. dat. hum agamtum bhanati-amugammi panitatade pott vissariya. tad attham gatena .t . . . . . . . . purisena asso dit. ho anto. parivvayagabhatten a sovatam [Punyavijaya glosses . .t . . sopayam] etena kahitam, iti nate na demi nivit. ham tti vajjito. eriso muhada . . . .t . dullabho. I have parapahrased the foregoing which is slightly clearer in Haribhadra Ykin a putras version. For example, the layman is specically established as a Bhgavata a at the start, the mendicant wishes to be supported for the rainy season, and the layman asserts at the conclusion that support which is recompensed (nivvit. ham) has little . .t . (meritorious) result. See Haribhadra Ykin a putra, Dasavaikalika Sutra commentary, pp. 180b181b: atra bhagavatodaharanam-jaha ego parivvayago so egam bhagavayam . . . uvat. hio, aham tava gihe varisarattam karemi, mama udamtam vahahi, tena bhanio.t . . . . . . . . jai mama udamtam na vahasi, evam havau tti. so se bhagavao sejjabhattapanadina . . . . . udamtam vahati. annaya ya tassa ghodao corehim hio, atippabhayam ti kauna . . . . . . . jale baddho, so a parivvayago talae nhayao gao, tena so ghodao dit. ho, agamtum . . .t . . . bhanai-mama panyatade pott vissariya, goho visajjio, tena ghodao dit.tho, agamtum . . . . . kahiyam, tena bhagavaena nayam, jaha-parivvayagena kahiyam. tena parivvayago . . . . . . . . bhannati-jahi, naham tava nivvit.tham udamtam vahami, nivvit. ham appaphalam .. . . . . . . . . .t . . bhavati. eriso mudhada. 31 Leumann, op. cit., p. 227, suggests that the vocabulary used in Haribhadra Ykin a putras version relates to the terminology employed by the Bhgavata sect and a that its doctrine of Gratis-Geben is here taken to extremes. 32 . Agastyasimha, curni, p. 125: muhajvimmi udaharanam-koti raya niruppakar . . . [Punyavijaya: nirupyakar drghajna ity arthah] suddhadhammaparikkhattham . . . modagabhoyan am aghosetum rayapurise bhanati-pucchaha ko kena khati? padivanne . . . . .. . ya maham uvaneha. kena khaha tti pucchita. koti bhanati-muhena, koti-hatthehim, . . . . . . . anno-paehim, evam anegehim padivajjamti. khuddao bhanati-na kena ti. uvano ranna .. . . . . . . . .. . .. pucchito kaheti, jo jena nivvisati so tena kkhati, ayuhita hatthehim, dutadayo padehim, . . . . . mamti-suya-magahadayo muhena, evam jam jassa arahanamuham so tena bhumjati, . . . . . . . . . aham puna ihalogovagaram prati muhagayaesaniyassa. sodhammo tti pavvatiyo. . . eriso muhajv. Again I have paraphrased the bulk of this. The sense of the conclusion of the Jain monks explanation seems clear, although the Prkrit text appears suspect. As a before, Haribhadra Ykin a putras version in his commentary on the Dasavaikalika Sutra is slightly longer and clearer. . mudhajvimmi udaharanam ekko raya dhammam parikkha, ko dhammo, jo . . . . anivvit. ham bhumjai tti, to tam parikkhami tti kauna manussa samdit.tha, raya modae . .t . . . . . . dei, tattha bahave kappadiyadayo agaya, puchijjamti-tumhe kena bhumjaha?, anno . . . . bhanai-aham bhanai muhena bhumjami, anno-aham paehim, anno-aham hatthehim, . . . . . . . . . . anno-aham loganuggahen a, cellago bhanai-aham muhiyae. ranna pucchiam-kaham . . . . .. . . cia? egena kahiam-aham kahago ao muhena, annena bhaniam-aham lehavahago . . . . .. . . . . . ao paehim, annena bhaniam-aham lehago ao hatthehim, bhikkhuna bhaniam, aham .. . . . . . . . . . . parivvayago ao loganuggahen a, cellaena bhaniam-aham samjayasamsaravirago ao . . . . . . . . muhiyae, tahe so raya esa dhammo tti kauna ayariyasamvam gao, padibuddho . . pavvaio. eso muhajvi tti sutrarthah. . Haribhadra Ykin a putra presents the king as specically interested at the outset in the dharma which involves unreciprocated eating. The individuals interrogated include not only a story teller who eats through his mouth and a scribe who eats by means of his hands but also a (non-Jain) mendicant (parivvayaga), apparently intended to be Buddhist, who eats through the good will of people. The junior Jain monk (here called cellaa), however, who has no interest in the phenomenal world, lives for free and without reciprocity. Cf. Leumann, op. cit., pp. 227228. 33 See, for example, R. Williams, Jaina Yoga: A Survey of the Medieval Sravakacaras, London: Oxford University Press, 1963, pp. 149166. In his treatment of dana Williams
36
PAUL DUNDAS
does not refer to Haribhadras Pancasakaprakaran a, nor to Haribhadra Ykin a putras . As. akaprakaran a and commentary on the Dasavaikalika Sutra which I draw on below. . .t 34 For Haribhadra in general, see H l Rasikds Kpadiy, Sr Haribhadrasuri, rala a a . a Vadodar: Prcyavidy Mandir/Mahrj Sayj v Vivavidylaya, 1963 and Olle a a a aa a ra s a . Qvarnstrom, Haribhadra and the Beginnings of Doxography in India, in Wagle and Qvarnstrom (eds.), Approaches to Jaina Studies: Philosophy, Logic, Rituals and Symbols, pp. 169182. 35 Cf. Chandrabhl Tripth Catalogue of the Jaina Manuscripts at Strasbourg, Leiden: a a. , E.J. Brill, 1975, pp. 202205. Chapter 2 of the Pancasaka contains 44 verses, chapter 17 contains 52 verses and 19 contains 44 verses. Tripth p. 205, refers to a work a. , entitled Upadhana-pancasaka and ascribed to Haribhadra or Abhayadeva which is mentioned in H.D. Velankars Jinaratnakosa catalogue. What would seem to have been intended as a twentieth chapter of the Pancasaka has recently been published. See as Pradyumnavijaya Gan Upadhna-Pratis.h-Pancaka-Prakaranam, Anusamdhan 4 a . , .t a . . lacandravijaya Ganin, Uvahna Paitth Pamcsaga uparth (1995), pp. 3438 and S a. . .. a . a Phalit Thato Ek Muddo, Anusamdhan 5 (1995), pp. 5253. The thirteenth/fourteenth . century Jinaprabha Suri, Vidhimargaprapa, ed. Jinavijaya, Bombay: Nirnayasgar, a . 1941, p. 16, line 13, refers to an Upadhanapratis. hapancasaka which he ascribes to . t ancient teachers attempting to maintain the integrity of a type of fast which many Jains had come to ignore through not accepting the authority of the scripture which prescribes it, the Mahanistha Sutra. I would suggest at this juncture that the subject matter of this text, the upadhana fast, most likely locates it in the early centuries of the second millennium CE when both this particular austerity and the Mahanistha Sutta had become issues of sectarian controversy. I intend to deal with this topic in a study provisionally entitled Sudharmans Heirs: History, Scripture and Controversy in a Medieval Jain Sectarian Tradition. 36 R. Williams, Haribhadra, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 28 (1965), pp. 101111. Muni Jinavijayas views are delineated in his Haribhadrasuri ka Samay-nirnay (second revised edition), Vrnas Prvanth Vidyram Sodh Samsthn, a a . : a s a as a . . 1988. The anka or signature viraha occurs at the end of each prakarana of the . Pancasaka. For difculties in using Haribhadras colopha signatures, see Schubring, Kleine Schriften, p. 486. Nalini Balbir, Avasyaka-Studien: Introduction generale et Traductions, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 45.1, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993, p. 83, does not refer to the possibility of a Haribhadra predating the eighth century. 37 a Williams reference to the narrow limits of early Svetmbara Jainism is not a entirely clear. If he means Svetmbara Jainism as distinct from the Jainism of the early Ardhamgadh agama, then given the fact that sectarian Jainism only emerged a when the common era had been several centuries underway, this by denition cannot be too far away in time from the Pancasaka which he dates to the early sixth century CE. a The Pancavastuka, Mumba Sr Jinasana Ardhan Trast v.s. 2045, will be sa a . . . : referred to several times in passing below. The ve topics of the title are renunciation, the daily behaviour of a monk, the carrying out of vows, permission to engage in particular practices and ritual suicide. The Pancavastuka appears to be an example of a text by Haribhadra whose title evinces an interest in Buddhism. For other examples of this, see my Haribhadras Lalitavistar and the Legend of Siddharsis Conversion a . to Buddhism, forthcoming in Qvarnstrom (ed.), Buddhist and Jain Studies in Honour of P.S. Jaini. For the role of the pancavastuka in Sarvstivdin abhidharma, see a a Erich Frauwallner, Studies in Abhidharma Literature and the Origins of Buddhist Philosophical Schools, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995, pp. 114 . 115 and cf. Johannes Bronkhorst, Three Problems Pertaining to the Mahabhasya, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1987, pp. 6071 and Why is There
37
Philosophy in India?, Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1999, p. 20. 38 Williams, Jaina Yoga, p. 6. I am mindful of Professor M. A. Dhakys opinion expressed to me in conversation (Ahmedabad, September 1999) that there are elements in the Prkrit of the Pancasaka which may be later than allowed for by Williams a dating. Cf. my observations below on Pancasaka 13. 41 which appears to contain a Middle Indo-Aryan construction which may suggest a date later than the early sixth century. Standard classical Mhrs.r would expect hu / khu for the particle khalu. Does a a a. t the frequency of khalu in the Pancasaka (3.39, 50, 4.10, 24, 5.18, 32, 33, 6.41, 42, 6.48, 7.2, 7.8, 8.47, 8.50, 9.40, 9.45, 9.48, 49, 10.8, 10.15, 11.14, 28, 33, 36, 12.29, 35, 37, 39, 14.36, 15.8, 15.13, 16.27, 16.34, 17.26, 17.43, 18.14, 18.36, 18.42, 19.6, 19.14, 19.23 and 19.33), as opposed to hu / khu (5.16, 6.28, 29, 41, 9.20, 10.27, 11.10, 12.26, 13.32, 18.40), and in other Jain commentarial texts, represent archaising, khalu being standard in the Ardhamgadh of the older works of the agama, or is a it indicative of the process of sanskritisation which took hold in Jain Prkrit texts a from the middle of the rst millennium? 39 For earlier editions, see Kpadiy, op. cit., p. 121 fn. 1. a . a 40 Prvanth Vidyp.h Granthaml 92, Vrnas Prvanth Vidyp.h, 1997. as a a t aa a a . : a s a a t 41 Pannys Sr Padmavijayaj Mahrj Ganivarya, Pancasakaprakaran a, Hastinpur: a aa a . . Sr Nirgranth Shitya Prakan Samgh, 1999. a as . 42 Williams, Jaina Yoga, p. 6. 43 For Abhayadeva as a commentator, see Paul Dundas, Somnolent Sutras: Scrip a tural Commentary in Svetmbara Jainism, Journal of Indian Philosophy 24 (1996), pp. 7984 and for the value of commentary in general, see Paul J. Grifths, Religious Reading: The Place of Reading in the Practice of Religion, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. 44 Haribhadra, Dharmasamgrahan, with the . ka of Malayagiri, ed. Muni t . . Ajitaekharavijaya, Dholk: Divyadaran Trast v.s. 2048. For a description, see s a s . . . . Kpadiy, op. cit., pp. 9698. For the term danam elsewhere in the Pancasaka, see a . a 2.36, 5.39 and 423 and 19.31 and 36. Note also that in Pancasaka 13 there is no specic use of the term merit. 45 Dharmasamgrahan v. 40: atthi padisehago iha cetannavisit.thakayametto tu / . . . .. . . danadiphalabhavo so (to) atthi na samgatam idam pi. For the unliberated jva as endless . . . agent and experiencer of the fruits of its actions, see Dharmasamgrahan v. 35: jvo . . anadinihano mutto parinam janao katta / micchattadikattassa ya niyakammaphalassa . . . . . . bhotta u. 46 . Dharmasamgrahan vv. 138142: etto cciya nabhavo danadiphalassa . . . manappasadad / ihalogammi vi dit. ha paraloge kim na jutta tti. kiriyaphalabhavato . .t . . . . . danadnam phalam kise vva / tam dit. ham ceva mat jasakittlabhamadyam. ihara ya . . .t . . kise vi hu pavei adit.tham eva tam patthi / tassa parinamaruvam suhadukkhaphalam . . . . . . jato bhujjo. tadabhavammi ya mutt pavai niyamena savvasattanam / evam ca . . . . . . bhavasamuddo na ghadai paccakkhadit. ho vi. tullaphalasadhaganam tullarambhana . .t . it. havisayammi / dsai ya phalaviseso sa kaham adit.thabhavammi. .t . . 47 Pancasaka 13.2: suddho pimdo vihio samananam samjamayaheu tti / so puna iha .. . . . . . vinneo uggamadosadirahito jo. .. 48 . Pancasaka 13.3: solasa uggamadosa solasa uppayanae dosa u / dasa esanai dosa . . bayalsam iya havamti. This verse is identical to Pancavastuka v. 739. . 49 The Pancasaka verses are identical to Pancavastuka vv. 740765, with a difference only at the beginning of Pancasaka 13.24a and Pancavastuka v. 760a. S.B. Deo, History of Jaina Monachism, Poona, 1956, pp. 290291, is to be consulted for the various faults involved.
38
PAUL DUNDAS
50 See Frank Van Den Bossche, A Reference Manual of Middle Prakrit Grammar. The Prakrits of the Dramas and the Jain Texts, Gent: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuid-en Oost-Azi, 1999, p. 58. e 51 See Bolle, op. cit., p. 163, s.v. eya- with reference to Ogha Niryukti vv. 389 and e . 519. The Vyavaharabhasya of Sanghadsa Ganin, a text which can probably be dated a . to around the fth or sixth centuries CE and is thus, by Williams reckoning, approxi mately contemporary with the Pancasaka, shows inconsistency with regard to this a form. In the edition of Saman Kusumaprajn, Ladnum: Jaina Viva Bhrat 1996, the s a , . . . . opening of Vyaharabhasya v. 1726 is eyagunasampautto, while the opening of v. 1728 . . . is etaddosavimukko. The new edition of Muni D paratnasgar, Agamasuttani (satkam). a . Bhag 2122, Ahmedabad: Agam Srut Prakan, 2000, agrees with the former (enumeras ated as v. 1715) but gives the latter (enumerated as v. 1725) as eyaddosavimukko. 52 Translation by Walther Schubring, op. cit., p. 206. Abhayadeva glosses the sutras kamajogena by samyakpratyupeks anapramarjjanasutrarthapauruskaranakramena yah . . . . . . . prapto bhiksakalah. . . 53 Cf. Bolle, op. cit., p. 385, s.v. handi. e 54 pimdam asohayamto acaritt ettha samsao natthi / carittammi asamte savva dikkha .. . . . . . niratthiya tti. Padmavijaya, op. cit, p. 444, identies this verse as Dinacarya v. 210. I follow his text. Kpadiy, op. cit., pp. 131132, discusses a Yatidinakrtya/carya, a . a . but one probably not by Haribhadra. On chronological grounds Abhayadeva cannot be directly quoting the Yatidinacarya (also called Yatisamacar) by the fourteenth century Bhvadeva Suri, but more likely a text of the same name by Deva Suri a (different from the famous eleventh/twelfth century Vdideva). See Mohanll Mahet a a a . and H ll R. Kpadiy, Jain Sahitya ka Brhad Itihas, vol. 4, Vrnas Prvanth ra a a . a a a . : a s a Vidyram Sodh Samsthn, 1968, pp. 184 and 287 and cf. the Dharmasamgraha as a . . of Mnadeva and Yaovijaya, ed. Muni Municandravijaya, Mumba Sr Jinasana a s sa . : a Ardhan Trast, vol. 2, 1987, p. 175 for this identication. a . . 55 For bhavapinda elsewhere, see Adelheid Mette, Pindesana: Das Kapitel der Oha.. . . nijjutti uber den Bettelgang, Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1974, pp. 2728. 56 See Bolle, op. cit., p. 89 for the text. e 57 See John E. Cort, The Gift of Food to a Wandering Cow: Lay-Mendicant a Interaction among the Svetmbar Murtipujak Jains, Journal of Asian and African Studies 34 (1998), p. 96, and Laidlaw, op. cit., pp. 618619. The term bhikkhu, literally beggar, is used frequently in the early texts of the Ardhamgadh agama a a in the sense of Jain mendicant. Medieval Svetmbaras became uneasy about the possibility of comparison, on the basis of common terminology, between Jain ascetics and Buddhist monks (bhiksu) who gain their livelihood in a different manner. See . . Malayagiris commentary on Vyvaharabhasya v. 189, in Muni D paratnasgara (ed.), a . Agamasuttani (satkam). Bhag 21, p. 69. . . 58 . See Dasasrutaskandha 7, edited by Muni Kanhaiyll, Trni Chedasutrani, Ladnum: aa . . . . Jain Viva Bhrat 1987, p. 52, which describes the sixfold goyaracariya. The third s a , of these, called gomuttiya, in which the ascetic is enjoined to wander sporadically in the same way as the cow urinates, seems to correspond to the sense generally . ascribed to gocar. For the term goyariya (Sanskrit gocarya) see Vyavaharabhasya v. 2565 (D paratnasgaras edition): devimdacakkavat. mamdaliya sara talavara ya / a t . . .. abhigacchamti jinimde to goyariyam na himdamti. Malayagiri glosses by gocaracarya. . . . . .. . mbara Dharmasgara, Paryusanadasasataka, Ratlm: The sixteenth century Sveta a a . . ratnapur Sresthi Rsabhdev Kear a Sr ya . . . . s malnmak Jain Svetmbarasamsth, 1936, v. a a . 54 comm., p. 16b, contrasts gocar with the soteriologically worthless wandering for alms (bhiksatana) carried out by followers of heretical Jain sects who lack . . . . . . authorised teachers (. . . guror evabhavat, na hi kupaksikanam vaiyavrttyadinimittam .
39
. gocaryadibhramanam, kin tu bhiksatanamatram, tac ca bhramatah pratipadam . . . . . . samsasahetuh . . .) . . 59 .t For the sis. a and their behaviour as dened in brahmanical terms, see P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, Vol II Part II, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1941, pp. 971972 and Vol III, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1946, pp. 826827 and 843844. See also Madhav M. Deshpande, Sanskrit and Prakrit: Sociolinguistic Issues, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1993, p. 28. It may be recalled that Jain tradition is unanimous that Haribhadras pre-Jain background was that of a brahman scholar. 60 For the phraseology, cf. Balbir, op. cit., p. 115 note 268. 61 Deo op. cit., p. 291 describes yavadarthika as foodstuffs cooked together both for charity as well as for family requirements, thus infringing strict regulations for purity, since they are made with the specic intention of beng offered as alms. For the mendicant category yavadarthikavadin, see Haribhadra Ykin a putra, As. aka, with .t a the commentary of Jinevara Suri, ed. Vijayajinendrasuri, Sntipur Harsapuspmrta s : . . a . . . Jain Granthaml, 1991, 6.4: samkalpanam visesena yatrasau dus.ta ity api / pariharo aa . . . na samyak syad yavadarthikavadinah (Where there is specically the intention to . give food to an ascetic, that food is faulty. However, rejection in these terms is not appropriate for the yavadarthikavadin) The commentator Jinevara Suri (the s . author of the Kathakosaprakarana referred to above and a near-contemporary of . Abhayadeva Suri) views the yavadarthikavadin as a type of mendicant who begs for . whatever is sufcient for need (yavadarthikavadinas tava tatra yavanto yat parimanas te ca te rthinas ca bhiksukadayo yavadarthinas te prayojanam yasya nispadane sa . . . yavadarthikah pindah . . .). I take Abhayadevas yavadarthika as the equivalent of . .. yavadarthikavadin. . . . . . Jinevara then quotes Pindaniryukti v. 230 (javamtiyam uddesam pasandnam s .. . . bhave samuddesam / samananam aesam nigganthanam samaesam) where the rst . . . . . . . . . type of recipient, equivalent to Sanskrit yavadarthika, seems to be a general category of alms-seeker. Cf. Deo, op. cit., p. 290: Such food as was reserved for all who came to call for it was called uddeika; that which was to be given only to the pkhandins s a .. (heretics) was called samuddea; that given only to the ramanas was dea, and s s a s . the food offered only to the nigganthas was called samde[]a. See Bolle, op. a s e cit., p. 14 (text reading javantiyam) and p. 218 s.v. for javantiya as a wrong reading . for java[tt]iya; and compare the same scholars Bhadrabahu: Brhat-Kalpa-Niryukti . . and Sanghadasa: Brhat-Kalpa-Bhanya, Part Three, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998, . p. 104, s.v. javantiya. . Jinevara in his Kathakosaprakarana, p. 79, lines 1415, presents one of the s . debaters on the nature of dana (see above) as arguing that if the act of giving alone was efcacious, moksa would be gained by giving to hale and hearty beggars queuing up . . in front of one (evam tadiyakappadiyanam hat.thasamatthana vi dijjamtam mokkham . . . . . . . . . sahejja). This claim elicits the response that the gift of compassion (anukampadana) has to be viewed in exactly this light. 62 Ed. Jambuvijaya, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985, p. 228. For the gairika, ochre-robed mendicants, see Jagdish Chandra Jain, Life in Ancient India As Depicted in the Jaina Canons, Bombay: New Book Company, 1947, pp. 205206. 63 Ed. Amaramuni and Muni Kanhaiyll, Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1982: aa . danassa natthi naso tti, jati vi ya tesim danam dinnam aphalam taha ceva bhanati. . . . . .. . . . 64 See Pancasaka 17.1516 for a difference with respect to auddesika food in the times of the rst and last and middle trthankaras. Sarms footnote to 17. 15 refers a . to Brhatkalpasutrabhasya vv. 53445347. . 65 For these, see Deo op. cit., pp. 29093. 66 See Oskar von Hinuber, Das Altere Mittelindisch im Uberblick, Wien: Der Osterreichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1986, p. 200.
40
PAUL DUNDAS
67 Cf. the verse quoted by the sixteenth century Vijayavimala Ganin in the introduction . a to his vrtti on the Gacchacara, Sntipur Harsapuspmrt Jain Granthaml, 1987 : aa . . . a . . t . . t . .t p. 2: sis. ah sis. atvam ayanti sis.tamarganupalanat / tallanghanad asis. atvam tesam . . . samanupadyate. 68 s For a version of this, see Nalini Balbir, Stories from the Avayaka Commentaries, in Phyllis Granoff (ed.), The Clever Adulteress and Other Stories: A Treasury of Jain Literature, Oakville/New York/London: Mosaic Press, 1990, pp. 4546. 69 Cf. Michaels, op. cit., p. 256: Dna creates religious merit for the giver if it is a given out of dharma-centred motives in contrast to gifts given with mundane purposes in mind. 70 Manusmrti, ed. Jagdll Sstr Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1996: s a a , .
. .t . bhuktavatsv atha viprenu svesu bhrtyesu caiva hi / bhunjyatam tatah pascad avasis. am . . . . . tu dampat. r. . . devan . sn manusyams ca piton grhyas ca devatah / pujayitva tatah pascad grhasthah r . . . . . . sesabhug bhavet.
For these verses, see Albrecht Wezler, Die wahren Speiseresteesser (Skt. vighasasin), Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1978, p. 58, n. 179 and p. 72, while, for the general point, cf. Patrick Olivelle, Dharmasutras: The Law Codes of Ancient India, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 11 and 137. 71 visesrup se (sadhu ko dene ke samkalp se) banaya hua bhojan dos vala hota . . . . hai-yah yuktiyukt hai, kintu asamkalpit gunaval bhiksa yuktiyukt nahm hai, kyomki . . . . . vaisa ahar hota nahm hai. . 72 Padmavijaya, op. cit., p. 447. 73 vibhinnam deyam asritya svabhogyad yatra vastuni / samkalpanam kriyakale . . . tad dus.tam visayo nayoh. Jinevara glosses vibhinnam atiriktam, deyam datavyam s . . . . . . odanadi, asritya angkrtya, svabhogyat vivaksitatmyodanadi bhogarhat and vastuni . odanadipadarthe. The intention is to give so much from the food to the family and so much, specically the surplus, to beggars (arthin) for the sake of merit. Abhayadeva repeats, with reverse order of compounds, Jinevaras explanation of s anayoh as yavadarthikapun yarthaprakrtayoh. . . . . 74 svocite tu yad arambhe tatha samkalpanam kva cit / na dus.tam subhabhavatvat . . . . tac chuddhaparayogavat. Padmavijaya, op. cit., p. 448, states that as food is not rendered faulty through pure activities relating to a monk, such as greeting him or praising him, so in the same way it is not faulty through the intention (samkalp) . connected with giving to the monk. Bracketed material in my translation of As. aka 6.7 represents Jinevaras commens .t tarial suggestions. 75 See P.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra Vol. IV, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1953, p. 267 and p. 269: The word sutaka is used in the smrtis . in three senses: (1) impurity on birth (vide Manu 5.58); (2) impurity both on birth and death . . .; and (3) impurity on death alone . . . Cf. E. Schombacher and C. P. Zoller, Death and its Meanings in South Asia, in their edited collection Ways of Dying: Death and its Meanings in South Asia, New Delhi: Manohar, 1999. p. 21: . . . the pollution caused by death and birth is referred to by the same word, sutaka, impurity caused by child birth . For differences between birth and death sutaka in contemporary Hinduism, see Jonathan P. Parry, Death in Banaras, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 216. While the Hindu ascetic is one of the very small number of people whom the dharmasastras describe as not susceptible, or fully susceptible, to pollution during this period of impurity, food should nonetheless not be be taken by him from those families experiencing sutaka. See Axel Michaels, Der Hinduismus: Geschichte und
41
Gegenwart, Munchen: C.H. Beck, 1998, p. 154, who describes sutaka in the context of mortuary ritual. For impurity due to a birth, note the eleventh century Vaisnava .. Ydava Praka who quotes the teacher Atris prescriptions that brahman ascetics a as should avoid alms in this context: Even if he is offered almsfood in the houses of his pupils, enemies, relatives and kings, or in houses where a death or birth has recently taken place, he should not accept it. Atri is again quoted by Ydava a Praka: Whether it belongs to a person of ones own lineage or to someone else, a as house in which a birth has taken place does not regain its purity until ten days have passed. Rites for gods, ancestors, and the like are never performed in such a house. Neither should a mendicant beg almsfood there. If he begs, he should observe a lunar fast. See Patrick Olivelle, Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism. Yatidharmasamuccaya of Yadava Prakasa, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995, pp. 104 and 106. 76 See Schombacher and Zoller, op. cit. 77 . The Jain perspective is described by Sen, A Cultural Study of the Nistha Curni, p. 120, fn. 5, who refers to a (medieval) Jain period of ten or thirteen days of a impurity. Cf. Mette, op. cit., p. 65. Svetmbara Jain ascetics are today enjoined to avoid households which might transmit pollution through death, birth or menstruation. See Cort, Jains in the World, p. 223, note 14. 78 . Vyavahara Bhasya v. 17: loe coradya davve bhave visohikama u / . jayamayasutagadisu nijjudha patagahata ya. 79 Many Jain sources relating to absence of alms during the sutaka period are collected by the seventeenth century Samayasundara, Samacarsataka, Mumba : Jinadattasuriprc Sr a npustakoddhr Phand, 1939, section 21, pp. 6062, entitled a .. jatamrtakasutakapindaninedhadhikara. . .. . 80 a Mumba Jinasan Ardhan Trast, p. 166a: pratikus.takulam [pratikrus.takulam?] : sa a . . . . . . . dvividham-itvaram yavatkathikam ca, itvaram sutakayuktam, yavatkathikam abho. . . . . jyam. Agastyasimhas curni, p. 104, takes the second category of family as being . untouchable (padikut. ham nimditam, tam duviham -ittariyam avakahiam ca, ittariyam t . . . . . . . . . . mayagasutakadi, avakahitam camdalad, tam ubhayam avi na pavise). Cf. Mette, op. . . . . . cit., p. 64. 81 . t . . yadi hi dharmartham eva sarvasis. anam arambho bhavisyat tada dananavasare . sau nabhavisyad alpataro va bhavisyat, na caivam kesam cid gehesupalabhyate. . . . . . . . atah sambhavati svocitarambho pti. atha sambhavatu svocitarambhah, na tu . . . . . tatra labhah sambhavati iti cen naivam, kuta ity aha-tatrapi svocitarambhe pi, . . . . . . astam dharmartharambhe. tatha tena prakarenaucityalaksanena. labhasiddheh . . . . .s samvibhagavapteh dr. .tatvad iti. drsyante hi svarthopakalpitad api grasadikam yataye . . . yacchantah. . Sarm, op. cit., p. 235, claries the conclusion of 13. 38 by pointing out that a it has been established that in some households sufcient food is prepared for the family for the duration of the sutaka period, rather than deliberately making excessive food, and alms are given out of that. 82 The term parinama occurs several times at Sravakaprajnapti vv. 229232 and in . Haribhadras Ykin a putras commentary thereon (see Williams, Jaina Yoga, pp. 78 for the authorship here) which have been translated and commented upon by Phyllis Granoff, The Violence of Non-Violence: A Study of Some Jain Responses to Non-Jain Religious Practices, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15 (1992), pp. 3133. Granoff renders parinama by mental intention and intent. Cf. . . Malayagiris gloss adhyavasayanurupam on parinamaruvam at Dharmasamgrahan . . . v. 140 and also Mette, op. cit., p. 118. For general observations on intention in early Jainism, see Paul Dundas, The Jains, London and New York, 1992, pp. 139140. 83 nanu parinamabhavah evam sis.tanam prapta ity aha-parinamas tad evasmakam . . . . . . . . annadi bhuyad yat sadhusu samvibhajyata ity evamrupah pakakale dhyavasayah . . . .
42
PAUL DUNDAS
sa eva sadhudanarthadhikapakakriyavikalah parinamamatra[m]. tat punah sad api . . . . vidyamanam api, astam avidyamanam . . . naiva dus.tam na sadhugrahyadusakam. . . . pindadane tu tasyanadhikrtatvat. .. . 84 . See Williams, Jaina Yoga, p. 150. Cf. Jinevara Suris Kathakosaprakarana, s . p. 79, line 10 for the one of the debaters about the nature of dana insisting on the centrality of sraddha for the purity of the giver and claiming it to be a factor overriding the purity of receiver and gift (. . . kerisam dayagasuddham . . . jam dayago . . . paramasaddhae dei. kim gahagasuddhe kim va davvasuddhe kajjam). . . . 85 Maria Hibbets, The Ethics of Esteem, Journal of Buddhist Ethics 7 (2000), . p. 33. Cf. Kathakosaprakarana, p. 82, lines 1213: ta abhavvo durabhavvo va . . . evamvihavayanehim sahusu abhimuhanam saddhabhamgam karei (Thus the one . . . . . totally or largely unresponsive to the truth of Jainism by such words of contempt for monks destroys the reverential attitude of those who are devoted to monks). 86 For a recent study of the term, see Lance Cousins, Good or Skilful? Kusala in Canon and Commentary, Journal of Buddhist Ethics 3 (1996), pp. 136164. Reference is made to Jain sources on pp. 151 and 156, but no quotation is made from them. Occurrences of kusala in this moral sense in the Pancasaka are 4.25: kusalaparinamo; 8.27: kusalajogao and 10.14: kusaladhamme. See also Pancavastuka . v. 923: anegabhavakusalajogao; v. 1381: kusala supait. harambha and v. 1506: .t . kusalajoge. For Haribhadra Ykin a putras use of kusala in similar sense, see my Haribhadras Lalitavistara and the Legend of Siddharsis Conversion to Buddhism, . and cf. his commentary on Sravakaprajnapti v. 213: samkleso kusalaparinamo. These . . examples might be regarded as evidence pointing to the single authorship of writings I am attributing separately to Haribhadra and Haribhadra Ykin a putra, although there is nothing inherently implausible in positing the latter as being inuenced by his predecessor in this respect. Siddhasena Ganin refers to kusalabhisandhita, the state of having good intentions, . in a list of qualities of the giver cited by Hibbets, The Ethics of Esteem, p. 40, n. 7. Williams, Jaina Yoga, p. 7, dates Siddhasena to the ninth century and suggests that his writings show the inuence of Haribhadra Ykin a putras commentary on the Avasyaka Niryukti. 87 tasmat pakakalnadanaparinamamatrad anyad aparam tadanyat . . sadhuvandanapran idhanadi, tadvad iti dr. .tantah. yatha hi sadhuvandanadi .s . . danavasarakrtam pindadusanam na bhavati, evam idam api danadhyavasanam. . . . . . . . 88 See Thomas Oberlies, Avasyaka-Studien. Glossar ausgewahlter Worter zu E. LEUMANNs Die Avasyaka-Erzahlungen, Alt- und Neu-Indische-Studien 45, 2, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1993, s.v. tanaenam. . . 89 See Collected Articles of L.A. Schwarzchild on Indo-Aryan 19531979, compiled by Royce Wiles, Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University, 1991, pp. 8998 and cf. Vit Buben A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan k, (Apabhramsa). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998, . pp. 7475. 90 See Trimbaklal N. Dave, A Study of the Gujarati Language in the 16th Century (v. s.), London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1935, p. 58, and cf. George Baumann, Drei Jaina Gedichte in Alt-Gujarat, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1975, p. 52. 91 . An alternative translation for ana (Sanskrit ajna) might be knowledge or correct perception. See Ludwig Alsdorf, The Arya Stanzas of the Uttarajjhaya. Contributions to the Text History and Interpretation of a Canonical Jaina Text, Wiesbaden: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, 1966, pp. 5152. 92 The 1939 Surat edition of the Pindavisuddhi with the commentary of Candra Suri .. a madVijayadnasurvaraj Jainagranthaml reads (p. 18a) published in the AcryaSr a s aa . genhattademtayan hiyam for v. 21a. The Sanskrit introduction by Muni Mnavijaya a . . .
43
discusses the identity of Jinavallabha, sometimes confused with the Kharatara Gaccha suri of the same name. The commentator Candra Suri dates from the twelfth century. If Abhayadeva is quoting directly from the Pindavisuddhi, then that work would .. most likely date from around the middle of the eleventh century. For the same verse, see the thirteenth century Devendra Suris Sraddhadinakrtya, Mumba Jinasane sa . . : a Ardhan Trast v.s. 2045, p. 293, v. 175. a . . 93 The commentator also quotes the following Prkrit verse, apparently describing a . how to cope with the dangers of alms-food: tariyavvo ya samuddo vahahim bhmo mahallakallolo / nsayavaluyae caveyavvo saya kavalo (One must cross the terrible ocean with its huge waves by boats. One must always consume a mouthful of food along with tasteless sand.(?)) 94 . Text from Bolle, op. cit., p. 30. Vyavaharabhasya v. 4036 conrms that the e kevalin and the srutajnanin have a similar mental apperception. Padmavijaya, op. cit, . p. 452, refers to Nisthabhasya (correct from Nisthaniryukti) vv. 63067 for further enunciation of the sentiment that where there is a genuine connection with scripture along with the inuence of karma, there cannot be any fault. 95 tad dhi karma kusalanubandhtarac ca. tatra yat kusalanubandhi tato bhogapravr ttav . . api parinamavisesad dosanisedha iti. . . . 96 See von Hinuber, op. cit., p. 152 and cf. Van Den Bossche, p. 51. 97 See Nalini Balbir, Jain-Buddhist Dialogue: Material from the Buddhist Scriptures, Journal of the Pali Text Society 26 (2000), pp. 2427. 98 For occurrences in Ardhamgadh see Yuvcrya Mahprajna (ed.), Agama a , a a a . Sabdakosa, Vol. 1, Ladnum: Jaina Viva Bhrat 1980, p. 689, s.v. samkappa. Patrick s a , . . Olivelle, The Early Upanisads, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 . translates sankalpa in the Upanisad examples by (p. 53) decision and (pp. 209 and . 275) intention. The second component of the Buddhist Eightfold Path is famously sammasankappa, usually translated right resolve. In the modern context, sankalp can signify the statement of intention at the beginning of a Hindu lay vow. For this, see Cort, Jains in the World, p. 126. 99 See p. 173a of the edition referred to in note 25. For the authorship of the commentary on the Dasavaikalika Sutra, see Williams, Haribhadra, pp. 102103, and for general observations on this work, see Kpadiy op. cit., pp. 204209. a . a 100 . asanam panagam va vi khaimam saimam taha / jam janejja sunejja va punat. ha . . . . . . . . . .t pagadam imam. Cf. As. aka 6.5a: vinayo vasya vaktavyah punyartham prakrtasya. . . . . . . . . .t 101 .t punyarthaprakrtaparityage sis. akulesu vastuto bhiksaya agrahan am eva, . . . . . .t . sis. anam punyartham pakapravrtteh, tatha hi na pitrkarmadivyapohenatmartham . . . . . . eva ksudrasattvavat pravarttante sis.ta iti. . 102 The meaning of yadrcchadeya, an expression which does not seem to be used . regularly in Jainism, is ambiguous, having the possible senses of to be given spon taneously (yadrccha-deya) and to be taken by chance (yadrccha-adeya). . . 103 naitad evam, abhiprayaparijnanat, svabhogyatiriktasya deyaisyaiva punyar. . thakrtasya nisedhat, svabhrtyabhogyasya punar ucitapramanasyetvarayadr cchadeyasya . . . . . kusalapranidhanakrtasyapy anisedhad iti. etena deyadanabhavah pratyuktah, . . . . deyasyaiva yadrcchadananupapatteh. . . I am uncertain about this passage. Tentatively, I have in the nal sentence . emended from deyadanabhavah and interpreted the nal compound as yadrccha. adananupapatteh on the grounds that spontaneity in taking alms, while acceptable . for a Hindu mendicant (see note 105), is not possible for his Jain counterpart who is obliged to inspect carefully what is offered, especially as conventionally the latter is getting food not just for himself but for the fellow-members of his monastic group also. Although the donor, who may well not be Jain, can offer spontaneously, any real
44
PAUL DUNDAS
spontaneity on the part of the Jain ascetic can only involve the particular household visited. Cf. Cort, Jains in the World, p. 106. 104 Laidlaw, op. cit., p. 619: [O]nly food which has been purposefully given, carefully and in the prescribed manner, is acceptable. Unlike Buddhists and some Hindus, Jains consistently deny that alms given to their renouncers are bhiksh that which is given to a beggar. Jain renouncers do not beg, and what they receive is, in theory at least, a gift offered spontaneously. 105 Hindu texts variously describe one of the ideal types of food to be taken by renouncers as either obtained by chance or given spontaneously. Relevant here as a pre-Haribhadra Ykin a putra example is Mahabharata 12.172.19a: sumahantam api . grasam grase labdham yadrcchaya (I eat any meal I get by chance, be it ever so . . large). This is cited by Vednta Deika in his Alepakamatabhangavada. See Patrick a s . Olivelle, Renunciation in Hinduism: A Medieval Debate. Volume 2: The Visis.tadvaita Argument, Vienna: De Nobili Research Library, 1987, pp. 109 and 143; cf. p. 111 . (yadrcchikanna) and p. 112 (yadrcchayopapannannam). See also Ydavapraka, a as . Yatidharmasamuccaya 6.124, quoting the teacher Atri: Food begged in the manner of a bee from houses that have not been preselected or what is given spontaneously let him eat that irreproachable food with a mind free from greed (madhukaram asamklptam upapannam yadrcchaya / tad asnyad anindyannam nihsprhenaiva cetasa). . . . . . . . . See Olivelle, Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism, pp. 105 and 281. 106 kadacid api va dane yadrcchadanopapatteh, tatha vyavaharadarsanat, . . andrsasyaiva pratisedhat, tadarambhadosena yogat, yadrcchadane tu tadabhave . . . . . py arambhapravr tteh [sic] nasau tadartha ity arambhados ayogat. . . . Again I am uncertain how to interpret this passage. The expression vyavahara might well be taken as referring to the Vyavahara Sutra, one of the Cheda Sutras which describe Jain monastic discipline. However, the expected mode of referring to it would be something corresponding to Vyavaharadi or incorporate the honoric sr. . It is possible that the expression refers to the Vyavaharabhasya (for Prkrit vavahare a a in this sense, see the introduction, p. 107, to Saman Mahprajns edition of that a . text), but I have been unable to locate an appropriate reference. I am also not sure how the admittedly common meaning of vyavahara, namely ordinary, workaday behaviour, would t here. 107 .t drsyate ca kadacit sutakadav iva sarvebhya eva pradanavikala sis. abhimatanam . . api pakapravrttir iti, vihitanus.thanatvac ca tathavidhagrahan an na dosa iti. . . .
School of Asian Studies Sanskrit University of Edinburgh Scotland UK

Harbhadra On Giving - Paul Dundas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harbhadra On Giving - Paul Dundas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAUL DUNDAS

SOME ASPECTS OF GIVING IN CLASSICAL INDIA

EARLY MEDIEVAL JAIN NARRATIVE ON THE DIFFICULTY OF THE FREE GIFT

HARIBHADRA AND THE PANCASAKAPRAKARANA .

PREAMBLE: HARIBHADRAS DHARMASAMGRAHAN ON THE EFFICACY . .I OF GIVING

PANCASAKA 13.3436: REJECTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE PURE GIFT

Pancasaka 13.37 begins the response to the purvapaksa: .

bhannati vibhinnavisayam deyam ahigicca ettha vinneo .. .. . . .. . uddesigadicao na so vi arambhavisao u

A SUPPLEMENT TO PANCASAKA 13.3046: HARIBHADRA YAKIN IPUTRA ON DASAVAIKALIKA SUTRA 5.1.49

School of Asian Studies Sanskrit University of Edinburgh Scotland UK

You might also like